A sad C day

I understand a lot of people were moved by the death of Steve Jobs, but IMHO a gianter (if that's a word) person of the computer world also died last week. Sadly, Dennis Ritchie died on the 12th October.
While Steve gave us shiny toys (and yes, I am typing this on a MacBook, and I have an iPad), Ritchie gave us (well, me) some of the vital tools of the trade. With Ken Thompson, he developed the best operating system in the world, namely
Yes, UNIX. When I started my PhD, we used VMS on VAXes, but these were superseded by these beauties -
Sun machines running SunOS, my first experience of UNIX. Soon after, we had the birth of penguin, and we could have real computing in the home with Linux.
In the old days, we were spending a fortune on maintenance contracts for Vaxes and Sun machines, so the prospect of running a free proper operating system on cheap hardware was very appealing (and no, windows of any variety is not a proper operating system - good for games, but not for my research).

People realised that that you can string computers  together to build cheap supercomputers and computational astrophysics forged ahead. Many of the spectacular cosmological simulations were run on such supercomputers.

But if that was not enough, Ritchie give us one more thing, the C programming language. I'm going to moan and gripe like an old man that students today don't know how to code, and perhaps they can get away with Python, but I'm a fan of basic languages, C and fortran, for coding in supercomputer environments (and I'm not going to get all religious on programming language).

However, I started to learn C from Ritchie's own book
While I now realise this is an excellent book, it is not the book to learn C from. Many times I ended up shouting at the book "Why!!! Oh why doesn't it work!!" Ah, the joy of being a research student. Thank you Dennis Ritchie :)


Location: Sydney NSW, Australia

Comments

  1. Phillip Helbig18 October 2011 at 03:53

    See my comments over on Andy's blog: http://andyxl.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/goodbye-world/

    Believe it or not, VMS is still used quite a bit outside of academia. To say that VMS on VAX was superseded by unix is to compare apples and oranges (although many sysops were able to use such arguments to get management to buy them "cool" unix machines): it's easy to compare newer unix kit to older VMS kit. The fact that there is so much older VMS kit still around is a testimony to its quality. Of course, there is also newer VMS kit which is faster than older unix kit. Academic licenses for VMS are very cheap, and there is a hobbyist license for free. Quite respectable systems can be found for free if one looks for them (a 10-year-old VMS system which cost 100,000 pounds then is still quite respectable today (few GB RAM, say).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cusp18 October 2011 at 08:10

    In Cambridge, the first SUN machines were bought as part of the HST project, and it was a time when a couple of students had some unix experience, so people started using them.

    To be honest, in astronomy, I think that VAX and SUN painted themselves into a corner with their large maintenance and licence fees. Linux came along at the right time, and as soon as we had research capable machines with free compilers, there was no looking back. Unix took hold, and won.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Falling into a black hole: Just what do you see?

Image
Everyone loves black holes. Immense gravity, a one-way space-time membrane, the possibility of links to other universes. All lovely stuff. A little trawl of the internets reveals an awful lot of web pages discussing black holes, and discussions about spaghettification, firewalls, lost information, and many other things. Actually, a lot of the stuff out there on the web is nonsense, hand-waving, partly informed guesswork. And one of the questions that gets asked is "What would you see looking out into the universe?" Some (incorrectly) say that you would never cross the event horizon, a significant mis-understanding of the coordinates of relativity. Other (incorrectly) conclude from this that you actually see the entire future history of the universe play out in front of your eyes. What we have to remember, of course, is that relativity is a mathematical theory, and instead of hand waving, we can use mathematics to work out what we will see. And that's what I did. ...
Read more

Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun

Image
There was a movie, in the old days, Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun  (also known as Doppleganger) which (spoiler alert) posits that there is a mirror version of the Earth hidden on the other side of the Sun, sharing the orbit with our Earth. The idea is that this planet would always be hidden behind the Sun, and so we would not know it there there. This idea comes up a lot, over and over again. In fact, it came up again last week on twitter. But there's a problem. It assumes the Earth is on a circular orbit. I won't go into the details here, but one of the greatest insights in astronomy was the discovery of Kepler's laws of planetary motion , telling us that planets move on elliptical orbits. With this, there was the realisation that planets can't move at uniform speeds, but travel quickly when closer to the Sun, while slowing down as their orbits carry them to larger distance.  There has been a lot of work examining orbits in the Solar System, and you can  s...
Read more

Moving Charges and Magnetic Fields

Image
Still struggling with grant writing season, so another post which has resulted in my random musings about the Universe (which actually happens quite a lot). In second semester, I am teaching  electricity and magnetism to our First Year Advanced Class . I really enjoy teaching this class as the kids are on the ball and can ask some deep and meaningful questions. But the course is not ideal. Why? Because we teach from a textbook and the problem is that virtually all modern text books are almost the same. Science is trotted out in an almost historical progression. But it does not have to be taught that way. In fact, it would be great if we could start with  Hamiltonian and Lagrangian  approaches, and derive physics from a top down approach. We're told that it's mathematically too challenging, but it really isn't. In fact, I would start with a book like  The Theoretical Minimum , not some multicoloured compendium of physics. We have to work with what we have! ...
Read more