[LoneDevil]

Hm well she wrote algorithms to run ona machine that was never completed. Whos to say that the machine when completed would run the code regardless of whether it was logically correct. I would put forth that if the machine was never completed than its unlikely the programming structure was complete?

She may very well be the first person to theoretically write code for a machine... but having never actually written code that was run on a machine id be hesitant to actually call her a programmer as no machine was ever programmed.

I would define a programmer as someone who writes original code and runs it on a machine or device or processor. I wouldnt really call someone who has never actually run code on a system a programmer, nor is someone who copies and pastes code. Its a combination of both creation and execution?

While i dont discount the part she played in Computer History... i do believe it has been greatly exagerated?

I write code in my head all the time, then when I get on my laptop and put it into a compiler it usually 9 out of 10 times runs with out having to debug.
So I'm guessing when I write said code in my head I'm not a programmer at that time?
Granted your logic here makes great sense, but it's flawed, "regard Note G as containing the very first computer program, making Lovelace the first programmer.

But equally important was Lovelace's recognition of what the Analytical Engine really was: not a mere steampunk abacus, but a device that can process data of any kind, and perhaps even reason."
She did write the first "code" albeit not tested but if you read on in this article you'll find that it contained basic if - else statements and so on. Which is in theory computer code.