Warning: Missing argument 1 for WP_Widget::__construct(), called in /home/lathprod/public_html/wordpress/wp-includes/class-wp-widget-factory.php on line 106 and defined in /home/lathprod/public_html/wordpress/wp-includes/class-wp-widget.php on line 175

Warning: Missing argument 2 for WP_Widget::__construct(), called in /home/lathprod/public_html/wordpress/wp-includes/class-wp-widget-factory.php on line 106 and defined in /home/lathprod/public_html/wordpress/wp-includes/class-wp-widget.php on line 175
Jaxon and me on Falkoff’s one liner | Chasing Men Who Stare at Arrays

Jaxon and me on Falkoff’s one liner

The following is adapted from email conversations with Greg Jaxon, a Compiler Engineer from Illinois, USA who studied at Syracuse University.  He is an active contributor to the APL LinkedIn online forum and it turns out he met my dad at Minowbrook in 1980. I needed a little help to conclude my, “Where were you…” miniseries, and Greg graciously stepped up to the plate.

My dad, incidentally, sends his regards from Manitoulin Island.  Though he still controls his farm house with his iPhone, he doesn’t miss the Internet connection. 

To give a little bit of context, I was born in 1965 to very young and idealistic parents who believed that the 60’s really were going to change things.  In 1966, IBM whisked my family off to NY, USA from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.  We subsequently moved to the Philadelphia, PA, USA area and ended up living in a small college town called Swarthmore.

Greg Jaxon writes:

One non-programming thing that has always intrigued me about the “APL community” and which has been formative for me politically and personally is our early and frequent use of consensus decision-making.  Perhaps your Dad could start that thread of the story, since (as I understand it) the group at Philadelphia took on this Quaker practice to form the exact definitions in the first APL implementation.

On Day 1 of the X3J10 APL standards effort the topic of voting came up right away. As that work progressed we used a few unorthodox voting schemes to tease out where consensus could be found – a lot of preference ranking and approval threshold measurement. It was clear that the intellectual descendants of the first 6 had the same passion for getting the hive mind to function optimally – to not marginalize the difficult corner opinions, not to cave in to majority rule. I’m convinced this is why APL is so very good – it hasn’t compromised on anything important – instead it found and fixed all the problems until no more could be found.  It’s not just good enough to get by…

The Minnowbrook conferences also echo this emphasis on cooperative agreement. Trade Secrets come out of their closets there – mostly I think out of the sheer joy of meeting other live humans who understand the topics (these are the uber-geeks of an already too geeky computing subculture).

This got my attention.   Swarthmore is in the heartland of Quaker territory.  I was educated by Quakers.  And Greg must have read Adin Falkoff’s, The Design of APL.

I belong to the generation uncomfortably sandwiched between the boomers and their children.  My attitude is formed more from the dress in black, hard core music generation, than the Flower Child generation but I still have strong ties to the Quakers and have remained connected to them up here in Canada.   To my good fortune, I started programming APL as a teen and unlike many of my peers, I’ve had a career from the get-go.  But still, the irreverence of my generation stuck.  In other words, I’m a little cynical.

The first time I read Adin Falkoff’s, The Design of APL, the line about Quaker Consensus jumped right out of the text.  (like: WHAT?  Where the hell does that come from? Consensus? At IBM?) And as I move through this project, I am learning a lot more about business, I have been chipping away at 50+ years of Computer History, and naturally, my gaze falls upon the history of IBM.  Which is also American corporate history.  And patent history.  An intellectual property law history.  I’m still pondering… What on earth is a reference to Quaker process doing in an IBM publication?

Greg responds:

My history lesson on this: Penn was a Flower Child of a famous military officer; he joined the Quakers who were emphatically not the Church of England, nor easily governed by any hierarchical law. Through consensus they sought God’s natural Laws for their community. Penn acquired his North American woods to settle the King’s debt to his late father. But by the time he got with the English aristocracy programme, his Woods were full of Quaker hippies.

For many years he sent governors and magistrates and others to try to collect rents or taxes, and the resident Friends politely declined to impose these on themselves. So your Quakers were the original American libertarians struggling to understand God’s intention for human Law.

To find Harvard mathematicians (arguably in search of much the same kind of revelation) adopt this practice, is interesting.  To see it grow into APL, itself a quaint minority language with an uncannily natural place near the heart of Computer Science’s new fascination with parallel execution models, cooperating independent processes, and clean data abstraction,  … is perhaps a recurrent story in the history of ideas. Your Dad’s “shared variables” ideas combine “message passing” with “shared memory” approaches to parallelism, a synthesis sorely missing in modern parallel languages.

There… my contribution to a historical explanation, I can cite “Conceived in Liberty” by historian Murray Rothbard for this summary of the Quaker colonies.

Wow.  Now THAT gives me a lot to think about.  On this crazy filmmaking journey, I’m paying careful attention to the stories we tell ourselves, about ourselves, our culture and “progress”.  And by we, I also mean people, not just us.

And, sadly, this is the one year anniversary of Adin Falkoff’s death, the man who wrote those words about Quaker Consensus at IBM in 1973.

Share

6 Responses to “Jaxon and me on Falkoff’s one liner”


  • Thank you for remembering Adin Falkoff. I barely knew him, and think of him as one who remained somewhat in the background while enabling the work of other APL developers.

    I never noticed “Quaker consensus” but sure noted “consensus” in reports of APL’s development. The arguments needed to obtain the consensus were, I hear, the stuff of legend. Not easy, but effective.

  • Dear Colleagues and Friends:

    While surprised to see this announcement here, and I did read to the end and was startled but probably benefit from seeing it, you all were in many ways networked with Adin and deserve closure if this will help via Catherine.

    On the Quaker item, I will click to read The Design of APL again, thanks again Catherine and all for the link … for any / all links / linkages.

    (A single node is a network but not necessarily as advertised a blissful one, so what you are doing is interesting and a gracious bow to that grande dame: History).

    And further to the instant thread, you may recall that Adin was earlier married to Cynthia, a lovely woman to talk to, whom we have also lost, if it is alright for me to say here.

    And I believe that she was Quaker.

    … the above just to add to the lore, writes (types) one in lonely agony beyond words.

    LDMF.
    Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
    08/13/11 (08/13/10 was a Friday the 13th).
    [ M <- lLa, Ktily ].

  • aprogramminglanguage aprogramminglanguage

    My dad phoned this morning and I mentioned this post.

    He reiterated Quaker Consensus was really important because it brought out minority ideas. And then he laughed… “It takes along time, though…”

    Then, out of the blue, he said… “You know who really worked well together?”

    I didn’t.

    “Adin and Eugene [McDonnell].”

    Really? It’s a strange coincidence that they died within 4 days of each other. Adin on the 13th and Eugene on the 17th of August, 2010.

    Both men, according to my dad, were very meticulous on their own. Not always, but usually, their ideas were well thought out. However, when they worked on an idea together, they would talk it out between them and by the time they brought it to the rest of the group, it was complete.

  • aprogramminglanguage aprogramminglanguage

    Today I wondered, how did Greg Jaxon know that my dad had something to do with APL Shared Variables?

    So, I asked Google (Lathwell Shared Variables) and Google tells us that my dad wrote System formulation and APL shared variables in 1973 and Adin Falkoff wrote a follow-up in 1976 Some implications of shared variables

    Wikipedia is somewhat less forthcoming.

  • I do not control my farm house with my iPhone.

  • My observation about Quaker consensus was that it does not suppress the minority view (rather than bringing out the minority view). Discussion continues until a unanimity is reached. There were instances where the initial minority view eventually prevailed. I think one instance being the definition of grade returning an index set rather than a reordering of the argument.

Comments are currently closed.



Analytics Plugin created by Jake Ruston's Wordpress Plugins - Powered by Laptop Cases and r4.