[There's] a lot of interesting stuff both from the point of view of the content but also the historical context between, y' know "When were `for' loops invented? ". Well that's what Algol called them but prior to that FORTRAN called them DO loops.
And prior to that they existed in assembler. So, first of all, what's the history and what does it get you when you can do loops, but when do you run out of steam, even with loops, and you have to use this shock! horror!
Pure Mathematicians thing - that computer scientists have to learn about - recursion? ! It was a real culture shock, it really was, in the roughly 1940s, 1950s to suddenly find out that what the theoreticians had been drivelling on about for years - about recursive functions in mathematics - actually was of massive, massive importance for computer science.
Back in the '40s and early '50s it was all Assembler - or a slightly dressed-up thing called a macro assembler, where you can have little routines full of, y' know, packaged assembler instructions which could be called up, as and when needed. So, that sort of served people for quite some time. But probably one of the first high-level languages to introduce loops was good old FORTRAN [shows textbook].
Even though that was published in '65 Fortran itself goes back, I think, for almost ten years before that. It was invented by John Backus and a large team of people at IBM in the 1950s. Many of you will know it.
It's an excellent language for engineering and scientific calculations. It is low level. I mean, when you look at the nature of a FORTRAN loop it's almost like doing it in assembler - but not quite.
They didn't call them for loops - they called them DO loops. What I'm saying here is - you package all this up - where you're saying repeat the following sequence of instructions, which I've done with my wavy lines here. Keep doing them until you hit the statement with a numeric label on it of 180.
The loop back from the statement labelled 180, back up to here to increment the loop counter, which you're all familiar with in languages like C. It wasn't done, as it would be in C, by saying: "Here's my block of stuff to be repeated it's inside these curly braces". Here you can see it's a lot more like assembler, a lot more low-level.
I mean there's nothing magic about "180"; it could be "72"; it depended on your labelling system. Implicitly here, in a simple thing like this, you'd start off [with the counter] at one and every time I returned back here it would reset [the counter] to be 2, 3, 4 and so on up to and including 10. It's comforting for those who were coming from assembler into a higher-level language to see something that was only slightly higher level, in sophistication, than assembler was.
How did loops become more "powerful", if you like? Well, again, even in assembler and even in FORTRAN, there's no reason why you couldn't have a loop within a loop. So I might have, outside of all this code, yet another layer of DO.
What shall we say: "DO 200 J = 1, 20". So, there might be some more statements between 180 and 200, who knows, but again, you see, a numeric label. And can see what's happening is that for every setting of J, which will start at 1 and go up to 20, for every single one of those J settings the inner loop will be running through the complete spectrum of settings of I going from 1 to 10.
So you will have 200 locations [that] are being affected here. Basically going through the rows and columns of a matrix. All sorts of calculations in physics, chemistry and particularly engineering just rely on two-dimensional arrays full of numbers - either integers or scientific numbers with a decimal point.
and so on. Even hard-core assembly programmers had to admit if you were doing heavy scientific programming it was nice to be a little bit more abstract and to have this sort of facility available to you. Now you might say: "Well, what came along to spoil the party then ?
" or "How did people realize that this was wonderful but not quite enough? " The compiler of course has got to be tolerant and has got to be capable of compiling nested DO loops correctly but how deep would it let you nest them? Well, I'm guessing, I would suspect that the early FORTRAN compilers probably wouldn't allow you to go more than about 10 deep, maximum.
And I think you and I Sean have just been looking up what are the current limits in C? I seem to remember the earliest `gcc' was something like 32 But Ithink we looked up this . .
. some C++ nowadays allows you to do nested loops 256 deep! And, of course, there are multi-dimensional problems that might actually need that, because it it doesn't take much knowledge of higher maths to realize if you've got a loop within a loop the outer loop goes around n times; the inner loop is going around n times, you are then coping with an n-squared problem.
If you put the third loop inside the other two you're coping with a cubic, three-dimensional, problem. So what we're saying is all these multi-dimensional polynomial-going-on-exponential problems, that come up quite naturally, you can cope with them in nested for-loops so long as they don't need to be more than power-32 or power-256 or whatever it is. And you think, well, that should be enough for anybody!
There's these multi-dimensional problems you can just do them by nesting `for' loops and surely [a depth of] 256 is enough for anybody? What kind of problem wouldn't it be enough for? Well, a lot of theoretical computer scientists of my knowledge amused me greatly when - those of them that will own up to this - back in the 60s.
People started going to lectures from mathematicians, theoreticians, people concerned with "Godel Computability" and so on. And of course, those sort of people, were very familiar indeed, at a mathematical level, with Ackermann's function. Now, as you know - you and I - we've done that one: >> Sean: Was that "The most difficult .
. . ?
" >> DFB: "The most difficult number to compute, question mark" <Ackermann video insert> "We set this going four weeks ago nearly now the first few are vanished . . .
" </Ackermann video insert> So what made it so difficult? well you write down Ackermann's function and it very clearly ends up with routines calling themselves recursively in a very very complicated way. Now I think your average sort of engineer would be happy to say that there's this thing called `factorial' which is 5 times 4 times 3 times 2 times 1, or whatever.
And you could do that in a loop as well as doing this fancy recursion thing, but a lot of theoreticians admitted to me they saw a Ackermann's function and said: "I could try that out in FORTRAN ! ". Now what they perhaps didn't realize - but it became famous by 1960 - is: FORTRAN is wonderful, but original FORTRAN did not do user-level recursion You could write a thing called ACK.
You could actually get it to call itself in FORTRAN. But you might have been expecting that every time it called itself it would lay out a data area for each recursive call they're called "stack frames" - we know that now. You get lots of stack frames, one on top of another and as you come back through the recursion they're deleted and thrown away and you climb back into your main program.
FORTRAN doesn't do that. It sets aside one stack frame. You keep calling yourself recursively it just tramples in its muddy gumboots over all your data area and you end up with total garbage.
It no more gives you values of the Ackermann function than fly to the moon! And people said: "I then realized the importance of having user-level recursion, in programming languages, to cope with those really hard problems that fell outside nested for-loops". Algol was famous in that its routines could call themselves recursively and could get the right answer and, for limited low-order values of Ackermann's function - very slow, very slow indeed - but it would come out with the right answer.
>> Sean: Is there any need to think of an example of a problem, or program, because Ackermann feels to me like it's the test-bed. You know, when you're testing out a motor-car you might take it on the track and see how fast it can go. But in day-to-day life that car might only get half that speed.
What's the real-world kind of equivalent? Is there such a thing? >> DFB: Real world equivalent?
>> Sean: . . .
of something that might need to use recursion . . .
? >> DFB: . .
. of that complexity? Not many things is the answer to that.
I mean, yes, it's true that Ackermann, as you know, was David Hilbert's research student. And the challenge was on to find something that was so innately recursive that - remember it was "generally recursive", they called it - as opposed to "primitive recursive". And simple things like factorial and indeed indeed Fibonacci, are primitive recursive.
So I think you're right that you really are just making the point that eventually there are things that will kill you. I think the question in the middle is: "Is there something out there - pieces of program you need to write - where non-trivial recursion, in a sense, is needed but not quite to the horrendous degree that Ackermann did. And the answer is: "Yes, compilers is where it hit people".
Because although early FORTRAN did not provide user-level recursion, for you and me, nevertheless John Backus and his team implemented it in the middle 1950s I think at IBM. And Backus wrote articles afterwards basically saying: "We didn't know enough about recursion and even though we didn't provide it for the users of our language, boy did we need it in the compiler! And we ended up inventing it in all but name" The syntactic structures of what is legal, in a language, even at the level just of arithmetic statements can be quite recursive.
Because you end up with brackets within brackets within brackets all with a multiplier outside. And which order do you do the brackets in? And, you know, how how many levels of bracket nesting can you have.
And if you don't get things sorted out correctly then you'll get the wrong answer. But once again the problem could be that your users would come up to you and present you with a problem just designed to test out your compiler, and whether it was robust enough to be able to cope with a high degree of nesting even just in arithmetic statements. So by 1960 in Algol, yeah, the there were enough users, at the user level, who could see that a modicum of recursion, perhaps more complicated than factorial but not quite up to full Ackermann capabilities would be very nice indeed to have within your language.
<trailer for EXTRA BITS video> Again referring back to that original video, I had a lot of really interesting mail from various people who said to me: "OK, you said that this is an innately recursive problem and it just had to have general recursion capabilities? Well I . .
. .
