@inproceedings{gorn_introductory_1960,
	address = {Paris, Munich, London},
	title = {Introductory speech — {Rapport} général},
	booktitle = {Information {Processing}: {Proceedings} of the {International} {Conference} on {Information} {Processing}, {UNESCO}, {Paris} 15-20 {June} 1959},
	publisher = {UNESCO, R. Oldenbourg, Butterworths},
	author = {Gorn, S.},
	year = {1960},
	pages = {117--118}
}

Stored-program computers are linguistic. “From the moment that von Neumann first suggested that the instructions and data should share the same storage in a machine there has been a growing realization that general purpose digital computers are linguistic mechanisms.” (117)

Periodization. “The years from 1952 to 1954 saw the development of systematic subroutine libraries, interpreters, and compilers, all designed to cut programming and coding time, and to spread the use of computers to those who were not necessarily expert coders. Wilkes, Wheeler, Booth, and Gill introduces the extensive Edsac and Illiac libraries. The Wirlwind [sic] computer at MIT was made available to a wide class of users, on an ‘open shop’ basis, in the form of three pseudo-computers. These three machines existed as programmed ‘interpreters,’ known as ‘The Summer Session Computer,’ ‘The Comprehensive Computer,’ and Laning and Zierler’s ‘Algebraic Computer.’ This last was the fore-runner of IBM’s Fortran, and the international algebraic language ALGOL. During these same years Grace Hopper published the A-2 compiler for the Univac. […] [new paragraph] By 1954 there was already quite a variety of general purpose machines in the United States. At Aberdeen Proving Ground the Eniac, Edvac, and Ordvac were in use simultaneously. This prompted a ‘universal coding’ experiment in which a simple, generaly purpose, common pseudo-code was used as an input to both Edvac and Ordvac. The experiment separated the processes of ‘assembly’ and ‘translation.’ It showed that the assembly process was independent of the machine, and could be achieved within the common language by an automatic translation which had the property of leaving the assembled code in the common language.” (117)

“By 1955 it was clear to all who were deeply involved in automatic programming, or other non-numerical data-processing, that we were dealing, not with computers, but with general information transformers, or symbol manipulators. The approach to communication with these machines had become frankly linguistic and syntactical.” (117)