@inproceedings{adams_mit_1954,
	address = {Washington, D.C.},
	title = {The {MIT} {Systems} of {Automatic} {Coding}: {Comprehensive}, {Summer} {Session}, and {Algebraic}},
	booktitle = {Symposium on {Automatic} {Programming} for {Digital} {Computers}, {Office} of {Naval} {Research}, {Department} of the {Navy}, {Washington}, {D}.{C}., 13-14 {May} 1954},
	publisher = {U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Office of Technical Services},
	author = {Adams, Charles W. and Laning, Jr., J. H.},
	year = {1954},
	pages = {40--68}
}

Goal of an automatic coding system. “The ultimate goal of any automatic coding technique is presumably to maximize the simplicity and efficiency of solving a problem on a digital computer. Improvements can be made in [new line] 1. Coding, in which technical personnel are required to [new line] a. learn — comprehend and remember a computer code, [new line] b. write — select and record a sequence of instructions, [new line] c. debug — locate and correct any mistakes which occur. [new line] 2. Clerical operations, in which trained personnel [new line] a. prepare cards or tapes with programs and data [new line] b. operate the computer — load and unload readers and recorders, push buttons, log, record data, etc. [new line] c. make corrections — change computer switches or punch new cards. [new line] 3. Computer operation, including [new line] a. debuggng time [new line] b. input-output time [new line] c. computation time.” (40)

Algebraic notation and future prospects for automatic coding. “It seems apparent that improved versions of all machine-like systems will grow to look more and more alike, and that they will ultimately give way to algebraic notation at least in the calculational phases of a problem solution. Whether machine-like or man-like terminology will triumph in the logical aspects (cycling, selecting, filing, editing, etc.) remains to be seen. At present, since there really is no satisfactory man-like terminology for the most ticklish (and most important) logical sequences, it seems possible that here the man may wish to adopt the machine language as his own, if the machine language can be simplified and standardized enough. There is, in other words, no real conflict here between man and machine — merely the problem of choosing a consistent notation convenient for the man and acceptable to the machine.” (67-68)