>>12550234How is Leibniz any more influential in comp. sci. than Babbage?
Also your scientific work doesn't become more or less true based on how many people know about it.
They are known as father and mother of the field because they were the first to establish in the scientific literature, any framework for computing at all.
The only reason their work wasn't pursued further was because its pretty fucking impractical to make a computer in the fucking Victorian Era.
If anything, the fact that few other people (not none as you imply) were researching this topic back then is a testament to their genius and scientific vision.
Surprise, surprise, most research in computers happened when computers become more viable.
>Scientific priority is popsciNo, no it really isn't. It's a pretty basic concept in the scientific community and is accepted as pretty essential by everyone.
Also, you keep on using the word "popsci" but I don't think you know what it means...
Incidentally, I believe that there is some form of determinism in our scientific development. For example, if we didn't have Leibniz we would have to rely on Newton and miss out on some philosophy and beautiful notation. Similarly, we might not have had all of Turing's findings without him but we probably would have some of the most important ones (Turing completeness was equivalent to Alonzo Church's Lambda Calculus so we might have just relied on that more).
