> Feel free to point to anyone doing these deep dives

Most of this kind of content comes off as relevant/topical but mindless entertainment. This is not a "deep dive" of anything that I could practically apply in my daily work. It feels good to think this content might add value and then to subsequently consume it, but it's effectively junk food.

I used to spend a lot of time watching crap like lex and primagen before it became obvious that these kinds of information channels are not meaningfully enriching despite sounding like they should be to a casual observer.

Pretty much any book or long paper that decides to take a historical turn is going to be at least as good if not better than these talks. There are a lot of historical resources out there that go into different parts of "computing history" more generally. I don't know what would meet your criteria for computer science or software engineering more narrowly. To me they are all very interconnected. I couldn't say whether it'd be more important to have a nice presentation that includes Babbage and his machines vs. a neat presentation that covers Codd's work going directly into Chamberlin and Boyce's work on System R. A historical presentation has to decide what it includes and excludes. In recent times I've enjoyed Fabien Sanglard and his work on the histories of Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, the hardware environments behind them (development and deployment), and the CP-System. Lots of "lost" technical knowledge in them. Of course the earlier and higher level Masters of Doom book contains a lot of neat history as well, though less technical. The HOPL (History of Programming Language) papers are always insightful and contain a lot more "plain" computer science, though of course with a focus on programming language things. Richard Gabriel could write a lot more of history than he already has; here's one of his papers that (among other things) details a history of mixins in object oriented languages, and how they were "rediscovered" poorly in a way that obscured their actual historical nature, demonstrating an idea of incommensurability. https://dreamsongs.com/Files/Incommensurability.pdf

I should also add that even interviews are valuable. Coders at Work is fantastic at that and drawing out technical opinions and reasoning; notably the subjects interviewed don't all agree and have sometimes drastically different work styles and preferences. (And also adding from another comment, Turing Award Lectures are great history, and Uncle Bob even has a history book out now on influential programmers.)

Who is also a working engineer (and programmer of the highest caliber) who is in touch with the zeitgeist of engineering.

Even without knowing your specific criteria, #2 on your list must be Alan Kay.

But I'm curious who you think #3 is.

>Feel free to point to anyone doing these deep dives that specifically tackle the lost knowledge of the early decades of computer science

I skimmed through the video because I don't have two hours but there's no lost knowledge in it, he's going over well known papers from Dijkstra, Hoare or Knuth. The paper he bases most of the talk around Knuth's Structured Programming with go to Statements is his most often cited work, there's a very high chance you'll encounter that early in any undergrad course. So the answer to your question is, pretty much at any local uni with a CS course.

Knuth could do them, in theory. The guy was literally there when stuff was happening.

Kevlin Henney

Me, I do them.

Safe Haskell is just a worst version of Rust's unsafe. What it actually does is equivalent to Rust's #![forbid(unsafe_code)] which immediately lead to a question: so Haskell has unsafe, just like Rust? And of course it does. Any practical systems language has unsafe in one form or another, not only for FFI but also for performance, Rust is just honest about it.

There's two reasons Safe Haskell is substantially worse than what Rust does. Safe Haskell works by annotating code that is safe, but that's entirely backwards. We need to annotate unsafe code, and explain in plain English exactly why it is okay in that particular instance (of course it would be better to explain in code, like, give a formal proof that is checked by the compiler, but then it isn't unsafe anymore!). Safe Haskell answer for that is to annotate good unsafe code as trustworthy, but that doesn't work because it doesn't goes in detail on why the code is trustworthy (to do so you really need to go into the details, you can't handwave it). It's the // SAFETY comments that are at the heart of Rust's unsafe, carefully explaining safety invariants that must be kept (specially important if we are modifying code), not unsafe { } blocks.

The second reason is much simpler. It's optional, and approximately nobody uses Safe Haskell or cares about it. If people used it we would have something to improve upon. So Rust achievement here is mostly sociological, it's a community of programmers that care about safety. Which is good given that a Rust program typically have much more unsafe code than a Haskell program.

Here's a thread about Safe Haskell issues https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/zwkqke/deprecating... that links to https://discourse.haskell.org/t/deprecating-safe-haskell-or-...

And an older thread https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/msa3oq/safe_haskel...

If you know this stuff, please make videos / talks yourself going through it. Casey doesn’t have the background for a lot of this. He’s doing great as a C++ dev but as you say, he’s just one guy with one perspective.

Well the comment was about the history of SWE, if you want a comprehensive history you don't focus on the lived memory of one single individual.

> not what is demanded nor paid or appreciated.

I suppose it is a matter of what one works on, but that has been consistent in my career.

I have seen many be rewarded for choosing what I would deem intentional, gross negligence. But hey, those devs get work finished faster, and that's all that matters to the non-technical folks.