Talk:software

What is the correct word when I want to say something about multiple instances of software? Like "there are a lot of word processors out there, but all those software?? dont have feature x"


 * Software in plural (not one, but many things) is just software &mdash; It's an non-countable mass noun and is always treated as a singular object, even if more than one title or item is kept in mind &mdash; whereas softwares is deeply and horridly incorrect and programs should instead be used.


 * Your example should be like this:
 * There are a lot of word processing programs out there, but all those programs lack feature x.
 * or
 * There is plenty of word processing software out there, but much of it lacks feature x.


 * There's also a wordreference.com forum topic that discusses this.
 * -Mardus 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RFV discussion
Rfv-sense: adjective: like software. The first 100 hits at include but one adjective hit, and that's in a different sense. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * RFV failed, adjective section removed. (BTW, that link is not to an adjective hit. It took me a bit to figure out what that writer is saying, because (s)he's misspelled "A is to B as C is to D" as "A is too B as C is too D", but once you've got that, you see that is being used as a regular non-count noun.) —Ruakh TALK 02:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

1953 and 1956 usages
Through a Google Books search, I uncovered two print usages of the word "software" that predate John Tukey's 1958 publication, and which I believe are the earliest known print usages of the word in its modern engineering context:

The same author uses the word again in the same sense, in a later publication:

"First, the scope of the program should include the entire system. As an example a missile system includes the vehicle and warhead, the auxiliary ground or airborne equipment, the support and test equipment, and the operating personnel. In addition, the interactions between these various elements, hardware and software (people) must be recognized and included as the glue that holds the system together'." Radimvice (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation for origin
The etymology says "first used in print by Richard Carhart in 1953", but the link purports to be from 1947: "Research Memorandum - The Rand Corporation / Issue 1131 / By Rand Corporation · 1947".

Is this the correct issue? Looking around, the issue numbers don't seem to correlate with dates, so perhaps the metadata is wrong.

-- General Wesc (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It's an error in Google's metadata. Searching "14 August 1953" within the book reveals a snippet of it on the title page, and all citations of the work, plus Rand's own page for it, similarly list 1953/August 1953. (In fact I just noticed you can download a pdf scan from the Rand page for free, which confirms the date.) —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)