The machine that Turing made wasn’t exactly influential. EDVAC (Von Neumann’s machine) overshadowed it quite dramatically (to the point most people in the field don’t even know that ACE exists, but know the phrase “Von Neumann Machine” instantly).
Turing’s main influence on computer science was theoretical, not in implementation, despite him technically being “first” with a stored-program computer.
Of course, but Turing influenced Von Neumann. Turing’s model was probably more intuitive than Church’s as well. So the timeline’s roughly like this: Turing > Von Neumann > Imperative dominance
I … think that’s exactly what I said. Turing’s influence was mainly theoretical, not practical. That Von Neumann was influenced by (and even plagiarized to some extent) Turing is indisputable, but Turing didn’t “[create] an actual computer for his computational model” in any way that was actually influential.
Tragically.
Because EDVAC was kind of lame compared to even Pilot ACE.
What I meant (but failed to do so) was that Turing provided an actual model of computing engine so that it was more straightforward to implement it, while Church’s did not. Besides pure lambda calculus was pretty convoluted even for representing things like a natural number. Implementation of Church’s work would only be more explored in the 60s with McCarthy et al, a 20 year gap that defines computing to this day.
The machine that Turing made wasn’t exactly influential. EDVAC (Von Neumann’s machine) overshadowed it quite dramatically (to the point most people in the field don’t even know that ACE exists, but know the phrase “Von Neumann Machine” instantly).
Turing’s main influence on computer science was theoretical, not in implementation, despite him technically being “first” with a stored-program computer.
Of course, but Turing influenced Von Neumann. Turing’s model was probably more intuitive than Church’s as well. So the timeline’s roughly like this: Turing > Von Neumann > Imperative dominance
I … think that’s exactly what I said. Turing’s influence was mainly theoretical, not practical. That Von Neumann was influenced by (and even plagiarized to some extent) Turing is indisputable, but Turing didn’t “[create] an actual computer for his computational model” in any way that was actually influential.
Tragically.
Because EDVAC was kind of lame compared to even Pilot ACE.
What I meant (but failed to do so) was that Turing provided an actual model of computing engine so that it was more straightforward to implement it, while Church’s did not. Besides pure lambda calculus was pretty convoluted even for representing things like a natural number. Implementation of Church’s work would only be more explored in the 60s with McCarthy et al, a 20 year gap that defines computing to this day.
Fair enough. Turing’s model was a more comprehensible machine from an implementation standpoint.