https://www.theguardian.com/global/2017/nov/08/geoff-tootill-obituary
I should point out there is a technical error in the Guardian. The Baby was the first
Electronically Stored Program in what today we would call RAM. ENIAC had been configured
in stored program mode earlier in the year and had run a program stored in the function
switches, e.g. ROM a couple of months before baby. Despite the fact that when running
stored programs ENIAC's parallel processing features were not available, it was
exclusively in this mode from 1948 onwards. Note both machines are theoretically
"Turing Complete" but having only 32 words of 32 bits the Baby was not of any
practical use for a further 18 months whilst major surgery was carried out to add extra
store and instructions to the machine leading the emergence of the Manchester MK1.
Funny, I didn't see a "technical error" in the article.
The best that can be said for your position is that you (and the
ENIAC/Mauchlyite crowd) have a particular opinion and definition regarding
'stored-program computer'.
Dave is correct.
Perhaps he should have said "over simplification" rather than technical
error.
But what he wrote is well-documented. Tom Haigh and team of researchers
explained the origins and varying definitions of "stored program" in
their paper which you can freely read at
http://eniacinaction.com/the-articles/1-reconsidering-the-stored-program-concept/.
Tom, I'll point out, is British.
Thanks to their research, there is no longer any gray area. ENIAC stored
a program in what's now known as ROM, and very soon after the Baby
stored a program in what's now known as RAM. The timeline and facts are
very clear.
As I mentioned to Dave privately, this epitomizes why I wish people
would discuss computer history in terms of "generations" not "firsts".
I banned the "F" word in the VCFed museum. :)
