For the first decades of computing, the term “algorithm” wasn’t much mentioned. But as computer science departments began sprouting across campuses in the 60s, the term acquired a new cachet. Its vogue was the product of status anxiety. Programmers, especially in the academy, were anxious to show that they weren’t mere technicians. They began to describe their work as algorithmic, in part because it tied them to one of the greatest of all mathematicians – the Persian polymath Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, or as he was known in Latin, Algoritmi. During the 12th century, translations of al-Khwarizmi introduced Arabic numerals to the west; his treatises pioneered algebra and trigonometry. By describing the algorithm as the fundamental element of programming, the computer scientists were attaching themselves to a grand history. It was a savvy piece of name-dropping: See, we’re not arriviste, we’re working with abstractions and theories, just like the mathematicians!
Tony Richards on 24 Jun 12The tweets are getting longer - what do we think about this direction.
Ian Guest on 24 Jun 12An inevitability I guess. There are a good few people who will be delighted that they can shoehorn more information into a tweet, for all the reasons described in the article. Me, not so much. I like the brevity that tweets provide, allowing me to scan the stream and quickly pull out those nuggets that lead on to further information, join in exchanges discussing issues or participate in more extensive debates like #edchat etc. The act of contributing within a constraint of 140 characters forces you to think harder about what you want to say and ensure that your message still retains clarity - surely a higher-order skill? If the character limit is expanded, will tweeters become lazy and allow their tweets to bloat? Maybe I should have answered your question in 140 Tony. ;-)
