XPost: comp.lang.misc, sci.physics.relativity   
   From: janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote:   
   > On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100   
   > Janis Papanagnou  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   >>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:   
   >>>> [...]   
   >>>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.   
   >>>   
   >>> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was   
   >>> actually the Z1 of 1937.   
   >>   
   >> Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that   
   >> the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture computers.   
      
   Right. - Considering all properties, von Neumann's computers had a   
   von Neumann's architecture.   
      
   > And it has nothing to them being either electronic or mechanical.   
      
   (This was just one common example by some to attest its innovation   
   and being "the first".)   
      
   > The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann architecture,   
   > at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning of the term   
   > is that program store and data memory reside in the same space.   
      
   Yes. But is that crucial for a programmable computer? Is that the   
   functionally necessary or important element? - I'd clearly say no!   
      
      
   > Which leads to possibility of self-modifying code.   
      
   And that specifically is neither a necessity for a "[universally]   
   programmable computer" - IMO the historic noteworthy key property! -   
   nor an example how systems sensibly should be (or are) programmed.   
   We avoid in practice exactly that property (modulo virus-developers,   
   maybe, and similar corner cases).   
      
   > Which led to Von   
   > Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array   
   > processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious   
   > engineering mistake at the same time.   
      
   Yes.   
      
      
   An inherent logical problem lies also in the argumentation chain   
   we commonly see...   
   "Contemporary computers are "basically" all characterized by   
     von Neumann's architectures."   
   "Von Neumann's computers are defined by ...property list..."   
   "Von Neumann was the inventor of [contemporary] computers."   
   (I assume you notice the dodge.)   
      
   I really don't want to engage in such discussions[*] but I think we   
   should at least understand the mechanics behind that. The interests   
   and the rhetoric/argumentation moves used to establish such agendas.   
      
   Janis   
      
   [*] We know how the inventions have been and (partly) still are   
   attributed, we see the various areas, and the actors' agendas and   
   interests, and we observe that also on various levels (countries,   
   competing companies, partners, plain sponges, gender status, etc.);   
   there's countless examples of historic mis-attributions.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)