|
Peter Cochrane's Hard Drive 1998 Machines on the march LIKE the development of human equivalents, computer languages are also dynamic, with a history of success, failure, birth and death on an increasingly complex scale. Just as Latin is a dead language but still provides some roots for modern development, a succession of machine-based languages provides a platform for increasing sophistication and ease of use. On this digital journey, there have been many surprises, with the against-the-odds survival of the not so fit for purpose over what were once considered the best-engineered solutions. The reason? Well, they were good enough and they achieved critical mass of adoption. For example, COBOL is still the dominant programming language. This relic of 1960s lives on in many business systems and looks likely to survive quite a while yet. While modern systems employ C and its variants, along with HTML, Visual BASIC and an expanding variety of graphics-based languages, it is interesting to unpick the code to discover the remnants of earlier products that hark back to the 1950s and 60s. This is perhaps not surprising, given our experience with Latin, but what is amazing are the dramatic changes in hardware and operating systems. By and large, human language developed alongside the evolution of our wet ware. Human brain size growth is currently seen to have been co-driven by the development of our sensory system and hunting skills. The need to throw projectiles accurately seems to have been a key, if not the primary, contributor. But no doubt our need to communicate in groups was also an important factor and an integral part of that process. While evolutionary pressure to compete and survive demanded better sensory, manipulation and communication skills, language development faltered and became static for many tribes and nations. It would appear that our rise to numero uno was coincident with our brains reaching a maximum practical size. So we became static machines as evolutionary pressures receded. Perhaps surprisingly, then, all major language development beyond this point seems to have been engendered by technological developments. Machines provided both the pressure for and means to develop human language and communication further. Unlike the biological world, silicon systems continue to experience the simultaneous evolution and growth of both hardware and software. But even more impressive are the multiple, and increasingly sophisticated, operating systems and languages being developed at the same time. In carbon terms, this is analogous to a new species evolving every few generations to continue the same line of language development. And this with no significant sensory input other than that provided by us, and no conscious understanding of evolutionary pressure to evolve faster. We have become the source of those inputs for the machines. We are both the senses and the competitive element. As machines develop further, our integration into their development cycle will become more critical. With luck, we will see a greater symbiosis of mankind with machines. Not many people try to talk to the animals, but it is increasingly essential that they do so with the machines. Peter Cochrane holds the Collier Chair for the Public Understanding of Science & Technology at the University of Bristol. His home page is: |
Telegraph Group Limited endeavours to ensure that the information is correct but does not accept any liability for error or omission.
Users are permitted to copy some material for their personal use, but may not republish any substantial part of the data either on another website or as part of any commercial service without the prior written permission of Telegraph Group Limited.