D'ICUMENT R s ltME SE 005 423 ED 024 602 By-Kemeny, John G.; Kurtz, Thomas E. The Dartmouth Time-Sharing ComputingSystem. Final Report. Spons Agency-National Science Foundation,Washington, D.C. Pub Date Jun 67 Grant-NSF-GE-3864 Note- 76p. EDRS Price MF-$0.50 HC-$3.90 Engineering,*HigherEducation, Descriptors- *ComputerAssistedInstruction,*Computers,Curriculum, *Instruction, Mathematics, Physics,Program Descriptions, Psychology Identifiers-Dartmouth College, National ScienceFoundation to Reported are the activitiesinvolved in introducingcomputer programing College as part of their programin liberal education.How this students at Dartmouth students in mathematics. project was accomplishedand the subsequent impact on administration is presentedin summary engineering, psychology,physics, and business the faculty at form. Also reported isthe impact thatthis project has had on Dartmouth and at other institutions.(RP) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM ME POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATINGIT. STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENTOFFICIAL OFFICE BF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. THE DARTMOUTHTIME-SHARING COMPUTINGSYSTEM developed under a grant from the Course Content ImprovementProgram National Science Foundation (Grant NSF GE-3864) Final Report June 1967 John G. Kemeny Thomas E. Kurtz Project Director Assoc. Project Director THE DARTMOUTH TIME-SHARING COMPUTINGSYSTEM developed under a grant from the Course Content Improvement Program National Science Foundation (Grant NSF GE-3864) Final Report April 1967 John G. Kemeny Thomas E. Kurtz Project Director Assoc. Project Director TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. The Goal of the Project 1 2. What was Accomplished 5 3. Impact on the StudentBody 10 Mathematics 11 Engineering 13 Psychology 15 Physics 17 Business Administration 17 4. Impact on the Faculty 20 23 5. Impact on OtherInstitutions Use by Colleges 23 Use by Secondary Schools 24 An Educational Utility 26 Commercial Use 27 Future Plans 28 APPENDICES I. The Time-Sharing System The Language BASIC III. The Freshman Training Program TEACHING SUPPLEMENTS (not included) I. Use of the Computer in aCourse in Number Theory II. Computer Programs of Use inElementary Statistics III. Computer Programs of Use inStatistics IV. Use of the Computer in aCourse in Logic V. Using the Computer in theTeaching of Constructive Linear Algebra 1. 1. The Goal of thePro'ect. Four years agoLartmouth College reachedthe conclusion that learning to use ahigh-speed computer should be anessential part of liberal education. Four years ago this wasmerely a dream, and consideredimpractical by many experts. Today it is a reality. Computers are beginning tohave an increasing effect onthe lives of all of us. They play key roles inbusiness, industry, government, and allforms of research. The average college graduate of today isalmost sure to need acomputer in his work twenty years from now. Therefore, we must preparehim today to use this mostpowerful of tools. Even more significantis the need for changingthe attitude of the typicalintelligent person towardscomputers. Present attitudes are often amixture of fear andsuperstitious awe. The same person mayrefuse to believe thatcomputers can do large routine tasks,which are no more thansimple exercises on a high-speedcomputer, and yet acceptuncritically "conclusions" obtained by means of a computer. It is vitallyimportant that the leade-s of government,industry and education shouldknow both the potential andlimitations of the use of computers,and to be aware of therespect:tve roles of Man andmachine in the partnership. By the end of the currentacademic year, Dartmouthwill have introduced some2000 students to the use ofcomputers. This represents 80% ofthree freshman classes.All of these students will have completedfour significantexercises, in which they personally"debug" their own programs. A significant minority of these studentshave acquired the habitof regular use of the Dartmouth system. But even those studentswho did only the minimal required workhave changed theirattitude towards computers. Anyone who tries toconvince a Dartmouth under- graduate either that computers areto be feared orthat they are of little use,will be met withwell-founded scorn. The Dartmouth student knowsbetter -- and knows itfrom personal experience. A secondary goal wasto put the computerat the fingertips of the Faculty. Four years ago only ahandful of faculty members had ever used a computer. This was due in part tothe nature of research on our campus. None of the facultymembers were engaged required hours of computertime. And while in projects which time many could havemade good use ofsmaller quanta of computing (and do make such usetoday), they found thenuisance of using a traditional computation centertoo great adeterrent. And none of us saw how thesefacilities could reasonablysupport our teaching. 2. Today some 40% of thefaculty use theDartmouth system. Faculty use representsa wide variety of projects. of research In the area we find anything from thecomputation of examples through data-analysisto large computerbased research And in teaching it is projects. common to see a facultymember runnlag off an illustration for his lecture-- usually five minutes before class. But he will feel equallyfree to ask hisstudents to work significant exercises and term projectson the computer. He may be sure that his studentsknow how touse a computer, that the computer will beavailable, and that the the assignment. student will enjoy There are two reasons for our success: (1) Oureasy-to-use time-sharing system, and (2)the new simple language understand the full BASIC. To significance of thesedevelopments,we must look at the state ofthe art of computingbefore time-sharing. Five years ago the methodof operation atcomputation centers was "batch-processing", andthis is still the only most centers. procedure at It is designed to maximizethe use of thecomputer for a large number ofsignificant problems-- which are known to be correctly programmed. Since computersare much faster than human beings, it is inefficient to leta single human beinguse the machine allon his own. It takes too longfor him to tell the computer what he wants, and it takestoo long for himto understand theanswer. Therefore human beingssubmit their requests, whichare collected until there isa large number of them, and then theseare fed into the machine-- usually from a magnetic tape. The computer workson the first problem for long as necessary, and as writes the answerson another tape. It can then immediately start workon the second problem. When all the problems havereceived their share ofthe computer's attention, the tape is transcribed on a printer,and theanswers are distributed to theusers. The elapsed timemay be anywhere from two hours toa whole day. A typical usermay have received only a minuteof the computer's time. But since thismay save him years of work,it is well worth waitingfor several hours untilhe can obtain his results, if theyare correct. But human beingsare not infallible, and the chancesare that there weresome slight mistakes in the instructions (in the program). The user must then makea correction, and resubmithis problem. It is quitecommon to have to do this tenor more times until theprogram finally works. Thus it may take twoweeks of rather frustratingwork until the programmer succeeds. During all this time theuse of the computer is optimized -- an error may waste only a fractionof a second of the machine's time-- but it certainly is far from ideal human being. for the 3. conclusion that whileresearch scientists may We came to the would put up withthis kind of treatment,Dartmouth undergraduates is ideal from the rebel. We therforedesigned a system that human point of view --and yet is a surprisinglyefficient use of the computer aswell. It would beimpossible to have 250students, during a ten week term, queuing upfor their many dozensof attempts at making They would have to arrangetheir entire schedule programs work. have to at the computer'seonvenience. And they would often until a simple typing erroris corrected. These wait overnight learn the same factorsplay a-major role infaculty reluctance to use ofcomputers. Yet we could notafford to tunn amillion dollar machine over to a single user. Hence the answer isthat the computer should number of users all atthe same time. On our serve a large service, present systemabout 35 users can getgood simultaneous illusion that he has completecontrol of the each with the types out his machine. Each user sits at ateletype typewriter, and keeps enteringcorrections until his programfinally program, convenient and pleasant to usethe works. This makes it both The nature of thistime-sharing system isdiscussed computer. furnished in in the nextsection, and moretechnical details are Appendix I. The second majorobstacle to the use ofcomputers was the necessity of learning astrange new language. "Machine language" for the is strictly forexperts, and uselessfor the novice or The first break-throughcame about adecade ago, casual user. language with the developmentof FORTRAN. It was the first designed to make it as easyfor the average userto write a Once he writes a programin FORTRAN, thecomputer program. machine language, sothat itself translatesit from FORTRAN into the illusion thatthe computer speaksFORTRAN. the user is under disadvantages While FORTRAN was amajor advance, itstill has many and we decided that we for the noviceand the occasional