Talk:Timeline of computing before 1950

Pre-computing?

A device that computes a direction is a type of computer. Why put it in a new section called pre-computing? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

What is computing hardware?

John Searle considered the question of what a "computer" is to be vacuous and that anything can be given a computational interpretation (Searle articulated this in the context of computational neuroscience, believing that proposition that "the brain is a computer" was not even wrong). There is, in fact, very little to define what a computer is and little agreement among philosophers.

Brunnock (talk · contribs) has claimed that [m]emory aids such as abaci, tally sticks, chalkboards, and paper are not capable of computation and therefore not computing hardware and that [a]lgorithms and mathematical concepts or techniques are not hardware, but I am not so sure that either of these are tenable. I'm not sure what Bubba73 (talk · contribs) originally was looking at when they stated that certain items were not hardware, but I assume both Brunnock and Bubb73 were talking about similar items.

Michael Williams includes knotted cords, tally sticks, finger reckoning, abaci, and other such similar examples in his history of computing technology. Likewise, Arno Borst discusses abaci and other similar technologies in his history, which also gives a lovely description of the ancient and medieval computus. Note that our page on the history of computing hardware discusses everything from the Lebombo bone to Greek combination locks, though of course WP:OTHERCONTENT applies. Also, I'm not sure that there is such a stark difference between an abacus and Napier's bones. Even slide rules don't seem that much different and nomograms, which are entirely diagrammatic, work on the exact same principles.

While it is harder to defend algorithms and mathematical techniques as "hardware", there is a significant grey area here, and from the standpoint of diagrammatics, I think there is an argument to be made that certain tables and graphs can be called "hardware" if only because their materiality is central to their operation. For example, volvelles (not mentioned on this page) are accepted as early computers, but the earliest example in Europe actually only uses rotation to expedite the calculations,^a so that they can be done without moving the manuscript or the reader's body to read upside-down text. Does this make it computing hardware? What about slightly later volvelles, like that made by the same scholar (Matthew Paris)^b in MS. Digby 46, which is practically just a roulette wheel? Further, is it correct to excise mnemonics and heuristics if they have had significant influence on computing hardware? For example, Ramon Llull's figurae^c are something between traditional computer hardware and mnemonics, but heavily influenced "true" analog computing technology through Leibniz and Kircher. I don't believe a timeline which ignores these precursors is complete, and it might even be misleading.

I'm overly caffinated and this is way too long for such a minor page, so to summarize:

• It is difficult, maybe impossible, to define what a "computer" is in anything but vague or vacuous terms;
• Scholarly histories consider memory aids and other technologies as forms of computing hardware;
• Diagrams and other visual devices blur the line between "hardware" and "software" (or whatever you want to call abstract machines); and
• It is improper to excise certain memory aids or algorithms from a timeline of computing hardware because of their disproportionate influence.

My argument here is less that we should broaden our definitions of "hardware" and moreso that a hardware/software distinction is not useful for historical or chronological purposes. Why is this page a Timeline of computing hardware before 1950 anyway, instead of Timeline of computer science before 1950? Michael Hardy (talk · contribs) moved the page all the way back in 2010, based on the state of the page back then, trying to reconcile the page's contents rather than trying to cut down on irrelevant entries. In fact he writes, "A century ago computers were people who used pencils and paper. How that was done is part of the history of computing."

It seems to me that a return to the original page, assuming that each event is properly sourced within scholarly histories of computer science to prevent it from becoming too broad, would be better. There is already a Timeline of computational mathematics, which strangely begins in the 1940s; and a Timeline of scientific computing, neither of which discuss e.g. Church–Turing thesis. Note also that Timeline of computing links here as its earliest page, and that none of the other pages make reference to "hardware". In fact some of the most important events on this page, like George Boole's algebra, Kurt Gödel's fundamental result of theoretical computer science and the Turing machine (!), have little if nothing to do with hardware except their influence.

Notes

• ^aThis is technically WP:SYNTH and I'm only using it here for the sake of argument. Don't incorporate this into the article until I (or another scholar) make this claim in secondary literature.
• ^bTechnically this is a faithful medieval copy of Bodelian Library, MS. Ashmole 304, done in Paris' hand, which is unfortunately mutilated.
• ^cThe state of Llullian scholarship in English is abysmal, largely due to Martin Gardner's massively incorrect and vitriolic treatment of Llull in his Logic Machines and Diagrams. See Bonner 2007, pp. 303–305 for a description of the "Martin Gardner problem": "for every non-medievalist who tackles Llull from the angle of the history of logic, mathematics, or combinatorics [this chapter] would seem to constitute their first introduction to the subject, one which colors most of their subsequent thinking thereon". Unfortunately many writers now make very inaccurate claims about what Llull's figures actually did. Indeed this page says that Llull invented something called the Lullian Circle, which is a notional machine. Pace Borges, Llull never described any of his figures as "machines" nor did he invent any single device called a "Lullian Circle". In the Ars brevis, his most influential work and probably the only genuine Llullian work that Leibniz ever read, precisely one figure rotates, and the same results are also rendered as tables. While not exactly mnemonics, Llull made it explicit that a user was expected to memorize their operation and thus were not entirely mechanical calculators either.

Bibliography

• Bonner, Anothony (2007). The Art and Logic of Ramon Llull. Brill.
• Borst, Arno (1993). The Ordering of Time: From the Ancient Computus to the Modern Computer. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-06658-4.
• Llull, Ramon (1994). Bonner, Anthony (ed.). Doctor Illuminatus: A Ramon Llull Reader. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691000916.
• Steensen, Anna Kiel; Johansen, Mikkel Willum (2018-03-26). "The role of diagram materiality in mathematics". Cognitive Semiotics. 9 (2): 183–201. doi:10.1515/cogsem-2016-0008. ISSN 1662-1425. Retrieved 2026-05-15.
• Williams, Michael R. (1997). A history of computing technology. Los Alamitos: IEEE computer society. ISBN 0-8186-7739-2.

References

wound theology◈ 09:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I am working on a new draft here that goes beyond hardware, which someone should have done in 2010. wound theology◈ 05:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Timeline of computing hardware before 1950 → Timeline of computing before 1950 – The page was originally wider in scope and was moved in 2010 because the page then only concerned hardware (instead of filling the page out, which in their defense is a lot harder and time-consuming than just moving the page). However this new page name has hobbled this page and a lot of important early events have been excised because they are not "hardware" related enough (see talk page for a full description and my thoughts). So, I am proposing the page be moved back. wound theology◈ 13:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 13:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The talk page section is Talk:Timeline of computing hardware before 1950#What is computing hardware?. Note that I am working on a draft here if anyone would like to see what this page would otherwise look like. wound theology◈ 13:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opposed to moving the article

The history of computing and computer hardware are entirely different subjects. I have no interest in the former. – Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jeffrey34555, please see this. That being said, having no interest in a subject is not a good argument for whether a page should be moved, nor does it engage with the arguments previously given. wound theology◈ 13:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

If the opposer made an argument with some basis in Wikipedia policy, I would consider reopening it. Given that they haven't, and that the RM had been open for more than a week, I'm not reopening it. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Policy? It's common sense. This is like moving History of printing to History of literature. - Sean Brunnock (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

First, computing vs. computing hardware is hardly comparable to literature vs. printing. As I noted in mid-May, the page originally had a wider subject matter in theory but focused solely on hardware. That change was clearly erroneous but understandable because the other, much harder option would be to write the rest of the history of computation.

Even if it didn't have a wider definition initially, there is no good definition of "hardware" that can be applied here, as I explained weeks ago. That might be meaningful after the development of theoretical computer science, but certainly not before. That beging said, the page as it stands also does not even follow its own rules, and discusses events which have nothing to do with hardware (e.g. Gödel, Boole, Turing).

This is simply undoing the change that was intended to remedy the page as it existed in 2010, not drastically restrict its subject matter. It brings it in line with all the other computing timelined.

All this aside, there is still room to undo the change if you have a policy-based argument. wound theology◈ 22:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't need a policy. The History of computing and the History of computing hardware are two different articles because they're two different subjects. - Sean Brunnock (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Please understand that this ignores every point I made and, per your own admission, is not policy-based.

If pages shouldn't be moved between computing vs. computing hardware, that is a moot point because the page was originally the early history of computing, not only hardware, thus by your reasoning such a change never should have been made. The page as it exists now does not reflect the current title, and the changes made to make it conform to this restriction are ambiguous at best and nonsensical at worst (e.g. removing the abacus). There is no reasoning, neither policy nor "common sense" based, that justifies keeping the page at that title.

To reiterate, the "hardware" title (a) does not describe its content (WP:ATEC) and (b) has an unclear definition (WP:PRECISION). If "articles should not change subjects" was taken as policy (which it is not), then the change away from Timeline of computing before 1950 should have never happened and thus it is self-defeating to argue this point.

I brought up this issue weeks ago and you were tagged in it, as were several other users who had contributed to this page. So it is more than a bit frustrating to argue (i) solely based on nebulous "common sense" without any policy and (ii) after the change has already happened. wound theology◈ 04:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I also would like to point out that the entirety of Brunnock's edits to the page, save categorization back in 2005, has been the removal of content deemed not computational enough or as 'memory aids' instead of computer hardware (which -- again -- is a very ambiguous and arbitrary distinction, for reasons listed above). Brunnock should probably remember the first five years when this page was not solely hardware-focused, and presumably also the reason Michael Hardy (talk · contribs) moved the page in 2010, so this line of reasoning is really triply-moot. wound theology◈ 06:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to deal with you because I have better things to do with my time. The History of computing and the History of computing hardware are two different subjects. If you can't comprehend that, then that's your problem. Now you're making it a problem for everybody else. - Sean Brunnock (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

So you aren't willing to back up your arguments, you aren't willing to discuss the change, and you aren't willing to follow policy. In that case, kindly refrain from further involvement in this issue or further discussion. I will continue improving the article and making policy-based arguments. wound theology◈ 10:46, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? They're two different subjects! You're just pursuing a personal agenda. - Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from aspersions and from incivility. I have already outlined exactly why this "two different subjects" fails is meaningless and your response was that you would not engage that discussion because you have better things to do with [your] time. So please, put your money where your mouth is and do something better [...with] your time. So far all you've done is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Just to reiterate though, you should remember when this page was Timeline of computing 2400 BC-1949. You didn't object to the move made in 2010, despite the fact you believe they're two different subjects (they aren't), presumably because you have no interest in the history of computing generally. Even if we assume that "moving pages to different article subjects to better reflect their contents" was against policy (it isn't), the argument is still self-defeating. Again, you have had weeks to discuss this. If you did not want to discuss the problems with the page (e.g. WP:ATEC and WP:PRECISION), then you can't be upset that those problems are being solved without your input. You can't say you weren't notified, as I tagged you in it.

Your response, if you choose to do something worse with [your] time, should actually engage with these facts instead of just increasingly uncivilly restating your non-argument. wound theology◈ 12:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Difference engine

There is a page on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine

That page cites many independent sources. Among them there is Glory and Failure: The Difference Engines of Johann Müller, Charles Babbage, and Georg and Edvard Scheutz. So I'm not sure what would be the citogenesis case here to delete Müller. Selbstporträt (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

At the time I could not find any English references that did not reference Wikipedia, and I could not understand the German sources. Not sure how I missed the book you linked though, that's entirely my fault. I've added the source and the event.

Previously this page was full of unsourced or just flatly wrong information (stating Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī invented the planisphere and that Al-Zarqali invented the equatorium, describing Llull inventing a "notional machine for calculating answers to philosophical questions", attributing the invention of binary arithmetic to George Boole, etc.) so I took a deletionist approach when improving the page, since much of it was clearly written by someone who had little familiarity with the subject. There is still much to be cleaned up here, but my familiarity with the subject ends sometime in the 19th century. wound theology◈ 13:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep on the good work! Selbstporträt (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated! o7 wound theology◈ 06:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)