Bjarne Stroustrup on the Problems With Programming 605
Hobart writes "MIT's Technology Review has a Q&A with C++ inventor Bjarne Stroustrup. Highlights include Bjarne's answers on the trade-offs involved in the design of C++, and how they apply today, and his thoughts on the solution to the problems. From the interview: 'Software developers have become adept at the difficult art of building reasonably reliable systems out of unreliable parts. The snag is that often we do not know exactly how we did it.'"
In my experience... (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe if they started with something like Pascal or something...but thats just not 'modern' or cutting edge nowadays...
I think this is the case in many institutions leading to low quality coders.
Re:In my experience... (Score:5, Interesting)
With a little research, nothing could beat MS-Access with its VB. We quickly had working GUIs integrated with business logic. Things were beautiful. PHP was available but the its abilities at the time were very limited.
Sadly, there is still no real answer to MS-Access' programming paradigm in the Linux world. Gambas http://gambas.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] comes close. So does RealBasic http://www.realbasic.com/ [realbasic.com]. Other wannabe environments are simply wasting time at present, and do not appear to be serious.
I am meant to understand that Kross http://conference2006.kde.org/conference/talks/2.p hp [kde.org] is progressing well, but was not impressed when I tried it.
Having powerful programming environments that are friendly to newbies is OK, but making them actively hostile to power users on the other hand is insane. Those two items aren't mutually exclusive, but Linux programmers tend to think so - sadly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In my experience... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In my experience... (Score:5, Informative)
The software we were making just works. It has worked for 13 years and keeps working. Maybe it could be little faster if written with some other language and tools or it might have more fancy UI blaablaablaa but it doesn't need those. And rewriting those hundreds of thousands lines of code... Let's just say that I wouldn't like to be in that team.
not-so-strongly-typed variables (Score:4, Insightful)
it's not-so-strongly-typed variables, funny rounding rules and so on
I know they're like [pagan] Gods to an awful lotta people in the CS community, but The Founders of The Art, guys like Kernighan, and Ritchie, who had the chance to insist that a declaration actually mean something, but hesitated, and hemmed and hawed, and got all wishy-washy, and finally decided [really deferred a decision until it was too late to make a decision] that a declaration could mean any-damned*-thing that the implementor wanted to interpret it to mean, well those guys, those pagan Gods of the Founding Arts, seriously - someone should take them out behind the toolshed and whip their asses** [if not shoot them outright].
So now, fast forward 30 or 40 years, and we've got:
And then you go to do something in VB, or in Javascript, and you get shit** like
or, what's even worse,
and you end up having to write shit**** like
and you scream at your computer, "YES, THESE ARE NUMBERS, NOT CHARACTER STRINGS, YOU GOD-DAMNED***** COMPILER/INTERPRETER/SYNTAX/PARADIGM/NIGHTMARE OF A SACK OF SHIT******!!!!!"
PS: There is a special circle in Hell******* for the sonuva bitch******** who dreamed up the idea of interpreting variable types on the fly...
*Pardon my French.
**Pardon my French a second time.
***Pardon my French a third time.
****Pardon my French a fourth time.
*****Pardon my French a fifth time.
******Pardon my French a sixth time.
*******Pardon my French a seventh time.
********Pardon my French a final time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
K&R invented C. In it, and the myriad that follow it's lead, variables will sometimes get converted to closely related types for the purposes of expressions that need them. I for one want to be able to write
float x = 2.0 + 2;
without the compiler throwing up it's hands in a panic not knowing what to do.
But numbers will not be converted to strings, and of course conversions will have no lasting eff
Re:In my experience... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway... I think the problem may be that VB is too easy to use. People who would not be able to write the makefile for their 'Hello World' program in C++, are able to write working but very rickety/ flimsy VB programs.
I happen to make a living as a computer consultant. This means I get to see a lot of different organizations and their in-house software... This means a LOT of VB code... And of that VB code, a lot (maybe 90%) is written by people who may know their business but don't have a clue about programming. I can definitely see how that would create the reputation that VB programmers are bad, but not how it makes the LANGUAGE bad.
As for stability, I can promise you that some of my VB programs are a hell of a lot stabler than the memory-leaking SEGF/GPF-ing C++ hacks they replaced. In case you didn't know - it's perfectly possible to write shitty C++ code too. It's just that you have to get above a certain level to even get the compiler to work, so most of the would-be self-made computer wizards turn to something easier instead.. Like VB.
The big question here is: Is it better to have a flimsy but functioning VB program or a defunct makefile? I'm not sure of the answer myself. A defunct makefile is a 5-minute job to fix, whereas some of the VB messes I've seen would literally take years to get straightened out. (I hate people who think they can program just because their $h!+ compiles.)
Re:In my experience... (Score:4, Interesting)
If I had mod points, I'd gladly give them all to you ; I'm not a programmer by education, but I've always programmed tools since I have a computer. Basic could be abused in the past (in fact it was more or less a requirement with MS-BASIC on 8 bits computers - 48 Kb RAM !) but since OOP has become widespread, you just can't beat that language for day to day scripting, SQL access etc. Even in the mid 80s, if you were lucky enough to have a better PC than the average plastic toy, you could go with Basic-E or CBasic, which were by many aspects precursors to Java.
The sad truth is today's Basics (VB, Gambas...) have an unfounded bad reputation ; you can't really abuse them anymore, and with a bit of care, they make a very good entry point in the programming realm for everybody. And if Linux is to become relevant on the desktop, it needs power users to be able to switch the enormous base of custom applications made in VB for every business out there on Linux. The VB6 converter in Gambas might become soon the killer app of Linux, in that respect, combined with superior DB access and tight KDE integration (yes, you can use DCOP in Gambas).
To me, Gambas, being free software, fills the same spot MBasic was fulfilling on Amstrad CPC or Commodore 64. It gives control to the user, and that is priceless. Since my 8 bits days, I've learned bits of x86 ASM, Clipper, C, C++, perl, and liked the extra power it gave me ; but I've indulged in Gambas for a couple of months, and realisticaly, it's the only way to create a cool looking, desktop integrated application on spare time in a pinch. If I were again the teen I was, I'd like to begin programming with it because it would be the quickest rewarding experience in programming. You get to love programming cool things you can show to the world before you actually begin to like programming correctly for the sake of it.
Re:In my experience... (Score:5, Informative)
Though I'd hate to have started with Visual Basic all the same.
Re:In my experience... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly.
C, C++, Java and god forbid VB should be prohibited by law for university courses and any person teaching them during the first 2 semesters in CS should be prosecuted for child abuse. Pascal (even without the object oriented extensions) remains the best language for teaching the first years in CS. Once students are past their data structures course and know how to deal with linked lists, pointers, objects hashes and the like you can switch to C, C++ or Java with minimal fuss. Before that its outright criminal. In fact the total amount of hours spent till the point when the students can produce something that will pay their daily bread will most likely end up being less than the required when teaching directly in C/C++.
There was a very good article on the subject by Joel called The perils of Java schools [joelonsoftware.com] and I tend to agree with it 100%. In fact I will extend its reasoning further to C and C++. Probably the most important part of teaching a data structure course is to teach it in a language that has a clear syntax and "one way to get it right" for pointers, linked lists and the like. C and C++ are insufficiently clear and unambiguous. Java simply does not allow you half of the things you need to do in that course.
Many people advocate for the usage of Java and especially VB from the perspective of "look how fast can I learn to program in these". That is irrelevant as far as university courses are concerned. What is relevant is will the student learn to produce literate, commercially viable code or not. If he has been subjected to VB - never, Java or C++ - not bloody likely, C - it may work but it will be anything but readable for the first 10 years of his career.
Re:In my experience... (Score:5, Interesting)
Prolog
Miranda/SML/Haskell
Java/C++/C#/Smalltalk/any other imperative with OO
Because these show the different choices in representation that programmers essentially have : declarative, functional, imperative (scripts). OO is a useful concept to describe to students because it gets them used to the ideas of abstraction and forces good programming practice like information hiding.
Later on it would be good if Universities taught web development (Php for example) and database development (SQL, possibly microsoft tools).
Interestingly universities do not teach, and I think rightly, the most common activity that CS grads end up doing in the real world, which is installation, integration, customisation and configuration of COTS products like CRM systems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They also acquire the belief that unfamiliar syntax is a serious barrier to learning a new language. Forcing students to learn a few languages with different-looking syntax might help. The superstition seems to be reinforced by the fact that their every attempt to learn a new language lasts about two weeks, so giving them br
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In my experience... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In my experience... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In my experience... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's a computer science course, or any other degree that purports to teach fundamentals, that's so wrong it's not even wrong.
You have to learn the fundamentals, not use ready made components. Indeed, I'd advocate at least some assembly language programming, because this forces you to think HOW the machine actually does things. It needn't be x86 or anything particularly fancy - but something that will at least teach the student on an absolutely fundamental level what happens when you get a buffer o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The logic they go by seems to be 'Download a class for it, no need to code it yourself'. It drives me crazy.
Re:Which university is that? (Score:5, Insightful)
While a good coder knows when to re-use code. A coder incapable of originating complex code is little more then an automaton.
I'm sick of the 'don't re-invent the wheel' argument being dragged out and used to justify people not studying properly, or for that matter, not teaching properly. I was lucky, I attended a course where most lecturers believed that students should code their own assignments.
Examples being recursive functions, sorting functions, Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm, stuff like that. However I have recently had to cope with people being given exactly the same type of assignment, and being allowed to download pre-built classes for them! What, I ask you, is the point of that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say pascal first as an introductory programming course, then C, then some assembly, then finally C++ or Java.
It's a lot easier to learn sequential programming when you're not busy shooting yourself in the foot... let them hit C after they know what a conditional and a loop are
Re:Which university is that? (Score:4, Insightful)
And let's not forget that students should really be studying computer science, not programming. They shouldn't learn how to do a binary search, they should learn why it's such a powerful technique. The implementation falls out naturally from the description. Likewise for trees of various flavors. Teach them how to identify the language features that best support the algorithms they need, and let them figure out which language is most appropriate for themselves. After all, any language they learn in college will be out of favor by midpoint in their career anyway (or earlier, for those of us that learned Pascal...), so better to teach them how to learn a new one from the start.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which university is that? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Which university is that? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No No no no no!
To learn it in the first place! Weren't you paying attention? You even demonstrated my point by saying 'I did it when I was younger'.
Yes, you did, so did I, would I re-write something when someone had a better implementation than me? Perhaps, if I wanted to learn how to do it, but not if I needed it soon, or had reasonable assurance that the existing implementation was better then I could do myself. H
Re:Which university is that? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe in usage, but that doesn't lend itself well to learning. Learning, by definition, is the process of reinventing the wheel so that you understand how the wheel works. They don't teach algebra by presenting the quadratic formula and saying, "Here, use this when solving a polynomial of degree 2" - they lead you every step of the way through the development of the quadratic formula so that you know how it works and why it works. Likewise, programmers learning to program should be writing quicksort implementations rather than ignoring the details because "it's already implemented in a library".
Of course, once you've graduated and are a professional writing a program for somebody else to use, you should reuse what's available as much as possible.
Bjarne said it best right near the beginning (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article:
How often have you worked on a prototype or demo, only to have the time/expense budget slashed because management decided you must be almost finished when they see a demo GUI?
How often have you encountered copy-paste-edit code replicated throughout a system because no one had the time to refactor the replicated code into a reusable modu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't object to java being taught, just the use of premade code to replace having to do stuff yourself.
Do ensure you widen your skillset well beyond java though, single language knowledge is a bad idea. Knowing several and specialising in one is better, since you can move to different languages as the need arises with ease.
... but doesn't remember how he did it?? (Score:3, Funny)
So he doesn't remember how he created C++ huh? That explains a ~lot~!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah ha! I thought so!
(It's humor! Come on... laugh with me!)
Problems with Programming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problems with Programming (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, there are arguments for the other side, two. One is that people will create similarly named methods on different objects that do completely different things, and ambiguous operators are no worse than ambiguous method calls. Another is that in cases where the normal operation of an operator is meaningless, it should be acceptable to overload it with different functionality.
Overloading the bit shift operator on I/O streams is a case of the second way of thinking: a bit shift makes no sense on an object, so why not use it for something else.
Re:Problems with Programming (Score:5, Interesting)
You want Lisp. (Score:5, Insightful)
You want Lisp. Hear me out.
Of course, the character syntax is superficially different. Operators use infix notation ("(+ 1 2)" is analogous to "1 + 2"), and have identical character syntax as function calls ("+", an operator in Lisp jargon, may be implemented as a function).
If you can sleep at night after that, your can define own higher-level language syntax that looks exactly like any other Lisp syntax. Lisp is extremely flexible in its naming of functions and variables (symbols). If you'd like, you could define an operator named .= as a function: (.= string new-character-strings ...) would modify the given string object, string , in-place, appending each specified new-character-string to the end.
Recognizing the downside to modifying random strings in-place, perhaps you'd rather have your .= operator assign a newly-instantiated string to the variable referenced by string . You could, by writing the operator as a macro. The macro would act like a function, taking as input each "raw" argument—symbols and lists, the structure as they appear in your program, before evaluation—and returning as output replacement Lisp code to evaluate in its place. So that your .= operator form of (.= out "lalala") is semantically equivalent to (setf out (concatenate 'string out "lalala")) (like out = out . "lalala"; in other languages).
It's not just simple textual substitution. You can use any function or macro in your macro definition to transform your input arguments into whatever replacement code you'd like. I'm using macros in Common Lisp to generate recursive-descent parsers based on a grammar production expression: the following form defines a function named obs-text that takes a string as input and returns a list of matches found as output:
(defproduction obs-text :* CR :* (obs-char LF :* CR :*) :*))
(LF
This function is defined in place and evaluated and compiled immediately by the Common Lisp implementation.
Macros can be abused, but they add a tremendously powerful capability of abstraction not possible with many other languages.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially when you can make it do something intuitive (if only visually). I mean, "" looks like "I/O" to me. It looks like the are sending the item to teh right towards/into the item to the left. Makes sense to me.
;-)
If only the rest of C++ was the intuitive.
-matthew
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mindlessly claim that allowing people to make operators do different things on different types is a bad thing. Do you actually know what's good about supporting operator overloading? It's the ability to make operators do different things
Re:Problems with Programming (Score:5, Insightful)
cout << "You are a bazooty head";
and you think, obviously, that is supposed to shift the bits of the standard output stream left by "You are a bazooty head"?
I wouldn't even call it an overloaded operator except in an overly technical sense. It's an operator that means two different things, and while that may in general be a bad idea, in this case the possible contexts for those meanings are so different, it's not anything close to a problem.
Now I'm sure people will deluge me with examples of cryptic, intentionally obtuse code that dumps the results of shift expressions directly to streams, and thus abuses this construct to create confusion. That's not the point. In decently written code, it's not a problem.
Re:Problems with Programming (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that the conceptual challenge of writing pointer-correct code is isomorphic to other forms of resource-correctness which one must still confront in whatever saintly language one employs. When I worked with microcontrollers (fairly hefty ones), in actual practice I never lost any sleep over pointer correctness. However, I did sweat bullets over real-time response in my nested interrupt handlers. Pointers were small potatoes compared to fundamental challenges posed by the design of the hardware we employed. A few small changes to the hardware design would have saved enormous challenges in the software layer. No language would have spared me that challenge.
Certainly overloading can be abused. Has it ever caused me a problem? Never. Excess delegation in an object-oriented framework? Nightmares.
Another post blames C++ for having an accretion-based design process. Oh, that stings. It was an explicit design approach to gain real-world understanding of one feature before designing the next. The two areas where the C++ design process got ahead of itself were multiple inheritance and templates. The former Stroustrup has confessed was perhaps a misguided priority. The later was caused by discovering that templates were an exceptionally fertile mechanism very late in the standardization process. C++ templates evaluate at compile time as a pure functional language. What makes templates difficult is that they are too much like other languages (e.g. Haskell) that the same people go around praising.
If one fully understands the cascade of implications of the original decision to take a relatively hard line on backwards compatibility with C, there isn't much in C++ that strikes me as "could have been vastly better". OTOH, I've come to the opinion that for someone who lacks that deep historical perspective, the overhead involved in mastering all the syntactic quirks that stemmed from that root is excessive. I don't regard C++ as a language that justifies the learning curve unless the person is suited to the kind of challenge involved in writing a real-time correct interrupt handler on a random piece of hardware that wasn't necessarily designed to make this easy.
Just the other day I commented out a section of PHP code in website skin (a language I use irregularly) to roughly this effect:
<!--
<markup>
-->
somefile.php executed regardless and emitted an HTML comment which closed my open comment in the first line above, leaving my closing comment exposed in the rendered document. Sigh.
At the end of the day, I find it extremely obnoxious the sentiment that some kind of pure language design can save us from this misery. There is no salvation to be found among programmers who brag mostly about thinking less.
Re:Problems with Programming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which is why I said C++ may be the language you want; certainly there are other candidates. I'm saying I would not reccommend anyone use C++ on an irregular basis. If you're a biologist who does some coding on the side, don't use C++; and don't be surprised if it seems unsuited to your needs.
By analogy, I'm a coder who occasionally does some welding in the garage on weekends. Professional welders would scoff at my hobbyist-level equiptment, and be insanely frustrated by its limited capabilities. But wer
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Good for gutters then (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should a language force you to think? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a good question. The purpose of a programming language is much the same of that of mathematical notation, which is to allow you to think at the level of abstraction of your problem while not wasting
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Problems with Programming (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in the real world we have these things which often seriously limitthe elegance of our designs. They're called constraints.
In the case of C++, Stroustrup wanted to add extensions to C that would turn it into a complete object oriented programming language. With the hindsight of years of experience, some things that were then thought to be critically important turned out to be of only marginal value. Multiple inheritance for one thing. Another thing was allowing object classes to act as "first class types", which implies the need to create and overload operators. However, given the state of knowledge at the time, they were reasonable goals.
So, Stroustrup needed to implement operator overloading. He also chose to implement C++ as a preprocessor that converted C++ into C. There were some undesirable consequences of this, but for the most part it was a good decision for the language. What he accomplished at one stroke was creating a complete and highly capable object oriented programming implementation available on a vast number of systems. The big advantage of C is that is small size made it the most portable language ever; piggybacking on it brought much of this advantage to C++, with minimal effort (another real world constraint).
IIRC, one of the undesirable consequences of his implementation approach was that it was much more convenient to limit C++ operators to tokens that are recognized as tokens in the C compiler. This means that to allow classes to be first class types, the operators we define on those classes were "overloaded" C operators.
From a design standpoint, this kind of "overloading" is a totally different kettle of fish from normal operator overloading. "Overloading" proper implements a kind of conceptual parallelism: floating point addition is analagous to integer addition, even though it has a totally implementation. True OO operator overloading plays the same role in expressions that polymorphism does in method calls. The C++ use of existing C operators to implement new concepts (e.g. I/O) is a pure kludge.
This is what is known in the real world as a trade-off.
We thought, back in 1979, that making classes first class types with their own operators was pretty important. Stroustrup needed to implement it then, but he also wanted to piggyback C++ on the existing C compiler for the reasons noted above. This trade-off satisfies both constraints at the cost of some aesthetic inelegance. Redefining the bitwise shift operator for I/O is conceptually inelegant, but it gets the job done and creates no confusion in practice. This is also a good trade-off.
In retrospect, Stroustrup could have left certain of the features of C++ out, becuase either they have proved more problematic than they are worth (e.g., multiple inheritance) or they are not really as useful as people thought they were going to be (operator overloading). Perhaps what we really needed was more like Objective C. But C++ became the dominant systems programming language, and Objective C did not. Speaking as somebody who worked through the era of C++'s rise to dominance, this is a direct result of Stroustrup's choice of trade offs. C++ was more widely ported. And C++ was a convincingly complete implementation of nearly everything we thought was important to have in an OO language at the time.
There is no doubt that C++ is a work of genius -- what's more a rare mix of pragmatic ane theoretical genius. If you need proof, consider that after twenty five years, C++ remains an indispensable systems programming language, if not the indispensible language. You can hardly fault Stroustrup if it is not quite what we'd come up with today.
Re:Problems with Programming (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as operator overloading is concerned, the intent was to provide the conceptual parallelism you explained. In D&E, he talks about C++ users asking for the capability for things like matrix addition. Using << and >> for stream input and output was an afterthought. Further, I don't think it was leveraging the C compiler that precluded him from overloading operators other than what were already in C. He easily could have supported new operators, as Cfront was not just a preprocessor, it was a full compiler that happened to compile down to C. Since I've never read anywhere (either in interviews, D&E, or TC++PL) why he chose to not allow arbitrary operators, I assume it was because he didn't feel they were necessary. I know that D&E has discussion of an exponent operator, which was eventually ruled out.
Re:Problems with Programming (Score:4, Interesting)
Because nearly always composition is a better way to deal with the design problems multiple inheritance attempts to solve, especially as the situation becomes more and more complex. Also, inheritance often implies more than necessary -- multiple inheritance multiply so. You usually are most concerned with guaranteeing an object's behavior when you use inheritance, but you also get an implementation whether you want it or not. This creates unnecessary complexity and problems when you use multiple inheritance simply to ensure that object class memebers provide certain services.
I'm not saying it's never useful of course. But it is never necessary and often a bad thing.
You make some good points. My guess is this: allowing user created operators probably made lexxing difficult or impossible. You wouldn't be able to tell whether a sequence of characters was an operator or something else until you had parsed the operator's definition. You couldn't have a fixed grammar either, which might preclude further parsing even if you had a clever way of guessing that some string is probably an operator.
Code Structure vs. Function (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox is a fucking mess. (Score:5, Informative)
Part of the problem is the severe over-architecturing. This over-architecturing has added much unnecessary complexity to the overall design of Gecko and Firefox. Much of it is "justified" in the name of portability. But then we find that other frameworks, including wxWidgets and GTK+, do just fine without the overly complex and confusing architecture of Gecko and Firefox.
It's just not easy for most developers to become up-to-date with the Mozilla codebase because of all this added complexity. Unless a volunteer developer has literally months to spend learning even the small portion of the code they're interested in working on, it's basically inaccessible to most programmers.
The constraints of the real-world often come into play, and we have developers modifying code they don't necessarily understand fully. And so we get the frequent crashes, glitches, memory leaks and security problems that Firefox 1.5.x and 2.x have become famous for.
It's likely that Mozilla should ideally rewrite a vast portion of their code, keeping simplicity in mind. That likely won't happen, and thus we will most assuredly still run into problems with Firefox and Gecko, problems caused directly by the overcomplication of the Mozilla architecture.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, they do plan a major revamp of the Mozilla base [mozillazine.org]. So major that they're going to use a tool to help automate the process.
Re: (Score:2)
nsCOMPtr<pr_bool>(No) nsIt(s) NS_NOT
Ridiculous. (Score:5, Funny)
Now that is just ridiculous. I'm using IE7 to post this article, and have been using it since its release, and I can say
Re:Ridiculous. (Score:5, Funny)
You can say that it's magical, because it managed to post for you just before it crashed. Though that's pretty nifty, I've seen Firefox tack on a "NO CARRIER" before. Maybe you should submit a feature request.
Only my second favorite (Score:4, Funny)
"On the other hand, ..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's because the average programmer is enslaved in company business. They don't have the
time to create masterpieces or art in programming. Instead of that they are forced to create
something adequate in a given time. Happens almost everytime, when science becomes business.
I don't like that, you don't like that, no one likes that, but that's the way commercial industries
are working (at the moment).
Re:"On the other hand, ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
I deal every day with programmers who don't think they have time to deal with things like correctness, algorithms, data structures, or maintainability. In their panic to create something adequate in a given time, they invariably run over time and create something inadequate. They'd have been much better off doing it the "right" way, because the whole reason it's called the "right" way is it's the fastest way to get the bloody job done.
Like it or not, writing code that has to be done on some deadline, and work, is how commercial (and much non-commercial) coding is; at the moment, at all previous moments, and for all future moments. So learn to write good code in that environment or get a different job; don't write bad code and blame it on obvious truisms.
Sorry, long day
Re:"On the other hand, ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure....
And the moment you demonstrate to the organization you can write a quality app in 3 months, they'll decide they can ask for the next one in 2 months. You should come and try my environment some time.
I wouldn't say we write bad code. We just write adequate code in a survival mode to appease customers who were assured by our sales team that we can change anything they like.
Re:"On the other hand, ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is anything that my job has firmly beaten in to me it's that doing it right saves you time over taking the shortcut; and not even down the road, but right there, the first time. The stupefyingly huge savings in maintainability and reusability are just gravy.
It sounds to me like I would say you write bad code, and I'd recommend trying to write the best code you can because it will get things done faster. Salesmen promising customers unreasonable things won't change, so it's no reason to make things worse. If the things they sell are truly unreasonable, in that they cost more to do than someone pays, and they don't get fired, then your management is incompetent. In that case, you're screwed, but still no reason to make it worse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Why do I keep hearing this argument? It makes no sense whatsoever. I've heard it from many managers, is that what they teach them? I'm obviously missing something. My experience and common sense tells me that it takes longer to sit down and design a solution using a well thought out process (ie: the "right" way) than it takes to throw together a hack to address the problem quickly.
If the "right" way is th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, the typical unsophsticated (software development-wise) customer can't tell the difference between the two. This is made worse when many managers who were supposedly professional programmers themselves can't tell the difference. As far as I can tell, the only way for a programmer to deal with this is to simply BE great and be ready to move on if the customer can't see that greatness. Eventually they'll get somewhere that will appreciate it.
I also cover some of this in another reply. [slashdot.org]
Re:Agreed... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes code is bad because the programmer is not very good (vast majority of cases).
I hear this quite a bit and I think it's probably a flawed assumption or at least to simple a statement to describe the truth. The vast majority of developers can't be below average or the average would drop. What we can say is that a good portion of developers seem to have a poor grasp of basic software development skills. What we need to ask then is why.
In my experience there seems to be far more variation in skill level between software developers than I have seen in any other profession. Perhaps this is simply because I am only familiar with software development and there is the same spectrum width in other professions as well but I somehow doubt it. I suspect, however, that software development is actually a very very hard process that only a small number of people truly have the mental discipline for. Since that number is less than the number of developers required we need to do something to make software development easier for the masses of developers. This is similar to the way cabinets were made. The master cabinet maker would produce the top and front and the less skilled (apprentice) would produce the frame (since it's easier).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
couldn't say "NO" to a feature (Score:5, Insightful)
The moment you have 2 people doing C++ on 1 project, at least 1 person will be faced with code written using features they just don't understand. C++ has features to spare.
Think you know C++? No, you don't. Heck, the compiler developers are often unsure.
This is a recipe for disaster, as we often see.
C was hard enough. Few people truly understood all the dark corners. (sequence points, aliasing rules, etc.)
C++ is addictive. Everybody wants one cool feature. C code is somewhat easy to convert. Soon you're using enough of C++ that you can't go back, and hey, more is better right? The next thing you know, some programmer on your team got the wise-ass idea to use Boost lambda functions (for no good reason) and you find yourself with 14 different string classes and... you have a mess that no one single developer can fully deal with.
This is why I like assembler (Score:2)
I realize this is completely impractical on a level of an operating system -- but TFA is right; if we could put a little less emphasis on having the sh
He summarizes one of the big issues in SD now... (Score:5, Interesting)
The good thing about working in software-centric companies (besides understanding the programmer psyche) is that they often don't balk as much at being told something can't be done in a timeframe. Blizzard doesn't blink an eye when it has to delay a game by a year (probably more like 2 or 3 years when compared to internal, non-public set dates). Microsoft finally decided to nuke WinFS once they finally conceded that you're not going to get it within this decade, no matter how much they throw chairs. Google apparently has almost no schedules [blogspot.com].
Re:He summarizes one of the big issues in SD now.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Its crazy (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop blaming the tools and look to yourselves.
C++ is like a sharp scalpel. Yes you can hurt yourself if you're unskilled, inexperienced or sloppy.
Java and C# are like those scissors with rounded ends for kids. Totally inefficent but safe for beginners.
Unfortunately it seems that there are a lot of people out there who like to call themselves programmers but have no actual ability. Java/C## does a good job of removing their need to think and hiding their inate lack of skill which is why they prefer it.
But there's a reason why surgeons don't use plastic scissors. The same applies to good software engineers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So where does something like Eiffel fit in? It's all the usual bist to stop you shooting yourself in the foot (a strong static type, garbage collection, etc.) plus added extras to make your code even more maintainable, and even harder to shoot yourself in the foot (design by contract, SCOOP concurrency [se.ethz.ch], e
Re:Its crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
"C++ gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot"
Java and C# are like those scissors with rounded ends for kids. Totally inefficent but safe for beginners.
I'm not convinced of the "totally inefficient" bit. I think you'd be pressing it to do time-critical systems (indeed, current GC is more or less incompatible with realtime systems), OSs, etc., but I'm not convinced that they're not just fine for applications. This especially applies to C#, because C# GUIs are actually responsive. (Swing and to a lesser extent SWT lag a little.)
But there's a reason why surgeons don't use plastic scissors.
There's also a reason carpenters don't use scalpels. It's because different tools are good for different jobs.
Surgeons don't use scissors, tailors do (Score:3, Insightful)
C++ can do wonders when used by highly experienced people. But most of the time, it is more cost effective to get entry level coders and use PHP/Java/C#/whatever. You will get a (somewhat) working product cheaper and possibly faster. And time to market and cost is often more important than maintainability/quality.
And don
Re:Its crazy (Score:4, Insightful)
This, of course, is not true of all Java programmers. It probably isn't true of most Java programmers, but I feel safe to say that it's true of more Java programmers than it is of C or C++ programmers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't explain how knowin
There's only one real problem: lack of talent (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no silver bullet. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~maratb/reading
The problem is that the software is an order of magnitude slower than it needs to be because the hardware has increased in performance by 2 and 3 and 4 orders of magnitude. If we had held the software to the same standards as we used to back when the hardware cost more than the programmers, it would be more efficient - but would only be able to make use of a couple megabyte of RAM and disk. The looseness of current software is part and parcel of harnessing the hardware. The hardware didn't just allow us go loose with the software we wrote - it allowed us to use abstractions which were measurably less efficient, but which had the side effect of allowing us to harness the hardware in the first place.
As a pair of trivial examples, take arrays and dictionaries. When I ask interview questions like "Design a hashtable" or "Reverse a linked list", many candidates have to actually step back and think about the question! 30 years ago, designing a good hashing function was the mark of true talent, and gains were to be had by selecting the linked-list scheme which best suited the problem at hand. These days, many people don't really know why you'd use a map versus a hash_map, or a vector versus a deque. And, for the most part, they don't really need to.
The C++ Hater (Score:3, Insightful)
That was my experience anyhow. I began studying C++, and at some point I stopped and asked myself, "Why must I endure this? Surely there must be better options." And I was right.
I really have to grit my teeth when Stroustrup talks about C++ "winning" against competing languages. C++ is successful for the same reason that COBOL and Microsoft Windows have been successful: because they happened to appear in the right place at the right time, and were promoted by the right people, to become entrenched. Once entrenched, the world was saddled with them for decades to come. It has nothing to do with their inherent qualities or advantages, it's little more than random chance.
It's the programmer, and partially the tool (Score:4, Insightful)
Just as an adept sculptor can build a beautiful (though somewhat rough) art piece using a chainsaw, so can a good programmer make do in situations where he is forced to use the wrong tool for the job.
Namespaces can be simulated with a good naming convention.
OO can be accomplished in a procedural language.
Technologies can be married together, and even replaced in part with other technologies at a later date (it's called refactoring, folks!)
I currently program exclusively in Java. I learned from the ground up (Analog electronics -> Digital logic -> Machine code & Assembly -> C -> C++ -> other OO languages & scripting languages, AOP etc)
I'd love to have multiple inheritance in Java, but I hate the fact that you can't rebind a reference in C++.
I'd love to have real properties and closures supported by the Java language proper, but I make do with standardized boilerplate code in the meantime.
I love the quick UI building you can do in VB, but I certainly wouldn't want to write business logic with it!
Access is great for building quick and simple systems, and does its job well, but I'm not going to store 10 million records in it!
Nothing beats the speed of a library written in assembler, but I'm certainly not going to write database access code in it!
Perl is a great tool in the right hands. In the wrong hands, it is the worst disaster ever, and the first thing I get rid of when I take over support of a project (except for 10% of the time when the previous programmer was competent).
I've seen horrendous code in every language I've ever encountered, and it's always a result of the programmer not understanding what he's working with. My personal opinion is that you shouldn't be programming unless you understand at least one layer below where you're working.
Do you know how to examine a core dump? How about interpreting a Java HotSpot dump?
Do you understand how the technology you're working with interacts with the operating system?
Do you know how the auto-code generator deep within the script overlay you're using actually works? Have you even once looked at the intermediate output?
How about the
What will you do when something goes wrong with it? Give up?
Do you follow the generally accepted practices used in your domain? Do you even know what they are?
Do you know what domain driven design is?
Do you understand when it's a bad idea to use inheritance? (Answer: most of the time)
I could go on forever. The point is that good programmers find the right tool for the job because they understand how it all works. Hackers do it fast, but forget to make it readable or maintainable. Bad programmers just plain do a bad job and make things shitty for everyone.
Re:The biggest problem is choosing the right langu (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like Lisp to me.... It's a mystery to me why anyone would voluntarily program in a language that makes the things that should be easy difficult, and makes things like segfaults, which should be pretty darn hard to do, easy enough to accomplish by accident. Yet so many
Re:The biggest problem is choosing the right langu (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Which means you learn nothing other than a new syntax to program your same old style in (i.e, nothing worthwhile). Not to mention that Dylan's macro system will leave you crying because computational macro systems in a syntax heavy environment just suck. If you're really short of time, you're better off using it to learn Erlang, P
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He was the head of AT&T Labs' Large-scale Programming Research department for a number of years. I'd imagine you're not familiar with some of the cutting-edge research he was responsible for when it comes to massi
Re:Stroustrup is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But what is really missing from your rant is an alternative. It would be the most beautiful rant in the world if it ended with "And it doesn't have to be this way, CSuperDuperDoublePlus does everything C++ does without the problems!". Except it didn't, which means that C++ is still the language to use for a lot of tasks. Anything CPU inte
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> Try using them next time you write some C++ code.
>
> No, the STL defines container classes, and they suck
> just as badly as the C++ language itself. Performance
> goes out he window unless you spend inordinate amounts
> of time ensuring that all the classes you put into the
> containers are setup to avoid multiple copying. This is
> a major pain in the arse, as different implementations
> of the STL have different semant
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Java for example is simple, because there are only vert few implementations in existance
The reason Java is simple is that it didn't try to be a multi-paradigm language, where the inevitable trade offs left C++ inadequate in every paradigm. Java was also well described in a decent specification rather than being standardised too late in the day as happened with C++. There also exists a canonical Java test suite, whereas the C++ standard is littered with opportunities for implementation specific functiona
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)