Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

Programming Languages Usage and Design Problems

News Scripting languages Recommended Books Recommended Links Typical errors The Art of Debugging Programming as a Profession Programming style
Software Engineering Object-Oriented Cult: A Slightly Skeptical View on the Object-Oriented Programming Real Insights into Architecture Come Only From Actual Programming Perl-based Bug Tracking  CMM (Capability Maturity Model) KISS Principle Brooks law Slightly Skeptical View on Extreme Programming
Donald Knuth TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science Algorithms and Data Structures Bit Tricks Searching Algorithms Sorting Algorithms Pattern Matching Graph Algorithms
Assembler C Cpp Java Pascal PL/1 Prolog R programming language
GCC UNIX Make Program Understanding Refactoring vs Restructuring Version Control & Configuration Management Tools  Literate Programming Programming style Software Testing
Forth Compilers Lexical analysis Recursive Descent Parsing Coroutines A symbol table Bit Tricks Debugging
Conway Law Perl-based Bug Tracking Code Reviews and Inspections Code Metrics Structured programming Design patterns Extreme Programming CMM (Capability Maturity Model)
Software Fashion Project Management Inhouse vs Outsourced Applications Development Tips Quotes History Humor Etc

As Donald Knuth noted (Don Knuth and the Art of Computer Programming The Interview):

I think of a programming language as a tool to convert a programmer's mental images into precise operations that a machine can perform. The main idea is to match the user's intuition as well as possible. There are many kinds of users, and many kinds of application areas, so we need many kinds of languages.
 
Ordinarily technology changes fast. But programming languages are different: programming languages are not just technology, but what programmers think in.

They're half technology and half religion. And so the median language, meaning whatever language the median programmer uses, moves as slow as an iceberg.

Paul Graham: Beating the Averages

Libraries are more important that the language.

Donald Knuth


Introduction

A fruitful way to think about language development is to consider it a to be special type of theory building. Peter Naur suggested that programming in general is theory building activity in his 1985 paper "Programming as Theory Building". But idea is especially applicable to compilers and interpreters. What Peter Naur failed to understand was that design of programming languages has religious overtones and sometimes represent an activity, which is pretty close to the process of creating a new, obscure cult ;-). Clueless academics publishing junk papers at obscure conferences are high priests of the church of programming languages. some like Niklaus Wirth and Edsger W. Dijkstra (temporary) reached the status close to those of (false) prophets :-).

On a deep conceptual level building of a new language is a human way of solving complex problems. That means that complier construction in probably the most underappreciated paradigm of programming of large systems much more so then greatly oversold object-oriented programming. OO benefits are greatly overstated. For users, programming languages distinctly have religious aspects, so decisions about what language to use are often far from being rational and are mainly cultural.  Indoctrination at the university plays a very important role. Recently they were instrumental in making Java a new Cobol.

The second important observation about programming languages is that language per se is just a tiny part of what can be called language programming environment. the latter includes libraries, IDE, books, level of adoption at universities,  popular, important applications written in the language, level of support and key players that support the language on major platforms such as Windows and Linux and other similar things.  A mediocre language with good programming environment can give a run for the money to similar superior in design languages that are just naked.  This is  a story behind success of  Java. Critical application is also very important and this is a story of success of PHP which is nothing but a bastardatized derivative of Perl (with all most interesting Perl features removed ;-) adapted to creation of dynamic web sites using so called LAMP stack.

Progress in programming languages has been very uneven and contain several setbacks. Currently this progress is mainly limited to development of so called scripting languages.  Traditional high level languages field is stagnant for many decades.

At the same time there are some mysterious, unanswered question about factors that help the language to succeed or fail. Among them:

Those are difficult questions to answer without some way of classifying languages into different categories. Several such classifications exists. First of all like with natural languages, the number of people who speak a given language is a tremendous force that can overcome any real of perceived deficiencies of the language. In programming languages, like in natural languages nothing succeed like success.

Complexity Curse

History of programming languages raises interesting general questions about the limit of complexity of programming languages. There is strong historical evidence that a language with simpler core, or even simplistic core Basic, Pascal) have better chances to acquire high level of popularity.  The underlying fact here probably is that most programmers are at best mediocre and such programmers tend on intuitive level to avoid more complex, more rich languages and prefer, say, Pascal to PL/1 and PHP to Perl. Or at least avoid it on a particular phase of language development (C++ is not simpler language then PL/1, but was widely adopted because of the progress of hardware, availability of compilers and not the least, because it was associated with OO exactly at the time OO became a mainstream fashion).  Complex non-orthogonal languages can succeed only as a result of a long period of language development (which usually adds complexly -- just compare Fortran IV with Fortran 99; or PHP 3 with PHP 5 ) from a smaller core. The banner of some fashionable new trend extending existing popular language to this new "paradigm" is also a possibility (OO programming in case of C++, which is a superset of C).

Historically, few complex languages were successful (PL/1, Ada, Perl, C++), but even if they were successful, their success typically was temporary rather then permanent  (PL/1, Ada, Perl). As Professor Wilkes noted   (iee90):

Things move slowly in the computer language field but, over a sufficiently long period of time, it is possible to discern trends. In the 1970s, there was a vogue among system programmers for BCPL, a typeless language. This has now run its course, and system programmers appreciate some typing support. At the same time, they like a language with low level features that enable them to do things their way, rather than the compiler’s way, when they want to.

They continue, to have a strong preference for a lean language. At present they tend to favor C in its various versions. For applications in which flexibility is important, Lisp may be said to have gained strength as a popular programming language.

Further progress is necessary in the direction of achieving modularity. No language has so far emerged which exploits objects in a fully satisfactory manner, although C++ goes a long way. ADA was progressive in this respect, but unfortunately it is in the process of collapsing under its own great weight.

ADA is an example of what can happen when an official attempt is made to orchestrate technical advances. After the experience with PL/1 and ALGOL 68, it should have been clear that the future did not lie with massively large languages.

I would direct the reader’s attention to Modula-3, a modest attempt to build on the appeal and success of Pascal and Modula-2 [12].

Complexity of the compiler/interpreter also matter as it affects portability: this is one thing that probably doomed PL/1 (and later Ada), although those days a new language typically come with open source compiler (or in case of scripting languages, an interpreter) and this is less of a problem.

Here is an interesting take on language design from the preface to The D programming language book:

Programming language design seeks power in simplicity and, when successful, begets beauty.

Choosing the trade-offs among contradictory requirements is a difficult task that requires good taste from the language designer as much as mastery of theoretical principles and of practical implementation matters. Programming language design is software-engineering-complete.

D is a language that attempts to consistently do the right thing within the constraints it chose: system-level access to computing resources, high performance, and syntactic similarity with C-derived languages. In trying to do the right thing, D sometimes stays with tradition and does what other languages do, and other times it breaks tradition with a fresh, innovative solution. On occasion that meant revisiting the very constraints that D ostensibly embraced. For example, large program fragments or indeed entire programs can be written in a well-defined memory-safe subset of D, which entails giving away a small amount of system-level access for a large gain in program debuggability.

You may be interested in D if the following values are important to you:

The role of fashion

At the initial, the most difficult stage of language development the language should solve an important problem that was inadequately solved by currently popular languages.  But at the same time the language has few chances rto cesseed unless it perfectly fits into the current software fashion. This "fashion factor" is probably as important as several other factors combined with the exclution of "language sponsor" factor.

Like in woman dress fashion rules in language design.  And with time this trend became more and more prononced.  A new language should simultaneously represent the current fashionable trend.  For example OO-programming was a visit card into the world of "big, successful languages" since probably early 90th (C++, Java, Python).  Before that "structured programming" and "verification" (Pascal, Modula) played similar role.

Programming environment and the role of "powerful sponsor" in language success

PL/1, Java, C#, Ada are languages that had powerful sponsors. Pascal, Basic, Forth are examples of the languages that had no such sponsor during the initial period of development.  C and C++ are somewhere in between.

But any language now need a "programming environment" which consists of a set of libraries, debugger and other tools (make tool, link, pretty-printer, etc). The set of standard" libraries and debugger are probably two most important elements. They cost  lot of time (or money) to develop and here the role of powerful sponsor is difficult to underestimate.

While this is not a necessary condition for becoming popular, it really helps: other things equal the weight of the sponsor of the language does matter. For example Java, being a weak, inconsistent language (C-- with garbage collection and OO) was pushed through the throat on the strength of marketing and huge amount of money spend on creating Java programming environment.  The same was partially true for  C# and Python. That's why Python, despite its "non-Unix" origin is more viable scripting language now then, say, Perl (which is better integrated with Unix and has pretty innovative for scripting languages support of pointers and regular expressions), or Ruby (which has support of coroutines form day 1, not as "bolted on" feature like in Python). Like in political campaigns, negative advertizing also matter. For example Perl suffered greatly from blackmail comparing programs in it with "white noise".   And then from withdrawal of O'Reilly from the role of sponsor of the language (although it continue to milk that Perl book publishing franchise ;-)

People proved to be pretty gullible and in this sense language marketing is not that different from woman clothing marketing :-)

Language level and success

One very important classification of programming languages is based on so called the level of the language.  Essentially after there is at least one language that is successful on a given level, the success of other languages on the same level became more problematic. Higher chances for success are for languages that have even slightly higher, but still higher level then successful predecessors.

The level of the language informally can be described as the number of statements (or, more correctly, the number of  lexical units (tokens)) needed to write a solution of a particular problem in one language versus another. This way we can distinguish several levels of programming languages:

 "Nanny languages" vs "Sharp razor" languages

Some people distinguish between "nanny languages" and "sharp razor" languages. The latter do not attempt to protect user from his errors while the former usually go too far... Right compromise is extremely difficult to find.

For example, I consider the explicit availability of pointers as an important feature of the language that greatly increases its expressive power and far outweighs risks of errors in hands of unskilled practitioners.  In other words attempts to make the language "safer" often misfire.

Expressive style of the languages

Another useful typology is based in expressive style of the language:

Those categories are not pure and somewhat overlap. For example, it's possible to program in an object-oriented style in C, or even assembler. Some scripting languages like Perl have built-in regular expressions engines that are a part of the language so they have functional component despite being procedural. Some relatively low level languages (Algol-style languages) implement garbage collection. A good example is Java. There are scripting languages that compile into common language framework which was designed for high level languages. For example, Iron Python compiles into .Net.

Weak correlation between quality of design and popularity

Popularity of the programming languages is not strongly connected to their quality. Some languages that look like a collection of language designer blunders (PHP, Java ) became quite popular. Java became especially a new Cobol and PHP dominates dynamic Web sites construction. The dominant technology for such Web sites is often called LAMP, which means Linux - Apache -My SQL PHP. Being a highly simplified but badly constructed subset of Perl, kind of new Basic for dynamic Web sites construction PHP provides the most depressing experience. I was unpleasantly surprised when I had learnt the Wikipedia engine was rewritten in PHP from Perl some time ago, but this quite illustrates the trend.

So language design quality has little to do with the language success in the marketplace. Simpler languages have more wide appeal as success of PHP (which at the beginning was at the expense of Perl) suggests. In addition much depends whether the language has powerful sponsor like was the case with Java (Sun and IBM) as well as Python (Google).

Progress in programming languages has been very uneven and contain several setbacks like Java. Currently this progress is usually associated with scripting languages. History of programming languages raises interesting general questions about "laws" of programming language design. First let's reproduce several notable quotes:

  1. Knuth law of optimization: "Premature optimization is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - Donald Knuth
  2. "Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp." - Phil Greenspun
  3. "The key to performance is elegance, not battalions of special cases." - Jon Bentley and Doug McIlroy
  4. "Some may say Ruby is a bad rip-off of Lisp or Smalltalk, and I admit that. But it is nicer to ordinary people." - Matz, LL2
  5. Most papers in computer science describe how their author learned what someone else already knew. - Peter Landin
  6. "The only way to learn a new programming language is by writing programs in it." - Kernighan and Ritchie
  7. "If I had a nickel for every time I've written "for (i = 0; i < N; i++)" in C, I'd be a millionaire." - Mike Vanier
  8. "Language designers are not intellectuals. They're not as interested in thinking as you might hope. They just want to get a language done and start using it." - Dave Moon
  9. "Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it." - Alan Kay
  10. "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." - Abelson & Sussman, SICP, preface to the first edition

Please note that one thing is to read language manual and appreciate how good the concepts are, and another to bet your project on a new, unproved language without good debuggers, manuals and, what is very important, libraries. Debugger is very important but standard libraries are crucial: they represent a factor that makes or breaks new languages.

In this sense languages are much like cars. For many people car is the thing that they use get to work and shopping mall and they are not very interesting is engine inline or V-type and the use of fuzzy logic in the transmission. What they care is safety, reliability, mileage, insurance and the size of trunk. In this sense "Worse is better" is very true. I already mentioned the importance of the debugger. The other important criteria is quality and availability of libraries. Actually libraries are what make 80% of the usability of the language, moreover in a sense libraries are more important than the language...

A popular belief that scripting is "unsafe" or "second rate" or "prototype" solution is completely wrong. If a project had died than it does not matter what was the implementation language, so for any successful project and tough schedules scripting language (especially in dual scripting language+C combination, for example TCL+C) is an optimal blend that for a large class of tasks. Such an approach helps to separate architectural decisions from implementation details much better that any OO model does.

Moreover even for tasks that handle a fair amount of computations and data (computationally intensive tasks) such languages as Python and Perl are often (but not always !) competitive with C++, C# and, especially, Java.

The second important observation about programming languages is that language per se is just a tiny part of what can be called language programming environment. the latter includes libraries, IDE, books, level of adoption at universities, popular, important applications written in the language, level of support and key players that support the language on major platforms such as Windows and Linux and other similar things. A mediocre language with good programming environment can give a run for the money to similar superior in design languages that are just naked. This is a story behind success of Java. Critical application is also very important and this is a story of success of PHP which is nothing but a bastardatized derivative of Perl (with all most interesting Perl features removed ;-) adapted to creation of dynamic web sites using so called LAMP stack.

History of programming languages raises interesting general questions about the limit of complexity of programming languages. There is strong historical evidence that languages with simpler core, or even simplistic core has more chanced to acquire high level of popularity. The underlying fact here probably is that most programmers are at best mediocre and such programmer tend on intuitive level to avoid more complex, more rich languages like, say, PL/1 and Perl. Or at least avoid it on a particular phase of language development (C++ is not simpler language then PL/1, but was widely adopted because OO became a fashion). Complex non-orthogonal languages can succeed only as a result on long period of language development from a smaller core or with the banner of some fashionable new trend (OO programming in case of C++).

Programming Language Development Timeline

Here is modified from Byte the timeline of Programming Languages (for the original see BYTE.com September 1995 / 20th Anniversary /)

Forties

ca. 1946


1949

Fifties


1951


1952

1957


1958


1959

Sixties


1960


1962


1963


1964


1965


1966


1967



1969

Seventies


1970


1972


 

1974


1975


1976

 


1977


1978


1979

Eighties


1980


1981


1982


1983


1984


1985


1986


1987


1988


1989

Nineties


1990


1991


1992


1993


1994


1995


1996


1997


2006

2007 

2011

There are several interesting "language-induced" errors  -- errors that particular programming language facilitates rather then helps to avoid. They are most studied for C-style languages. Funny but Pl/1 (from which C was derived) was a better designed language then much simpler C in several of those categories.

Avoiding C-style languages design blunder of "easy" mistyping "=" instead of "=="

One of most famous C design blunders was two small lexical difference between assignment and comparison (remember that Algol used := for assignment) caused by the design decision  to make the language more compact (terminals at this type were not very reliable and number of symbols typed matter greatly. In C assignment is allowed in if statement but no attempts were  made to make language more failsafe by avoiding possibility of mixing up  "=" and "==".  In  C syntax  the statement

if (alpha = beta) ... 

assigns the contents of the variable beta to the variable alpha and executes the code in then branch if beta <> 0.

It is easy to mix thing and write if (alpha = beta ) instead of (if (alpha == beta)  which is a pretty nasty, and remarkably consistent C-induced bug.  in case you are comparing the constant to a variable, you can often reverse the sequence and put constant first like in

if ( 1==i ) ...
as
if ( 1=i ) ...
does not make any sense. In this case such a blunder will be detected on syntax level.

Dealing with unbalanced "{" and "}" problem in C-style languages

Another nasty problems with C, C++, Java, Perl and other C-style languages is that missing curvy brackets are pretty difficult to find. they also canbe insertd incorrectly endign with the even more nasty logical error.  One effective solution that was first implemented in PL/1 and was based on calculation of the level of nesting (in compiler listing) and ability of multiple closure of blocks in the end statement (PL/1 did not use brackets {}, they were introduced in C).

In C one can use pseudo comments that signify nesting level zero and check those points with special program or by writing an editor macro.

Many editors have the ability to point to the closing bracket for any given opening bracket and vise versa. This is also useful, but less efficient way to solve the problem.  

Problem of unclosed literal

Specifying max length of literals is an effecting way of catching missing quote. This idea was forst implemented in debugging PL/1 compilers. You can also have an option to limit literal to a single line. In general multi-line literals should have different lexical markers (like "here" construct in shell). Some language like Perl provide opportunity to use concatenation operator for splitting literals into multiple lines, which are "merged" at compile time. But if there is no limit on the number of lines string literal can occupy some bug can slip in which unmatched quote can closed by another unmatched quote in a nearby literal " commenting out" some part of the code. So this does not help much.

Limit on the language of the literal can be communicated via pragma statement at compile type in a particular fragment of text. This is an effective way to avoid the problem. Usually only few places in program use multiline literals, if any. 

Editors that use coloring help to detect unclosed literal problem,  but there are cases when they are useless.

Commenting out blocks  of code

This is best done not with comments, but with a preprocessor if the language has one (PL/1, C, etc)

The "dangling else" problem

Having both an if-else and an if statement leads to some possibilities of confusion when one of the clause of a selection statement is itself a selection statement. For example, the C code

if (level >= good)
   if (level == excellent)
      cout << "excellent" << endl;
else
   cout << "bad" << endl;

is intended to process a three-state situation in which something can be bad, good or (as a special case of good) excellent; it is supposed to print an appropriate description for the excellent and bad cases, and print nothing for the good case. The indentation of the code reflects these expectations. Unfortunately, the code does not do this. Instead, it prints excellent for the excellent case, bad for the good case, and nothing for the bad case.

The problem is deciding which if matches the else in this expression. The basic rule is

an else matches the nearest previous unmatched if

There are two ways to avoid the dangling else problem:

In fact, you can avoid the dangling else problem completely by always using brackets around the clauses of an if or if-else statement, even if they only enclose a single statement.
So a good strategy for notation of if-else statements is always use { brace brackets } around the clauses of an if-else or if statement
Always use { brace brackets } around the clauses of an if-else or if statement
(This strategy also helps if you need to cut-and-paste more code into one of the clauses: if a clause consists of only one statement, without enclosing brace brackets, and you add another statement to it, then you also need to add the brace brackets. Having the brace brackets there already makes the job easier.)

 


NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Oct 13, 2019] https://www.quora.com/If-Donald-Knuth-were-25-years-old-today-which-programming-language-would-he-choose

Notable quotes:
"... He mostly writes in C today. ..."
Oct 13, 2019 | www.quora.com

Eugene Miya , A friend/colleague. Sometimes driver. Other shared experiences. Updated Mar 22 2017 · Author has 11.2k answers and 7.9m answer views

He mostly writes in C today.

I can assure you he at least knows about Python. Guido's office at Dropbox is 1 -- 2 blocks by a backdoor gate from Don's house.

I would tend to doubt that he would use R (I've used S before as one of my stat packages). Don would probably write something for himself.

Don is not big on functional languages, so I would doubt either Haskell (sorry Paul) or LISP (but McCarthy lived just around the corner from Don; I used to drive him to meetings; actually, I've driven all 3 of us to meetings, and he got his wife an electric version of my car based on riding in my car (score one for friend's choices)). He does use emacs and he does write MLISP macros, but he believes in being closer to the hardware which is why he sticks with MMIX (and MIX) in his books.

Don't discount him learning the machine language of a given architecture.

I'm having dinner with Don and Jill and a dozen other mutual friends in 3 weeks or so (our quarterly dinner). I can ask him then, if I remember (either a calendar entry or at job). I try not to bother him with things like this. Don is well connected to the hacker community

Don's name was brought up at an undergrad architecture seminar today, but Don was not in the audience (an amazing audience; I took a photo for the collection of architects and other computer scientists in the audience (Hennessey and Patterson were talking)). I came close to biking by his house on my way back home.

We do have a mutual friend (actually, I introduced Don to my biology friend at Don's request) who arrives next week, and Don is my wine drinking proxy. So there is a chance I may see him sooner.

Steven de Rooij , Theoretical computer scientist Answered Mar 9, 2017 · Author has 4.6k answers and 7.7m answer views

Nice question :-)

Don Knuth would want to use something that’s low level, because details matter . So no Haskell; LISP is borderline. Perhaps if the Lisp machine ever had become a thing.

He’d want something with well-defined and simple semantics, so definitely no R. Python also contains quite a few strange ad hoc rules, especially in its OO and lambda features. Yes Python is easy to learn and it looks pretty, but Don doesn’t care about superficialities like that. He’d want a language whose version number is converging to a mathematical constant, which is also not in favor of R or Python.

What remains is C. Out of the five languages listed, my guess is Don would pick that one. But actually, his own old choice of Pascal suits him even better. I don’t think any languages have been invented since was written that score higher on the Knuthometer than Knuth’s own original pick.

And yes, I feel that this is actually a conclusion that bears some thinking about. 24.1k views ·

Dan Allen , I've been programming for 34 years now. Still not finished. Answered Mar 9, 2017 · Author has 4.5k answers and 1.8m answer views

In The Art of Computer Programming I think he'd do exactly what he did. He'd invent his own architecture and implement programs in an assembly language targeting that theoretical machine.

He did that for a reason because he wanted to reveal the detail of algorithms at the lowest level of detail which is machine level.

He didn't use any available languages at the time and I don't see why that would suit his purpose now. All the languages above are too high-level for his purposes.

[Oct 08, 2019] Southwest Pilots Blast Boeing in Suit for Deception and Losses from -Unsafe, Unairworthy- 737 Max -

Notable quotes:
"... The lawsuit also aggressively contests Boeing's spin that competent pilots could have prevented the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air crashes: ..."
"... When asked why Boeing did not alert pilots to the existence of the MCAS, Boeing responded that the company decided against disclosing more details due to concerns about "inundate[ing] average pilots with too much information -- and significantly more technical data -- than [they] needed or could realistically digest." ..."
"... The filing has a detailed explanation of why the addition of heavier, bigger LEAP1-B engines to the 737 airframe made the plane less stable, changed how it handled, and increased the risk of catastrophic stall. It also describes at length how Boeing ignored warning signs during the design and development process, and misrepresented the 737 Max as essentially the same as older 737s to the FAA, potential buyers, and pilots. It also has juicy bits presented in earlier media accounts but bear repeating, like: ..."
"... Then, on November 7, 2018, the FAA issued an "Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51," warning that an unsafe condition likely could exist or develop on 737 MAX aircraft. ..."
"... Moreover, unlike runaway stabilizer, MCAS disables the control column response that 737 pilots have grown accustomed to and relied upon in earlier generations of 737 aircraft. ..."
"... And making the point that to turn off MCAS all you had to do was flip two switches behind everything else on the center condole. Not exactly true, normally those switches were there to shut off power to electrically assisted trim. Ah, it one thing to shut off MCAS it's a whole other thing to shut off power to the planes trim, especially in high speed ✓ and the plane noise up ✓, and not much altitude ✓. ..."
"... Classic addiction behavior. Boeing has a major behavioral problem, the repetitive need for and irrational insistence on profit above safety all else , that is glaringly obvious to everyone except Boeing. ..."
"... In fact, Boeing 737 Chief Technical Pilot, Mark Forkner asked the FAA to delete any mention of MCAS from the pilot manual so as to further hide its existence from the public and pilots " ..."
"... This "MCAS" was always hidden from pilots? The military implemented checks on MCAS to maintain a level of pilot control. The commercial airlines did not. Commercial airlines were in thrall of every little feature that they felt would eliminate the need for pilots at all. Fell right into the automation crapification of everything. ..."
Oct 08, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

At first blush, the suit filed in Dallas by the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SwAPA) against Boeing may seem like a family feud. SWAPA is seeking an estimated $115 million for lost pilots' pay as a result of the grounding of the 34 Boeing 737 Max planes that Southwest owns and the additional 20 that Southwest had planned to add to its fleet by year end 2019. Recall that Southwest was the largest buyer of the 737 Max, followed by American Airlines. However, the damning accusations made by the pilots' union, meaning, erm, pilots, is likely to cause Boeing not just more public relations headaches, but will also give grist to suits by crash victims.

However, one reason that the Max is a sore point with the union was that it was a key leverage point in 2016 contract negotiations:

And Boeing's assurances that the 737 Max was for all practical purposes just a newer 737 factored into the pilots' bargaining stance. Accordingly, one of the causes of action is tortious interference, that Boeing interfered in the contract negotiations to the benefit of Southwest. The filing describes at length how Boeing and Southwest were highly motivated not to have the contract dispute drag on and set back the launch of the 737 Max at Southwest, its showcase buyer. The big point that the suit makes is the plane was unsafe and the pilots never would have agreed to fly it had they known what they know now.

We've embedded the compliant at the end of the post. It's colorful and does a fine job of recapping the sorry history of the development of the airplane. It has damning passages like:

Boeing concealed the fact that the 737 MAX aircraft was not airworthy because, inter alia, it incorporated a single-point failure condition -- a software/flight control logic called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System ("MCAS") -- that,if fed erroneous data from a single angle-of-attack sensor, would command the aircraft nose-down and into an unrecoverable dive without pilot input or knowledge.

The lawsuit also aggressively contests Boeing's spin that competent pilots could have prevented the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air crashes:

Had SWAPA known the truth about the 737 MAX aircraft in 2016, it never would have approved the inclusion of the 737 MAX aircraft as a term in its CBA [collective bargaining agreement], and agreed to operate the aircraft for Southwest. Worse still, had SWAPA known the truth about the 737 MAX aircraft, it would have demanded that Boeing rectify the aircraft's fatal flaws before agreeing to include the aircraft in its CBA, and to provide its pilots, and all pilots, with the necessary information and training needed to respond to the circumstances that the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 pilots encountered nearly three years later.

And (boldface original):

Boeing Set SWAPA Pilots Up to Fail

As SWAPA President Jon Weaks, publicly stated, SWAPA pilots "were kept in the dark" by Boeing.

Boeing did not tell SWAPA pilots that MCAS existed and there was no description or mention of MCAS in the Boeing Flight Crew Operations Manual.

There was therefore no way for commercial airline pilots, including SWAPA pilots, to know that MCAS would work in the background to override pilot inputs.

There was no way for them to know that MCAS drew on only one of two angle of attack sensors on the aircraft.

And there was no way for them to know of the terrifying consequences that would follow from a malfunction.

When asked why Boeing did not alert pilots to the existence of the MCAS, Boeing responded that the company decided against disclosing more details due to concerns about "inundate[ing] average pilots with too much information -- and significantly more technical data -- than [they] needed or could realistically digest."

SWAPA's pilots, like their counterparts all over the world, were set up for failure

The filing has a detailed explanation of why the addition of heavier, bigger LEAP1-B engines to the 737 airframe made the plane less stable, changed how it handled, and increased the risk of catastrophic stall. It also describes at length how Boeing ignored warning signs during the design and development process, and misrepresented the 737 Max as essentially the same as older 737s to the FAA, potential buyers, and pilots. It also has juicy bits presented in earlier media accounts but bear repeating, like:

By March 2016, Boeing settled on a revision of the MCAS flight control logic.

However, Boeing chose to omit key safeguards that had previously been included in earlier iterations of MCAS used on the Boeing KC-46A Pegasus, a military tanker derivative of the Boeing 767 aircraft.

The engineers who created MCAS for the military tanker designed the system to rely on inputs from multiple sensors and with limited power to move the tanker's nose. These deliberate checks sought to ensure that the system could not act erroneously or cause a pilot to lose control. Those familiar with the tanker's design explained that these checks were incorporated because "[y]ou don't want the solution to be worse than the initial problem."

The 737 MAX version of MCAS abandoned the safeguards previously relied upon. As discussed below, the 737 MAX MCAS had greater control authority than its predecessor, activated repeatedly upon activation, and relied on input from just one of the plane's two sensors that measure the angle of the plane's nose.

In other words, Boeing can't credibly say that it didn't know better.

Here is one of the sections describing Boeing's cover-ups:

Yet Boeing's website, press releases, annual reports, public statements and statements to operators and customers, submissions to the FAA and other civil aviation authorities, and 737 MAX flight manuals made no mention of the increased stall hazard or MCAS itself.

In fact, Boeing 737 Chief Technical Pilot, Mark Forkner asked the FAA to delete any mention of MCAS from the pilot manual so as to further hide its existence from the public and pilots.

We urge you to read the complaint in full, since it contains juicy insider details, like the significance of Southwest being Boeing's 737 Max "launch partner" and what that entailed in practice, plus recounting dates and names of Boeing personnel who met with SWAPA pilots and made misrepresentations about the aircraft.

If you are time-pressed, the best MSM account is from the Seattle Times, In scathing lawsuit, Southwest pilots' union says Boeing 737 MAX was unsafe

Even though Southwest Airlines is negotiating a settlement with Boeing over losses resulting from the grounding of the 737 Max and the airline has promised to compensate the pilots, the pilots' union at a minimum apparently feels the need to put the heat on Boeing directly. After all, the union could withdraw the complaint if Southwest were to offer satisfactory compensation for the pilots' lost income. And pilots have incentives not to raise safety concerns about the planes they fly. Don't want to spook the horses, after all.

But Southwest pilots are not only the ones most harmed by Boeing's debacle but they are arguably less exposed to the downside of bad press about the 737 Max. It's business fliers who are most sensitive to the risks of the 737 Max, due to seeing the story regularly covered in the business press plus due to often being road warriors. Even though corporate customers account for only 12% of airline customers, they represent an estimated 75% of profits.

Southwest customers don't pay up for front of the bus seats. And many of them presumably value the combination of cheap travel, point to point routes between cities underserved by the majors, and close-in airports, which cut travel times. In other words, that combination of features will make it hard for business travelers who use Southwest regularly to give the airline up, even if the 737 Max gives them the willies. By contrast, premium seat passengers on American or United might find it not all that costly, in terms of convenience and ticket cost (if they are budget sensitive), to fly 737-Max-free Delta until those passengers regain confidence in the grounded plane.

Note that American Airlines' pilot union, when asked about the Southwest claim, said that it also believes its pilots deserve to be compensated for lost flying time, but they plan to obtain it through American Airlines.

If Boeing were smart, it would settle this suit quickly, but so far, Boeing has relied on bluster and denial. So your guess is as good as mine as to how long the legal arm-wrestling goes on.

Update 5:30 AM EDT : One important point that I neglected to include is that the filing also recounts, in gory detail, how Boeing went into "Blame the pilots" mode after the Lion Air crash, insisting the cause was pilot error and would therefore not happen again. Boeing made that claim on a call to all operators, including SWAPA, and then three days later in a meeting with SWAPA.

However, Boeing's actions were inconsistent with this claim. From the filing:

Then, on November 7, 2018, the FAA issued an "Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51," warning that an unsafe condition likely could exist or develop on 737 MAX aircraft.

Relying on Boeing's description of the problem, the AD directed that in the event of un-commanded nose-down stabilizer trim such as what happened during the Lion Air crash, the flight crew should comply with the Runaway Stabilizer procedure in the Operating Procedures of the 737 MAX manual.

But the AD did not provide a complete description of MCAS or the problem in 737 MAX aircraft that led to the Lion Air crash, and would lead to another crash and the 737 MAX's grounding just months later.

An MCAS failure is not like a runaway stabilizer. A runaway stabilizer has continuous un-commanded movement of the tail, whereas MCAS is not continuous and pilots (theoretically) can counter the nose-down movement, after which MCAS would move the aircraft tail down again.

Moreover, unlike runaway stabilizer, MCAS disables the control column response that 737 pilots have grown accustomed to and relied upon in earlier generations of 737 aircraft.

Even after the Lion Air crash, Boeing's description of MCAS was still insufficient to put correct its lack of disclosure as demonstrated by a second MCAS-caused crash.

We hoisted this detail because insiders were spouting in our comments section, presumably based on Boeing's patter, that the Lion Air pilots were clearly incompetent, had they only executed the well-known "runaway stabilizer," all would have been fine. Needless to say, this assertion has been shown to be incorrect.


Titus , October 8, 2019 at 4:38 am

Excellent, by any standard. Which does remind of of the NYT zine story (William Langewiesche Published Sept. 18, 2019) making the claim that basically the pilots who crashed their planes weren't real "Airman".

And making the point that to turn off MCAS all you had to do was flip two switches behind everything else on the center condole. Not exactly true, normally those switches were there to shut off power to electrically assisted trim. Ah, it one thing to shut off MCAS it's a whole other thing to shut off power to the planes trim, especially in high speed ✓ and the plane noise up ✓, and not much altitude ✓.

And especially if you as a pilot didn't know MCAS was there in the first place. This sort of engineering by Boeing is criminal. And the lying. To everyone. Oh, least we all forget the processing power of the in flight computer is that of a intel 286. There are times I just want to be beamed back to the home planet. Where we care for each other.

Carolinian , October 8, 2019 at 8:32 am

One should also point out that Langewiesche said that Boeing made disastrous mistakes with the MCAS and that the very future of the Max is cloudy. His article was useful both for greater detail about what happened and for offering some pushback to the idea that the pilots had nothing to do with the accidents.

As for the above, it was obvious from the first Seattle Times stories that these two events and the grounding were going to be a lawsuit magnet. But some of us think Boeing deserves at least a little bit of a defense because their side has been totally silent–either for legal reasons or CYA reasons on the part of their board and bad management.

Brooklin Bridge , October 8, 2019 at 8:08 am

Classic addiction behavior. Boeing has a major behavioral problem, the repetitive need for and irrational insistence on profit above safety all else , that is glaringly obvious to everyone except Boeing.

Summer , October 8, 2019 at 9:01 am

"The engineers who created MCAS for the military tanker designed the system to rely on inputs from multiple sensors and with limited power to move the tanker's nose. These deliberate checks sought to ensure that the system could not act erroneously or cause a pilot to lose control "

"Yet Boeing's website, press releases, annual reports, public statements and statements to operators and customers, submissions to the FAA and other civil aviation authorities, and 737 MAX flight manuals made no mention of the increased stall hazard or MCAS itself.

In fact, Boeing 737 Chief Technical Pilot, Mark Forkner asked the FAA to delete any mention of MCAS from the pilot manual so as to further hide its existence from the public and pilots "

This "MCAS" was always hidden from pilots? The military implemented checks on MCAS to maintain a level of pilot control. The commercial airlines did not. Commercial airlines were in thrall of every little feature that they felt would eliminate the need for pilots at all. Fell right into the automation crapification of everything.

[Oct 08, 2019] Serious question/Semi-Rant. What the hell is DevOps supposed to be and how does it affect me as a sysadmin in higher ed?

Notable quotes:
"... Additionally, what does Chef, Puppet, Docker, Kubernetes, Jenkins, or whatever else have to offer me? ..."
"... So what does DevOps have to do with what I do in my job? I'm legitimately trying to learn, but it gets so overwhelming trying to find information because everything I find just assumes you're a software developer with all this prerequisite knowledge. Additionally, how the hell do you find the time to learn all of this? It seems like new DevOps software or platforms or whatever you call them spin up every single month. I'm already in the middle of trying to learn JAMF (macOS/iOS administration), Junos, Dell, and Brocade for network administration (in addition to networking concepts in general), and AV design stuff (like Crestron programming). ..."
Oct 08, 2019 | www.reddit.com

Posted by u/kevbo423 59 minutes ago

What the hell is DevOps? Every couple months I find myself trying to look into it as all I ever hear and see about is DevOps being the way forward. But each time I research it I can only find things talking about streamlining software updates and quality assurance and yada yada yada. It seems like DevOps only applies to companies that make software as a product. How does that affect me as a sysadmin for higher education? My "company's" product isn't software.

Additionally, what does Chef, Puppet, Docker, Kubernetes, Jenkins, or whatever else have to offer me? Again, when I try to research them a majority of what I find just links back to software development.

To give a rough idea of what I deal with, below is a list of my three main responsibilities.

  1. macOS/iOS Systems Administration (I'm the only sysadmin that does this for around 150+ machines)

  2. Network Administration (I just started with this a couple months ago and I'm slowly learning about our infrastructure and network administration in general from our IT director. We have several buildings spread across our entire campus with a mixture of Juniper, Dell, and Brocade equipment.)

  3. AV Systems Design and Programming (I'm the only person who does anything related to video conferencing, meeting room equipment, presentation systems, digital signage, etc. for 7 buildings.)

So what does DevOps have to do with what I do in my job? I'm legitimately trying to learn, but it gets so overwhelming trying to find information because everything I find just assumes you're a software developer with all this prerequisite knowledge. Additionally, how the hell do you find the time to learn all of this? It seems like new DevOps software or platforms or whatever you call them spin up every single month. I'm already in the middle of trying to learn JAMF (macOS/iOS administration), Junos, Dell, and Brocade for network administration (in addition to networking concepts in general), and AV design stuff (like Crestron programming).

I've been working at the same job for 5 years and I feel like I'm being left in the dust by the entire rest of the industry. I'm being pulled in so many different directions that I feel like it's impossible for me to ever get another job. At the same time, I can't specialize in anything because I have so many different unrelated areas I'm supposed to be doing work in.

And this is what I go through/ask myself every few months I try to research and learn DevOps. This is mainly a rant, but I am more than open to any and all advice anyone is willing to offer. Thanks in advance.

kimvila 2 points · 27 minutes ago

· edited 23 minutes ago

there's a lot of tools that can be used to make your life much easier that's used on a daily basis for DevOps, but apparently that's not the case for you. when you manage infra as code, you're using DevOps.

there's a lot of space for operations guys like you (and me) so look to DevOps as an alternative source of knowledge, just to stay tuned on the trends of the industry and improve your skills.

for higher education, this is useful for managing large projects and looking for improvement during the development of the product/service itself. but again, that's not the case for you. if you intend to switch to another position, you may try to search for a certification program that suits your needs

Mongoloid_the_Retard 0 points · 46 minutes ago

DevOps is a cult.

[Oct 08, 2019] FALLACIES AND PITFALLS OF OO PROGRAMMING by David Hoag and Anthony Sintes

Notable quotes:
"... In the programming world, the term silver bullet refers to a technology or methodology that is touted as the ultimate cure for all programming challenges. A silver bullet will make you more productive. It will automatically make design, code and the finished product perfect. It will also make your coffee and butter your toast. Even more impressive, it will do all of this without any effort on your part! ..."
"... Naturally (and unfortunately) the silver bullet does not exist. Object-oriented technologies are not, and never will be, the ultimate panacea. Object-oriented approaches do not eliminate the need for well-planned design and architecture. ..."
"... OO will insure the success of your project: An object-oriented approach to software development does not guarantee the automatic success of a project. A developer cannot ignore the importance of sound design and architecture. Only careful analysis and a complete understanding of the problem will make the project succeed. A successful project will utilize sound techniques, competent programmers, sound processes and solid project management. ..."
"... OO technologies might incur penalties: In general, programs written using object-oriented techniques are larger and slower than programs written using other techniques. ..."
"... OO techniques are not appropriate for all problems: An OO approach is not an appropriate solution for every situation. Don't try to put square pegs through round holes! Understand the challenges fully before attempting to design a solution. As you gain experience, you will begin to learn when and where it is appropriate to use OO technologies to address a given problem. Careful problem analysis and cost/benefit analysis go a long way in protecting you from making a mistake. ..."
Apr 27, 2000 | www.chicagotribune.com

"Hooked on Objects" is dedicated to providing readers with insight into object-oriented technologies. In our first few articles, we introduced the three tenants of object-oriented programming: encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism. We then covered software process and design patterns. We even got our hands dirty and dissected the Java class.

Each of our previous articles had a common thread. We have written about the strengths and benefits of the object paradigm and highlighted the advantages the object approach brings to the development effort. However, we do not want to give anyone a false sense that object-oriented techniques are always the perfect answer. Object-oriented techniques are not the magic "silver bullets" of programming.

In the programming world, the term silver bullet refers to a technology or methodology that is touted as the ultimate cure for all programming challenges. A silver bullet will make you more productive. It will automatically make design, code and the finished product perfect. It will also make your coffee and butter your toast. Even more impressive, it will do all of this without any effort on your part!

Naturally (and unfortunately) the silver bullet does not exist. Object-oriented technologies are not, and never will be, the ultimate panacea. Object-oriented approaches do not eliminate the need for well-planned design and architecture.

If anything, using OO makes design and architecture more important because without a clear, well-planned design, OO will fail almost every time. Spaghetti code (that which is written without a coherent structure) spells trouble for procedural programming, and weak architecture and design can mean the death of an OO project. A poorly planned system will fail to achieve the promises of OO: increased productivity, reusability, scalability and easier maintenance.

Some critics claim OO has not lived up to its advance billing, while others claim its techniques are flawed. OO isn't flawed, but some of the hype has given OO developers and managers a false sense of security.

Successful OO requires careful analysis and design. Our previous articles have stressed the positive attributes of OO. This time we'll explore some of the common fallacies of this promising technology and some of the potential pitfalls.

Fallacies of OO

It is important to have realistic expectations before choosing to use object-oriented technologies. Do not allow these common fallacies to mislead you.

OO Pitfalls

Life is full of compromise and nothing comes without cost. OO is no exception. Before choosing to employ object technologies it is imperative to understand this. When used properly, OO has many benefits; when used improperly, however, the results can be disastrous.

OO technologies take time to learn: Don't expect to become an OO expert overnight. Good OO takes time and effort to learn. Like all technologies, change is the only constant. If you do not continue to enhance and strengthen your skills, you will fall behind.

OO benefits might not pay off in the short term: Because of the long learning curve and initial extra development costs, the benefits of increased productivity and reuse might take time to materialize. Don't forget this or you might be disappointed in your initial OO results.

OO technologies might not fit your corporate culture: The successful application of OO requires that your development team feels involved. If developers are frequently shifted, they will struggle to deliver reusable objects. There's less incentive to deliver truly robust, reusable code if you are not required to live with your work or if you'll never reap the benefits of it.

OO technologies might incur penalties: In general, programs written using object-oriented techniques are larger and slower than programs written using other techniques. This isn't as much of a problem today. Memory prices are dropping every day. CPUs continue to provide better performance and compilers and virtual machines continue to improve. The small efficiency that you trade for increased productivity and reuse should be well worth it. However, if you're developing an application that tracks millions of data points in real time, OO might not be the answer for you.

OO techniques are not appropriate for all problems: An OO approach is not an appropriate solution for every situation. Don't try to put square pegs through round holes! Understand the challenges fully before attempting to design a solution. As you gain experience, you will begin to learn when and where it is appropriate to use OO technologies to address a given problem. Careful problem analysis and cost/benefit analysis go a long way in protecting you from making a mistake.

What do you need to do to avoid these pitfalls and fallacies? The answer is to keep expectations realistic. Beware of the hype. Use an OO approach only when appropriate.

Programmers should not feel compelled to use every OO trick that the implementation language offers. It is wise to use only the ones that make sense. When used without forethought, object-oriented techniques could cause more harm than good. Of course, there is one other thing that you should always do to improve your OO: Don't miss a single installment of "Hooked on Objects."

David Hoag is vice president-development and chief object guru for ObjectWave, a Chicago-based object-oriented software engineering firm. Anthony Sintes is a Sun Certified Java Developer and team member specializing in telecommunications consulting for ObjectWave. Contact them at hob@objectwave.com or visit their Web site at www.objectwave.com.

BOOKMARKS

Hooked on Objects archive:

chicagotribune.com/go/HOBarchive

Associated message board:

chicagotribune.com/go/HOBtalk

[Oct 07, 2019] Pitfalls of Object Oriented Programming by Tony Albrecht - Technical Consultant

This isn't a general discussion of OO pitfalls and conceptual weaknesses, but a discussion of how conventional 'textbook' OO design approaches can lead to inefficient use of cache & RAM, especially on consoles or other hardware-constrained environments. But it's still good.
Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Research & Development Division

OO is not necessarily EVIL

Its all about the memory

Homogeneity

Data Oriented Design Delivers

[Oct 06, 2019] Weird Al Yankovic - Mission Statement

Highly recommended!
This song seriously streamlined my workflow.
Oct 06, 2019 | www.youtube.com

FanmaR , 4 years ago

Props to the artist who actually found a way to visualize most of this meaningless corporate lingo. I'm sure it wasn't easy to come up with everything.

Maxwelhse , 3 years ago

He missed "sea change" and "vertical integration". Otherwise, that was pretty much all of the useless corporate meetings I've ever attended distilled down to 4.5 minutes. Oh, and you're getting laid off and/or no raises this year.

VenetianTemper , 4 years ago

From my experiences as an engineer, never trust a company that describes their product with the word "synergy".

Swag Mcfresh , 5 years ago

For those too young to get the joke, this is a style parody of Crosby, Stills & Nash, a folk-pop super-group from the 60's. They were hippies who spoke out against corporate interests, war, and politics. Al took their sound (flawlessly), and wrote a song in corporate jargon (the exact opposite of everything CSN was about). It's really brilliant, to those who get the joke.

112steinway , 4 years ago

Only in corporate speak can you use a whole lot of words while saying nothing at all.

Jonathan Ingersoll , 3 years ago

As a business major this is basically every essay I wrote.

A.J. Collins , 3 years ago

"The company has undergone organization optimization due to our strategy modification, which includes empowering the support to the operation in various global markets" - Red 5 on why they laid off 40 people suddenly. Weird Al would be proud.

meanmanturbo , 3 years ago

So this is basically a Dilbert strip turned into a song. I approve.

zyxwut321 , 4 years ago

In his big long career this has to be one of the best songs Weird Al's ever done. Very ambitious rendering of one of the most ambitious songs in pop music history.

teenygozer , 3 years ago

This should be played before corporate meetings to shame anyone who's about to get up and do the usual corporate presentation. Genius as usual, Mr. Yankovic!

Dunoid , 4 years ago

Maybe I'm too far gone to the world of computer nerds, but "Cloud Computing" seems like it should have been in the song somewhere.

Snoo Lee , 4 years ago

The "paradigm shift" at the end of the video / song is when the corporation screws everybody at the end. Brilliantly done, Al.

A Piece Of Bread , 3 years ago

Don't forget to triangulate the automatonic business monetizer to create exceptional synergy.

GeoffryHawk , 3 years ago

There's a quote it goes something like: A politician is someone who speaks for hours while saying nothing at all. And this is exactly it and it's brilliant.

Sefie Ezephiel , 4 months ago

From the current Gamestop earnings call "address the challenges that have impacted our results, and execute both deliberately and with urgency. We believe we will transform the business and shape the strategy for the GameStop of the future. This will be driven by our go-forward leadership team that is now in place, a multi-year transformation effort underway, a commitment to focusing on the core elements of our business that are meaningful to our future, and a disciplined approach to capital allocation."" yeah Weird Al totally nailed it

Phil H , 6 months ago

"People who enjoy meetings should not be put in charge of anything." -Thomas Sowell

Laff , 3 years ago

I heard "monetize our asses" for some reason...

Brett Naylor , 4 years ago

Excuse me, but "proactive" and "paradigm"? Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important? Not that I'm accusing you of anything like that. [pause] I'm fired, aren't I?~George Meyer

Mark Kahn , 4 years ago

Brilliant social commentary, on how the height of 60's optimism was bastardized into corporate enthusiasm. I hope SteveJjobs got to see this.

Mark , 4 years ago

That's the strangest "Draw My Life" I've ever seen.

Δ , 17 hours ago

I watch this at least once a day to take the edge of my job search whenever I have to decipher fifteen daily want-ads claiming to seek "Hospitality Ambassadors", "Customer Satisfaction Specialists", "Brand Representatives" and "Team Commitment Associates" eventually to discover they want someone to run a cash register and sweep up.

Mike The SandbridgeKid , 5 years ago

The irony is a song about Corporate Speak in the style of tie-died, hippie-dippy CSN (+/- )Y four-part harmony. Suite Judy Blue Eyes via Almost Cut My Hair filtered through Carry On. "Fantastic" middle finger to Wall Street,The City, and the monstrous excesses of Unbridled Capitalism.

Geetar Bear , 4 years ago (edited)

This reminds me of George carlin so much

Vaugn Ripen , 2 years ago

If you understand who and what he's taking a jab at, this is one of the greatest songs and videos of all time. So spot on. This and Frank's 2000 inch tv are my favorite songs of yours. Thanks Al!

Joolz Godfree , 4 years ago

hahaha, "Client-Centric Solutions...!" (or in my case at the time, 'Customer-Centric' solutions) now THAT's a term i haven't heard/read/seen in years, since last being an office drone. =D

Miles Lacey , 4 years ago

When I interact with this musical visual medium I am motivated to conceptualize how the English language can be better compartmentalized to synergize with the client-centric requirements of the microcosmic community focussed social entities that I administrate on social media while interfacing energetically about the inherent shortcomings of the current socio-economic and geo-political order in which we co-habitate. Now does this tedium flow in an effortless stream of coherent verbalisations capable of comprehension?

Soufriere , 5 years ago

When I bought "Mandatory Fun", put it in my car, and first heard this song, I busted a gut, laughing so hard I nearly crashed. All the corporate buzzwords! (except "pivot", apparently).

[Oct 06, 2019] Devop created huge opportunities for a new generation of snake oil salesman

Highly recommended!
Oct 06, 2019 | www.reddit.com

DragonDrew Jack of All Trades 772 points · 4 days ago

"I am resolute in my ability to elevate this collaborative, forward-thinking team into the revenue powerhouse that I believe it can be. We will transition into a DevOps team specialising in migrating our existing infrastructure entirely to code and go completely serverless!" - CFO that outsources IT level 2 OpenScore Sysadmin 527 points · 4 days ago

"We will utilize Artificial Intelligence, machine learning, Cloud technologies, python, data science and blockchain to achieve business value"

[Oct 05, 2019] Sick and tired of listening to these so called architects and full stack developers who watch bunch of videos on YouTube and Pluralsight, find articles online. They go around workplace throwing words like containers, devops, NoOps, azure, infrastructure as code, serverless, etc, but they don t understand half of the stuff

Devop created a new generation of bullsheeters
Oct 05, 2019 | www.reddit.com

They say, No more IT or system or server admins needed very soon...

Sick and tired of listening to these so called architects and full stack developers who watch bunch of videos on YouTube and Pluralsight, find articles online. They go around workplace throwing words like containers, devops, NoOps, azure, infrastructure as code, serverless, etc, they don't understand half of the stuff. I do some of the devops tasks in our company, I understand what it takes to implement and manage these technologies. Every meeting is infested with these A holes.

ntengineer 613 points · 4 days ago

Your best defense against these is to come up with non-sarcastic and quality questions to ask these people during the meeting, and watch them not have a clue how to answer them.

For example, a friend of mine worked at a smallish company, some manager really wanted to move more of their stuff into Azure including AD and Exchange environment. But they had common problems with their internet connection due to limited bandwidth and them not wanting to spend more. So during a meeting my friend asked a question something like this:

"You said on this slide that moving the AD environment and Exchange environment to Azure will save us money. Did you take into account that we will need to increase our internet speed by a factor of at least 4 in order to accommodate the increase in traffic going out to the Azure cloud? "

Of course, they hadn't. So the CEO asked my friend if he had the numbers, which he had already done his homework, and it was a significant increase in cost every month and taking into account the cost for Azure and the increase in bandwidth wiped away the manager's savings.

I know this won't work for everyone. Sometimes there is real savings in moving things to the cloud. But often times there really isn't. Calling the uneducated people out on what they see as facts can be rewarding. level 2

PuzzledSwitch 101 points · 4 days ago

my previous boss was that kind of a guy. he waited till other people were done throwing their weight around in a meeting and then calmly and politely dismantled them with facts.

no amount of corporate pressuring or bitching could ever stand up to that. level 3

themastermatt 42 points · 4 days ago

Ive been trying to do this. Problem is that everyone keeps talking all the way to the end of the meeting leaving no room for rational facts. level 4 PuzzledSwitch 35 points · 4 days ago

make a follow-up in email, then.

or, you might have to interject for a moment.

williamfny Jack of All Trades 26 points · 4 days ago

This is my approach. I don't yell or raise my voice, I just wait. Then I start asking questions that they generally cannot answer and slowly take them apart. I don't have to be loud to get my point across. level 4

MaxHedrome 6 points · 4 days ago

Listen to this guy OP

This tactic is called "the box game". Just continuously ask them logical questions that can't be answered with their stupidity. (Box them in), let them be their own argument against themselves.

CrazyTachikoma 4 days ago

Most DevOps I've met are devs trying to bypass the sysadmins. This, and the Cloud fad, are burning serious amount of money from companies managed by stupid people that get easily impressed by PR stunts and shiny conferences. Then when everything goes to shit, they call the infrastructure team to fix it...

[Oct 01, 2019] Being a woman in programming in the Soviet Union Vicki Boykis

Oct 01, 2019 | veekaybee.github.io

In 1976, after eight years in the Soviet education system, I graduated the equivalent of middle school. Afterwards, I could choose to go for two more years, which would earn me a high school diploma, and then do three years of college, which would get me a diploma in "higher education."

Or, I could go for the equivalent of a blend of an associate and bachelor's degree, with an emphasis on vocational skills. This option took four years.

I went with the second option, mainly because it was common knowledge in the Soviet Union at the time that there was a restrictive quota for Jews applying to the five-year college program, which almost certainly meant that I, as a Jew, wouldn't get in. I didn't want to risk it.

My best friend at the time proposed that we take the entrance exams to attend Nizhniy Novgorod Industrial and Economic College. (At that time, it was known as Gorky Industrial and Economic College - the city, originally named for famous poet Maxim Gorky, was renamed in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union.)

They had a program called "Programming for high-speed computing machines." Since I got good grades in math and geometry, this looked like I'd be able to get in. It also didn't hurt that my aunt, a very good seamstress and dressmaker, sewed several dresses specifically for the school's chief accountant, who was involved in enrollment decisions. So I got in.

What's interesting is that from the almost sixty students accepted into the program that year, all of them were female. It was the same for the class before us, and for the class after us. Later, after I started working the Soviet Union, and even in the United States in the early 1990s, I understood that this was a trend. I'd say that 70% of the programmers I encountered in the IT industry were female. The males were mostly in middle and upper management.

image

My mom's code notebook, with her name and "Macroassembler" on it.

We started what would be considered our major concentration courses during the second year. Along with programming, there were a lot of related classes: "Computing Appliances and Their Organization", "Electro Technology", "Algorithms of Numerical Methods," and a lot of math that included integral and differential calculations. But programming was the main course, and we spent the most hours on it.

image

Notes on programming - Heading is "Directives (Commands) for job control implementation", covering the ABRT command

In the programming classes, we studied programming the "dry" way: using paper, pencil and eraser. In fact, this method was so important that students who forgot their pencils were sent to the main office to ask for one. It was extremely embarrassing, and we learned quickly not to forget them.

image

Paper and pencil code for opening a file in Macroassembler

Every semester we would take a new programming language to learn. We learned Algol, Fortran,and PL/1. We would learn from simplest commands to loop organization, function and sub-function programming, multi-dimensional array processing, and more.

After mastering the basics, we would take exams, which were logical computing tasks to code in this specific language.

At some point midway through the program, our school bought the very first physical computer I ever saw : the Nairi. The programming language was AP, which was one of the few computer languages with Russian keywords.

Then, we started taking labs. It was terrifying experience. You had to type your program in entering device which basically was a typewriter connected to a huge computer. The programs looked like step-by-step instructions, and if you made even one mistake you had to start all over again. To code a solution for a linear algebraic equation usually would take 10 - 12 steps.

image

Program output in Macroassembler ("I was so creative with my program names," jokes my mom.)

Our teacher used to go for one week of "practice work and curriculum development," to a serious IT shop with more advanced machines every once in a while. At that time, the heavy computing power was in the ES Series, produced by Soviet bloc countries.

These machines were clones of the IBM 360. They worked with punch cards and punch tapes. She would bring back tons of papers with printed code and debugging comments for us to learn in classroom.

After two and half years of rigorous study using pencil and paper, we had six months of practice. Most of the time it was one of several scientific research institutes existed in Nizhny Novgorod. I went to an institute that was oriented towards the auto industry.

I graduate with title "Programmer-Technician". Most of the girls from my class took computer operator jobs, but I did not want to settle. I continued my education at Lobachevsky State University , named after Lobachevsky , the famous Russian mathematician. Since I was taking evening classes, it took me six years to graduate.

I wrote a lot about my first college because now looking back I realize that this is where I really learned to code and developed my programming skills. At the State University, we took a huge amount of unnecessary courses. The only useful one was professional English. After this course I could read technical documentation in English without issues.

My final university degree was equivalent to a US master's in Computer Science. The actual major was called "Computational Mathematics and Cybernetics".

In total I worked for about seven years in the USSR as computer programmer, from 1982 to 1989. Technology changed rapidly, even there. I started out writing programs on special blanks for punch card machines using a Russian version of Assembler. To maximize performance, we would leave stacks of our punch cards for nightly processing.

After a couple years, we got terminals with keyboards. First they were installed in the same room where main computer was. Initially, there were not enough terminals and "machine time" was evenly divided between all of the programmers during the day.

Then, the terminals started to appear in the same room where programmers were. The displays were small, with black background and green font. We were now working in the terminal.

The languages were also changing. I switched to C and had to get hands-on training. I did not know then, but I picked profession where things are constantly moving. The most I've ever worked with the same software was for about three years.

In 1991, we emigrated to the States. I had to quit my job two years before to avoid any issues with the Soviet government. Every programmer I knew had to sign a special form commanding them to keep state secrets. Such a signature could prevent us from getting exit visas.

When I arrived in the US, I worried I had fallen behind. To refresh my skills and to become more marketable, I had to take programming course for six months. It was the then-popular mix of COBOL, DB2, JCL etc.

The main differences between USA and the USSR was the level at which computers were incorporated in every day life. In the USSR, they were still a novelty. There were not a lot of practical usage. Some of the reasons were planed organization of economy, politicized approach to science. Cybernetics was considered "capitalist" discovery and was in exile in 1950s. In the United States, computers were already widely in use, and even in consumer settings.

The other difference is gender of this profession. In the United States, it is more male-dominated. In Russia as I was starting my professional life, it was considered more of a female occupation. In both programs I studied , girls represented 100% of the class. Guys would go for something that was considered more masculine. These choices included majors like construction engineering and mechanical engineering.

Now, things have changed in Russia. Average salary for software developer in Moscow is around $21K annually, versus $10K average salary for Russia as a whole. It, like in the United States, has become a male-dominated field.

In conclusion, I have to say I picked the good profession to be in. Although I constantly have to learn new things, I've never had to worry about being employed. When I did go through a layoff, I was able to find a job very quickly. It is also a good paying job. I was very lucky compared to other immigrants, who had to study programming from scratch.

[Sep 21, 2019] Dr. Dobb's Journal February 1998 A Conversation with Larry Wall

Perl is unique complex non-orthogonal language and due to this it has unique level of expressiveness.
Also the complexity of Perl to a large extent reflect the complexity of Perl environment (which is Unix environment at the beginning, but now also Windows environment with its quirks)
Notable quotes:
"... On a syntactic level, in the particular case of Perl, I placed variable names in a separate namespace from reserved words. That's one of the reasons there are funny characters on the front of variable names -- dollar signs and so forth. That allowed me to add new reserved words without breaking old programs. ..."
"... A script is something that is easy to tweak, and a program is something that is locked in. There are all sorts of metaphorical tie-ins that tend to make programs static and scripts dynamic, but of course, it's a continuum. You can write Perl programs, and you can write C scripts. People do talk more about Perl programs than C scripts. Maybe that just means Perl is more versatile. ..."
"... A good language actually gives you a range, a wide dynamic range, of your level of discipline. We're starting to move in that direction with Perl. The initial Perl was lackadaisical about requiring things to be defined or declared or what have you. Perl 5 has some declarations that you can use if you want to increase your level of discipline. But it's optional. So you can say "use strict," or you can turn on warnings, or you can do various sorts of declarations. ..."
"... But Perl was an experiment in trying to come up with not a large language -- not as large as English -- but a medium-sized language, and to try to see if, by adding certain kinds of complexity from natural language, the expressiveness of the language grew faster than the pain of using it. And, by and large, I think that experiment has been successful. ..."
"... If you used the regular expression in a list context, it will pass back a list of the various subexpressions that it matched. A different computer language may add regular expressions, even have a module that's called Perl 5 regular expressions, but it won't be integrated into the language. You'll have to jump through an extra hoop, take that right angle turn, in order to say, "Okay, well here, now apply the regular expression, now let's pull the things out of the regular expression," rather than being able to use the thing in a particular context and have it do something meaningful. ..."
"... A language is not a set of syntax rules. It is not just a set of semantics. It's the entire culture surrounding the language itself. So part of the cultural context in which you analyze a language includes all the personalities and people involved -- how everybody sees the language, how they propagate the language to other people, how it gets taught, the attitudes of people who are helping each other learn the language -- all of this goes into the pot of context. ..."
"... In the beginning, I just tried to help everybody. Particularly being on USENET. You know, there are even some sneaky things in there -- like looking for people's Perl questions in many different newsgroups. For a long time, I resisted creating a newsgroup for Perl, specifically because I did not want it to be ghettoized. You know, if someone can say, "Oh, this is a discussion about Perl, take it over to the Perl newsgroup," then they shut off the discussion in the shell newsgroup. If there are only the shell newsgroups, and someone says, "Oh, by the way, in Perl, you can solve it like this," that's free advertising. So, it's fuzzy. We had proposed Perl as a newsgroup probably a year or two before we actually created it. It eventually came to the point where the time was right for it, and we did that. ..."
"... For most web applications, Perl is severely underutilized. Your typical CGI script says print, print, print, print, print, print, print. But in a sense, it's the dynamic range of Perl that allows for that. You don't have to say a whole lot to write a simple Perl script, whereas your minimal Java program is, you know, eight or ten lines long anyway. Many of the features that made it competitive in the UNIX space will make it competitive in other spaces. ..."
"... Over the years, much of the work of making Perl work for people has been in designing ways for people to come to Perl. I actually delayed the first version of Perl for a couple of months until I had a sed-to-Perl and an awk-to-Perl translator. One of the benefits of borrowing features from various other languages is that those subsets of Perl that use those features are familiar to people coming from that other culture. What would be best, in my book, is if someone had a way of saying, "Well, I've got this thing in Visual Basic. Now, can I just rewrite some of these things in Perl?" ..."
Feb 28, 1998 | www.ddj.com

... ... ...

The creator of Perl talks about language design and Perl. By Eugene Eric Kim

DDJ : Is Perl 5.005 what you envisioned Perl to be when you set out to do it?

LW: That assumes that I'm smart enough to envision something as complicated as Perl. I knew that Perl would be good at some things, and would be good at more things as time went on. So, in a sense, I'm sort of blessed with natural stupidity -- as opposed to artificial intelligence -- in the sense that I know what my intellectual limits are.

I'm not one of these people who can sit down and design an entire system from scratch and figure out how everything relates to everything else, so I knew from the start that I had to take the bear-of-very-little-brain approach, and design the thing to evolve. But that fit in with my background in linguistics, because natural languages evolve over time.

You can apply biological metaphors to languages. They move into niches, and as new needs arise, languages change over time. It's actually a practical way to design a computer language. Not all computer programs can be designed that way, but I think more can be designed that way than have been. A lot of the majestic failures that have occurred in computer science have been because people thought they could design the whole thing in advance.

DDJ : How do you design a language to evolve?

LW: There are several aspects to that, depending on whether you are talking about syntax or semantics. On a syntactic level, in the particular case of Perl, I placed variable names in a separate namespace from reserved words. That's one of the reasons there are funny characters on the front of variable names -- dollar signs and so forth. That allowed me to add new reserved words without breaking old programs.

DDJ : What is a scripting language? Does Perl fall into the category of a scripting language?

LW: Well, being a linguist, I tend to go back to the etymological meanings of "script" and "program," though, of course, that's fallacious in terms of what they mean nowadays. A script is what you hand to the actors, and a program is what you hand to the audience. Now hopefully, the program is already locked in by the time you hand that out, whereas the script is something you can tinker with. I think of phrases like "following the script," or "breaking from the script." The notion that you can evolve your script ties into the notion of rapid prototyping.

A script is something that is easy to tweak, and a program is something that is locked in. There are all sorts of metaphorical tie-ins that tend to make programs static and scripts dynamic, but of course, it's a continuum. You can write Perl programs, and you can write C scripts. People do talk more about Perl programs than C scripts. Maybe that just means Perl is more versatile.

... ... ...

DDJ : Would that be a better distinction than interpreted versus compiled -- run-time versus compile-time binding?

LW: It's a more useful distinction in many ways because, with late-binding languages like Perl or Java, you cannot make up your mind about what the real meaning of it is until the last moment. But there are different definitions of what the last moment is. Computer scientists would say there are really different "latenesses" of binding.

A good language actually gives you a range, a wide dynamic range, of your level of discipline. We're starting to move in that direction with Perl. The initial Perl was lackadaisical about requiring things to be defined or declared or what have you. Perl 5 has some declarations that you can use if you want to increase your level of discipline. But it's optional. So you can say "use strict," or you can turn on warnings, or you can do various sorts of declarations.

DDJ : Would it be accurate to say that Perl doesn't enforce good design?

LW: No, it does not. It tries to give you some tools to help if you want to do that, but I'm a firm believer that a language -- whether it's a natural language or a computer language -- ought to be an amoral artistic medium.

You can write pretty poems or you can write ugly poems, but that doesn't say whether English is pretty or ugly. So, while I kind of like to see beautiful computer programs, I don't think the chief virtue of a language is beauty. That's like asking an artist whether they use beautiful paints and a beautiful canvas and a beautiful palette. A language should be a medium of expression, which does not restrict your feeling unless you ask it to.

DDJ : Where does the beauty of a program lie? In the underlying algorithms, in the syntax of the description?

LW: Well, there are many different definitions of artistic beauty. It can be argued that it's symmetry, which in a computer language might be considered orthogonality. It's also been argued that broken symmetry is what is considered most beautiful and most artistic and diverse. Symmetry breaking is the root of our whole universe according to physicists, so if God is an artist, then maybe that's his definition of what beauty is.

This actually ties back in with the built-to-evolve concept on the semantic level. A lot of computer languages were defined to be naturally orthogonal, or at least the computer scientists who designed them were giving lip service to orthogonality. And that's all very well if you're trying to define a position in a space. But that's not how people think. It's not how natural languages work. Natural languages are not orthogonal, they're diagonal. They give you hypotenuses.

Suppose you're flying from California to Quebec. You don't fly due east, and take a left turn over Nashville, and then go due north. You fly straight, more or less, from here to there. And it's a network. And it's actually sort of a fractal network, where your big link is straight, and you have little "fractally" things at the end for your taxi and bicycle and whatever the mode of transport you use. Languages work the same way. And they're designed to get you most of the way here, and then have ways of refining the additional shades of meaning.

When they first built the University of California at Irvine campus, they just put the buildings in. They did not put any sidewalks, they just planted grass. The next year, they came back and built the sidewalks where the trails were in the grass. Perl is that kind of a language. It is not designed from first principles. Perl is those sidewalks in the grass. Those trails that were there before were the previous computer languages that Perl has borrowed ideas from. And Perl has unashamedly borrowed ideas from many, many different languages. Those paths can go diagonally. We want shortcuts. Sometimes we want to be able to do the orthogonal thing, so Perl generally allows the orthogonal approach also. But it also allows a certain number of shortcuts, and being able to insert those shortcuts is part of that evolutionary thing.

I don't want to claim that this is the only way to design a computer language, or that everyone is going to actually enjoy a computer language that is designed in this way. Obviously, some people speak other languages. But Perl was an experiment in trying to come up with not a large language -- not as large as English -- but a medium-sized language, and to try to see if, by adding certain kinds of complexity from natural language, the expressiveness of the language grew faster than the pain of using it. And, by and large, I think that experiment has been successful.

DDJ : Give an example of one of the things you think is expressive about Perl that you wouldn't find in other languages.

LW: The fact that regular-expression parsing and the use of regular expressions is built right into the language. If you used the regular expression in a list context, it will pass back a list of the various subexpressions that it matched. A different computer language may add regular expressions, even have a module that's called Perl 5 regular expressions, but it won't be integrated into the language. You'll have to jump through an extra hoop, take that right angle turn, in order to say, "Okay, well here, now apply the regular expression, now let's pull the things out of the regular expression," rather than being able to use the thing in a particular context and have it do something meaningful.

The school of linguistics I happened to come up through is called tagmemics, and it makes a big deal about context. In a real language -- this is a tagmemic idea -- you can distinguish between what the conventional meaning of the "thing" is and how it's being used. You think of "dog" primarily as a noun, but you can use it as a verb. That's the prototypical example, but the "thing" applies at many different levels. You think of a sentence as a sentence. Transformational grammar was built on the notion of analyzing a sentence. And they had all their cute rules, and they eventually ended up throwing most of them back out again.

But in the tagmemic view, you can take a sentence as a unit and use it differently. You can say a sentence like, "I don't like your I-can-use-anything-like-a-sentence attitude." There, I've used the sentence as an adjective. The sentence isn't an adjective if you analyze it, any way you want to analyze it. But this is the way people think. If there's a way to make sense of something in a particular context, they'll do so. And Perl is just trying to make those things make sense. There's the basic distinction in Perl between singular and plural context -- call it list context and scalar context, if you will. But you can use a particular construct in a singular context that has one meaning that sort of makes sense using the list context, and it may have a different meaning that makes sense in the plural context.

That is where the expressiveness comes from. In English, you read essays by people who say, "Well, how does this metaphor thing work?" Owen Barfield talks about this. You say one thing and mean another. That's how metaphors arise. Or you take two things and jam them together. I think it was Owen Barfield, or maybe it was C.S. Lewis, who talked about "a piercing sweetness." And we know what "piercing" is, and we know what "sweetness" is, but you put those two together, and you've created a new meaning. And that's how languages ought to work.

DDJ : Is a more expressive language more difficult to learn?

LW: Yes. It was a conscious tradeoff at the beginning of Perl that it would be more difficult to master the whole language. However, taking another clue from a natural language, we do not require 5-year olds to speak with the same diction as 50-year olds. It is okay for you to use the subset of a language that you are comfortable with, and to learn as you go. This is not true of so many computer-science languages. If you program C++ in a subset that corresponds to C, you get laughed out of the office.

There's a whole subject that we haven't touched here. A language is not a set of syntax rules. It is not just a set of semantics. It's the entire culture surrounding the language itself. So part of the cultural context in which you analyze a language includes all the personalities and people involved -- how everybody sees the language, how they propagate the language to other people, how it gets taught, the attitudes of people who are helping each other learn the language -- all of this goes into the pot of context.

Because I had already put out other freeware projects (rn and patch), I realized before I ever wrote Perl that a great deal of the value of those things was from collaboration. Many of the really good ideas in rn and Perl came from other people.

I think that Perl is in its adolescence right now. There are places where it is grown up, and places where it's still throwing tantrums. I have a couple of teenagers, and the thing you notice about teenagers is that they're always plus or minus ten years from their real age. So if you've got a 15-year old, they're either acting 25 or they're acting 5. Sometimes simultaneously! And Perl is a little that way, but that's okay.

DDJ : What part of Perl isn't quite grown up?

LW: Well, I think that the part of Perl, which has not been realistic up until now has been on the order of how you enable people in certain business situations to actually use it properly. There are a lot of people who cannot use freeware because it is, you know, schlocky. Their bosses won't let them, their government won't let them, or they think their government won't let them. There are a lot of people who, unknown to their bosses or their government, are using Perl.

DDJ : So these aren't technical issues.

LW: I suppose it depends on how you define technology. Some of it is perceptions, some of it is business models, and things like that. I'm trying to generate a new symbiosis between the commercial and the freeware interests. I think there's an artificial dividing line between those groups and that they could be more collaborative.

As a linguist, the generation of a linguistic culture is a technical issue. So, these adjustments we might make in people's attitudes toward commercial operations or in how Perl is being supported, distributed, advertised, and marketed -- not in terms of trying to make bucks, but just how we propagate the culture -- these are technical ideas in the psychological and the linguistic sense. They are, of course, not technical in the computer-science sense. But I think that's where Perl has really excelled -- its growth has not been driven solely by technical merits.

DDJ : What are the things that you do when you set out to create a culture around the software that you write?

LW: In the beginning, I just tried to help everybody. Particularly being on USENET. You know, there are even some sneaky things in there -- like looking for people's Perl questions in many different newsgroups. For a long time, I resisted creating a newsgroup for Perl, specifically because I did not want it to be ghettoized. You know, if someone can say, "Oh, this is a discussion about Perl, take it over to the Perl newsgroup," then they shut off the discussion in the shell newsgroup. If there are only the shell newsgroups, and someone says, "Oh, by the way, in Perl, you can solve it like this," that's free advertising. So, it's fuzzy. We had proposed Perl as a newsgroup probably a year or two before we actually created it. It eventually came to the point where the time was right for it, and we did that.

DDJ : Perl has really been pigeonholed as a language of the Web. One result is that people mistakenly try to compare Perl to Java. Why do you think people make the comparison in the first place? Is there anything to compare?

LW: Well, people always compare everything.

DDJ : Do you agree that Perl has been pigeonholed?

LW: Yes, but I'm not sure that it bothers me. Before it was pigeonholed as a web language, it was pigeonholed as a system-administration language, and I think that -- this goes counter to what I was saying earlier about marketing Perl -- if the abilities are there to do a particular job, there will be somebody there to apply it, generally speaking. So I'm not too worried about Perl moving into new ecological niches, as long as it has the capability of surviving in there.

Perl is actually a scrappy language for surviving in a particular ecological niche. (Can you tell I like biological metaphors?) You've got to understand that it first went up against C and against shell, both of which were much loved in the UNIX community, and it succeeded against them. So that early competition actually makes it quite a fit competitor in many other realms, too.

For most web applications, Perl is severely underutilized. Your typical CGI script says print, print, print, print, print, print, print. But in a sense, it's the dynamic range of Perl that allows for that. You don't have to say a whole lot to write a simple Perl script, whereas your minimal Java program is, you know, eight or ten lines long anyway. Many of the features that made it competitive in the UNIX space will make it competitive in other spaces.

Now, there are things that Perl can't do. One of the things that you can't do with Perl right now is compile it down to Java bytecode. And if that, in the long run, becomes a large ecological niche (and this is not yet a sure thing), then that is a capability I want to be certain that Perl has.

DDJ : There's been a movement to merge the two development paths between the ActiveWare Perl for Windows and the main distribution of Perl. You were talking about ecological niches earlier, and how Perl started off as a text-processing language. The scripting languages that are dominant on the Microsoft platforms -- like VB -- tend to be more visual than textual. Given Perl's UNIX origins -- awk, sed, and C, for that matter -- do you think that Perl, as it currently stands, has the tools to fit into a Windows niche?

LW: Yes and no. It depends on your problem domain and who's trying to solve the problem. There are problems that only need a textual solution or don't need a visual solution. Automation things of certain sorts don't need to interact with the desktop, so for those sorts of things -- and for the programmers who aren't really all that interested in visual programming -- it's already good for that. And people are already using it for that. Certainly, there is a group of people who would be enabled to use Perl if it had more of a visual interface, and one of the things we're talking about doing for the O'Reilly NT Perl Resource Kit is some sort of a visual interface.

A lot of what Windows is designed to do is to get mere mortals from 0 to 60, and there are some people who want to get from 60 to 100. We are not really interested in being in Microsoft's crosshairs. We're not actually interested in competing head-to-head with Visual Basic, and to the extent that we do compete with them, it's going to be kind of subtle. There has to be some way to get people from the slow lane to the fast lane. It's one thing to give them a way to get from 60 to 100, but if they have to spin out to get from the slow lane to the fast lane, then that's not going to work either.

Over the years, much of the work of making Perl work for people has been in designing ways for people to come to Perl. I actually delayed the first version of Perl for a couple of months until I had a sed-to-Perl and an awk-to-Perl translator. One of the benefits of borrowing features from various other languages is that those subsets of Perl that use those features are familiar to people coming from that other culture. What would be best, in my book, is if someone had a way of saying, "Well, I've got this thing in Visual Basic. Now, can I just rewrite some of these things in Perl?"

We're already doing this with Java. On our UNIX Perl Resource Kit, I've got a hybrid language called "jpl" -- that's partly a pun on my old alma mater, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and partly for Java, Perl...Lingo, there we go! That's good. "Java Perl Lingo." You've heard it first here! jpl lets you take a Java program and magically turn one of the methods into a chunk of Perl right there inline. It turns Perl code into a native method, and automates the linkage so that when you pull in the Java code, it also pulls in the Perl code, and the interpreter, and everything else. It's actually calling out from Java's Virtual Machine into Perl's virtual machine. And we can call in the other direction, too. You can embed Java in Perl, except that there's a bug in JDK having to do with threads that prevents us from doing any I/O. But that's Java's problem.

It's a way of letting somebody evolve from a purely Java solution into, at least partly, a Perl solution. It's important not only to make Perl evolve, but to make it so that people can evolve their own programs. It's how I program, and I think a lot of people program that way. Most of us are too stupid to know what we want at the beginning.

DDJ : Is there hope down the line to present Perl to a standardization body?

LW: Well, I have said in jest that people will be free to standardize Perl when I'm dead. There may come a time when that is the right thing to do, but it doesn't seem appropriate yet.

DDJ : When would that time be?

LW: Oh, maybe when the federal government declares that we can't export Perl unless it's standardized or something.

DDJ : Only when you're forced to, basically.

LW: Yeah. To me, once things get to a standards body, it's not very interesting anymore. The most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. I remember walking into some BOF that USENIX held six or seven years ago, and John Quarterman was running it, and he saw me sneak in, sit in the back corner, and he said, "Oh, here comes Larry Wall! He's a standards committee all of his own!"

A great deal of the success of Perl so far has been based on some of my own idiosyncrasies. And I recognize that they are idiosyncrasies, and I try to let people argue me out of them whenever appropriate. But there are still ways of looking at things that I seem to do differently than anybody else. It may well be that perl5-porters will one day degenerate into a standards committee. So far, I have not abused my authority to the point that people have written me off, and so I am still allowed to exercise a certain amount of absolute power over the Perl core.

I just think headless standards committees tend to reduce everything to mush. There is a conservatism that committees have that individuals don't, and there are times when you want to have that conservatism and times you don't. I try to exercise my authority where we don't want that conservatism. And I try not to exercise it at other times.

DDJ : How did you get involved in computer science? You're a linguist by background?

LW: Because I talk to computer scientists more than I talk to linguists, I wear the linguistics mantle more than I wear the computer-science mantle, but they actually came along in parallel, and I'm probably a 50/50 hybrid. You know, basically, I'm no good at either linguistics or computer science.

DDJ : So you took computer-science courses in college?

LW: In college, yeah. In college, I had various majors, but what I eventually graduated in -- I'm one of those people that packed four years into eight -- what I eventually graduated in was a self-constructed major, and it was Natural and Artificial Languages, which seems positively prescient considering where I ended up.

DDJ : When did you join O'Reilly as a salaried employee? And how did that come about?

LW: A year-and-a-half ago. It was partly because my previous job was kind of winding down.

DDJ : What was your previous job?

LW: I was working for Seagate Software. They were shutting down that branch of operations there. So, I was just starting to look around a little bit, and Tim noticed me looking around and said, "Well, you know, I've wanted to hire you for a long time," so we talked. And Gina Blaber (O'Reilly's software director) and I met. So, they more or less offered to pay me to mess around with Perl.

So it's sort of my dream job. I get to work from home, and if I feel like taking a nap in the afternoon, I can take a nap in the afternoon and work all night.

DDJ : Do you have any final comments, or tips for aspiring programmers? Or aspiring Perl programmers?

LW: Assume that your first idea is wrong, and try to think through the various options. I think that the biggest mistake people make is latching onto the first idea that comes to them and trying to do that. It really comes to a thing that my folks taught me about money. Don't buy something unless you've wanted it three times. Similarly, don't throw in a feature when you first think of it. Think if there's a way to generalize it, think if it should be generalized. Sometimes you can generalize things too much. I think like the things in Scheme were generalized too much. There is a level of abstraction beyond which people don't want to go. Take a good look at what you want to do, and try to come up with the long-term lazy way, not the short-term lazy way.

[Sep 21, 2019] The list of programming languages by dates

Sep 21, 2019 | www.scriptol.com

1948

1949 1951 1952 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1962 1963 1964

[Sep 21, 2019] Papers on programming languages ideas from 70's for today by Mikhail Barash

Jul 03, 2018 | medium.com

I present here a small bibliography of papers on programming languages from the 1970's. I have personally considered these papers interesting in my research on the syntax of programming languages. I give here short annotations and comments (adapted to modern's day notions) on some of these papers.

[Sep 18, 2019] MCAS design, Boeing and ethics of software architect

Sep 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

... ... ...

Boeing screwed up by designing and installing a faulty systems that was unsafe. It did not even tell the pilots that MCAS existed. It still insists that the system's failure should not be trained in simulator type training. Boeing's failure and the FAA's negligence, not the pilots, caused two major accidents.

Nearly a year after the first incident Boeing has still not presented a solution that the FAA would accept. Meanwhile more safety critical issues on the 737 MAX were found for which Boeing has still not provided any acceptable solution.

But to Langewiesche this anyway all irrelevant. He closes his piece out with more "blame the pilots" whitewash of "poor Boeing":

The 737 Max remains grounded under impossibly close scrutiny, and any suggestion that this might be an overreaction, or that ulterior motives might be at play, or that the Indonesian and Ethiopian investigations might be inadequate, is dismissed summarily. To top it off, while the technical fixes to the MCAS have been accomplished, other barely related imperfections have been discovered and added to the airplane's woes. All signs are that the reintroduction of the 737 Max will be exceedingly difficult because of political and bureaucratic obstacles that are formidable and widespread. Who in a position of authority will say to the public that the airplane is safe?

I would if I were in such a position. What we had in the two downed airplanes was a textbook failure of airmanship . In broad daylight, these pilots couldn't decipher a variant of a simple runaway trim, and they ended up flying too fast at low altitude, neglecting to throttle back and leading their passengers over an aerodynamic edge into oblivion. They were the deciding factor here -- not the MCAS, not the Max.

One wonders how much Boeing paid the author to assemble his screed.

foolisholdman , Sep 18 2019 17:14 utc | 5

14,000 Words Of "Blame The Pilots" That Whitewash Boeing Of 737 MAX Failure
The New York Times

No doubt, this WAS intended as a whitewash of Boeing, but having read the 14,000 words, I don't think it qualifies as more than a somewhat greywash. It is true he blames the pilots for mishandling a situation that could, perhaps, have been better handled, but Boeing still comes out of it pretty badly and so does the NTSB. The other thing I took away from the article is that Airbus planes are, in principle, & by design, more failsafe/idiot-proof.

William Herschel , Sep 18 2019 17:18 utc | 6
Key words: New York Times Magazine. I think when your body is for sale you are called a whore. Trump's almost hysterical bashing of the NYT is enough to make anyone like the paper, but at its core it is a mouthpiece for the military industrial complex. Cf. Judith Miller.
BM , Sep 18 2019 17:23 utc | 7
The New York Times Magazine just published a 14,000 words piece

An ill-disguised attempt to prepare the ground for premature approval for the 737max. It won't succeed - impossible. Opposition will come from too many directions. The blowback from this article will make Boeing regret it very soon, I am quite sure.

foolisholdman , Sep 18 2019 17:23 utc | 8
Come to think about it: (apart from the MCAS) what sort of crap design is it, if an absolutely vital control, which the elevator is, can become impossibly stiff under just those conditions where you absolutely have to be able to move it quickly?
A.L. , Sep 18 2019 17:27 utc | 9
This NYT article is great.

It will only highlight the hubris of "my sh1t doesn't stink" mentality of the American elite and increase the resolve of other civil aviation authorities with a backbone (or in ascendancy) to put Boeing through the wringer.

For the longest time FAA was the gold standard and years of "Air Crash Investigation" TV shows solidified its place but has been taken for granted. Unitl now if it's good enough for the FAA it's good enough for all.

That reputation has now been irreparably damaged over this sh1tshow. I can't help but think this NYT article is only meant for domestic sheeple or stock brokers' consumption as anyone who is going to have anything technical to do with this investigation is going to see right through this load literal diarroeh.

I wouldn't be surprised if some insider wants to offload some stock and planted this story ahead of some 737MAX return-to-service timetable announcement to get an uplift. Someone needs to track the SEC forms 3 4 and 5. But there are also many ways to skirt insider reporting requirements. As usual, rules are only meant for the rest of us.

jayc , Sep 18 2019 17:38 utc | 10
An appalling indifference to life/lives has been a signature feature of the American experience.
psychohistorian , Sep 18 2019 17:40 utc | 11
Thanks for the ongoing reporting of this debacle b....you are saving peoples lives

@ A.L who wrote

"
I wouldn't be surprised if some insider wants to offload some stock and planted this story ahead of some 737MAX return-to-service timetable announcement to get an uplift. Someone needs to track the SEC forms 3 4 and 5. But there are also many ways to skirt insider reporting requirements. As usual, rules are only meant for the rest of us.
"

I agree but would pluralize your "insider" to "insiders". This SOP gut and run financialization strategy is just like we are seeing with Purdue Pharma that just filed bankruptcy because their opioids have killed so many....the owners will never see jail time and their profits are protected by the God of Mammon legal system.

Hopefully the WWIII we are engaged in about public/private finance will put an end to this perfidy by the God of Mammon/private finance cult of the Western form of social organization.

b , Sep 18 2019 17:46 utc | 14
Peter Lemme, the satcom guru , was once an engineer at Boeing. He testified over technical MAX issue before Congress and wrote lot of technical details about it. He retweeted the NYT Mag piece with this comment :
Peter Lemme @Satcom_Guru

Blame the pilots.
Blame the training.
Blame the airline standards.
Imply rampant corruption at all levels.
Claim Airbus flight envelope protection is superior to Boeing.
Fumble the technical details.
Stack the quotes with lots of hearsay to drive the theme.
Ignore everything else

[Sep 18, 2019] the myopic drive to profitability and naivety to unintended consequences are pushing these tech out into the world before they are ready.

Sep 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

A.L. , Sep 18 2019 19:56 utc | 31

@30 David G

perhaps, just like proponents of AI and self driving cars. They just love the technology, financially and emotionally invested in it so much they can't see the forest from the trees.

I like technology, I studied engineering. But the myopic drive to profitability and naivety to unintended consequences are pushing these tech out into the world before they are ready.

engineering used to be a discipline with ethics and responsibilities... But now anybody who could write two lines of code can call themselves a software engineer....

[Sep 14, 2019] The Man Who Could Speak Japanese

This impostor definitely demonstrated programming abilities, although at the time there was not such ter :-)
Notable quotes:
"... "We wrote it down. ..."
"... The next phrase was: ..."
"... " ' Booki fai kiz soy ?' " said Whitey. "It means 'Do you surrender?' " ..."
"... " ' Mizi pok loi ooni rak tong zin ?' 'Where are your comrades?' " ..."
"... "Tong what ?" rasped the colonel. ..."
"... "Tong zin , sir," our instructor replied, rolling chalk between his palms. He arched his eyebrows, as though inviting another question. There was one. The adjutant asked, "What's that gizmo on the end?" ..."
"... Of course, it might have been a Japanese newspaper. Whitey's claim to be a linguist was the last of his status symbols, and he clung to it desperately. Looking back, I think his improvisations on the Morton fantail must have been one of the most heroic achievements in the history of confidence men -- which, as you may have gathered by now, was Whitey's true profession. Toward the end of our tour of duty on the 'Canal he was totally discredited with us and transferred at his own request to the 81-millimeter platoon, where our disregard for him was no stigma, since the 81 millimeter musclemen regarded us as a bunch of eight balls anyway. Yet even then, even after we had become completely disillusioned with him, he remained a figure of wonder among us. We could scarcely believe that an impostor could be clever enough actually to invent a language -- phonics, calligraphy, and all. It had looked like Japanese and sounded like Japanese, and during his seventeen days of lecturing on that ship Whitey had carried it all in his head, remembering every variation, every subtlety, every syntactic construction. ..."
"... https://www.americanheritage.com/man-who-could-speak-japanese ..."
Sep 14, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Wukchumni , September 13, 2019 at 4:29 pm

Re: Fake list of grunge slang:

a fabulous tale of the South Pacific by William Manchester

The Man Who Could Speak Japanese

"We wrote it down.

The next phrase was:

" ' Booki fai kiz soy ?' " said Whitey. "It means 'Do you surrender?' "

Then:

" ' Mizi pok loi ooni rak tong zin ?' 'Where are your comrades?' "

"Tong what ?" rasped the colonel.

"Tong zin , sir," our instructor replied, rolling chalk between his palms. He arched his eyebrows, as though inviting another question. There was one. The adjutant asked, "What's that gizmo on the end?"

Of course, it might have been a Japanese newspaper. Whitey's claim to be a linguist was the last of his status symbols, and he clung to it desperately. Looking back, I think his improvisations on the Morton fantail must have been one of the most heroic achievements in the history of confidence men -- which, as you may have gathered by now, was Whitey's true profession. Toward the end of our tour of duty on the 'Canal he was totally discredited with us and transferred at his own request to the 81-millimeter platoon, where our disregard for him was no stigma, since the 81 millimeter musclemen regarded us as a bunch of eight balls anyway. Yet even then, even after we had become completely disillusioned with him, he remained a figure of wonder among us. We could scarcely believe that an impostor could be clever enough actually to invent a language -- phonics, calligraphy, and all. It had looked like Japanese and sounded like Japanese, and during his seventeen days of lecturing on that ship Whitey had carried it all in his head, remembering every variation, every subtlety, every syntactic construction.

https://www.americanheritage.com/man-who-could-speak-japanese

[Sep 10, 2019] Thinking Forth by Leo Brodie is available online

Aug 31, 2019 | developers.slashdot.org

mccoma ( 64578 ) , Friday February 22, 2019 @06:10PM ( #58166468 )

Thinking Forth ( Score: 3 )

I wish I had read Thinking Forth by Leo Brodie ISBN-10: 0976458705 ISBN-13: 978-0976458708 much earlier. It is an amazing book to really show you a different way to approach programming problems. It is available online these days.

[Sep 07, 2019] As soon as you stop writing code on a regular basis you stop being a programmer. You lose you qualification very quickly. That's a typical tragedy of talented programmers who became mediocre managers or, worse, theoretical computer scientists

Programming skills are somewhat similar to the skills of people who play violin or piano. As soon a you stop playing violin or piano still start to evaporate. First slowly, then quicker. In two yours you probably will lose 80%.
Notable quotes:
"... I happened to look the other day. I wrote 35 programs in January, and 28 or 29 programs in February. These are small programs, but I have a compulsion. I love to write programs and put things into it. ..."
Sep 07, 2019 | archive.computerhistory.org

Dijkstra said he was proud to be a programmer. Unfortunately he changed his attitude completely, and I think he wrote his last computer program in the 1980s. At this conference I went to in 1967 about simulation language, Chris Strachey was going around asking everybody at the conference what was the last computer program you wrote. This was 1967. Some of the people said, "I've never written a computer program." Others would say, "Oh yeah, here's what I did last week." I asked Edsger this question when I visited him in Texas in the 90s and he said, "Don, I write programs now with pencil and paper, and I execute them in my head." He finds that a good enough discipline.

I think he was mistaken on that. He taught me a lot of things, but I really think that if he had continued... One of Dijkstra's greatest strengths was that he felt a strong sense of aesthetics, and he didn't want to compromise his notions of beauty. They were so intense that when he visited me in the 1960s, I had just come to Stanford. I remember the conversation we had. It was in the first apartment, our little rented house, before we had electricity in the house.

We were sitting there in the dark, and he was telling me how he had just learned about the specifications of the IBM System/360, and it made him so ill that his heart was actually starting to flutter.

He intensely disliked things that he didn't consider clean to work with. So I can see that he would have distaste for the languages that he had to work with on real computers. My reaction to that was to design my own language, and then make Pascal so that it would work well for me in those days. But his response was to do everything only intellectually.

So, programming.

I happened to look the other day. I wrote 35 programs in January, and 28 or 29 programs in February. These are small programs, but I have a compulsion. I love to write programs and put things into it. I think of a question that I want to answer, or I have part of my book where I want to present something. But I can't just present it by reading about it in a book. As I code it, it all becomes clear in my head. It's just the discipline. The fact that I have to translate my knowledge of this method into something that the machine is going to understand just forces me to make that crystal-clear in my head. Then I can explain it to somebody else infinitely better. The exposition is always better if I've implemented it, even though it's going to take me more time.

[Sep 07, 2019] Knuth about computer science and money: At that point I made the decision in my life that I wasn't going to optimize my income;

Sep 07, 2019 | archive.computerhistory.org

So I had a programming hat when I was outside of Cal Tech, and at Cal Tech I am a mathematician taking my grad studies. A startup company, called Green Tree Corporation because green is the color of money, came to me and said, "Don, name your price. Write compilers for us and we will take care of finding computers for you to debug them on, and assistance for you to do your work. Name your price." I said, "Oh, okay. $100,000.", assuming that this was In that era this was not quite at Bill Gate's level today, but it was sort of out there.

The guy didn't blink. He said, "Okay." I didn't really blink either. I said, "Well, I'm not going to do it. I just thought this was an impossible number."

At that point I made the decision in my life that I wasn't going to optimize my income; I was really going to do what I thought I could do for well, I don't know. If you ask me what makes me most happy, number one would be somebody saying "I learned something from you". Number two would be somebody saying "I used your software". But number infinity would be Well, no. Number infinity minus one would be "I bought your book". It's not as good as "I read your book", you know. Then there is "I bought your software"; that was not in my own personal value. So that decision came up. I kept up with the literature about compilers. The Communications of the ACM was where the action was. I also worked with people on trying to debug the ALGOL language, which had problems with it. I published a few papers, like "The Remaining Trouble Spots in ALGOL 60" was one of the papers that I worked on. I chaired a committee called "Smallgol" which was to find a subset of ALGOL that would work on small computers. I was active in programming languages.

[Sep 07, 2019] Knuth: maybe 1 in 50 people have the "computer scientist's" type of intellect

Sep 07, 2019 | conservancy.umn.edu

Frana: You have made the comment several times that maybe 1 in 50 people have the "computer scientist's mind." Knuth: Yes. Frana: I am wondering if a large number of those people are trained professional librarians? [laughter] There is some strangeness there. But can you pinpoint what it is about the mind of the computer scientist that is....

Knuth: That is different?

Frana: What are the characteristics?

Knuth: Two things: one is the ability to deal with non-uniform structure, where you have case one, case two, case three, case four. Or that you have a model of something where the first component is integer, the next component is a Boolean, and the next component is a real number, or something like that, you know, non-uniform structure. To deal fluently with those kinds of entities, which is not typical in other branches of mathematics, is critical. And the other characteristic ability is to shift levels quickly, from looking at something in the large to looking at something in the small, and many levels in between, jumping from one level of abstraction to another. You know that, when you are adding one to some number, that you are actually getting closer to some overarching goal. These skills, being able to deal with nonuniform objects and to see through things from the top level to the bottom level, these are very essential to computer programming, it seems to me. But maybe I am fooling myself because I am too close to it.

Frana: It is the hardest thing to really understand that which you are existing within.

Knuth: Yes.

[Sep 07, 2019] Knuth: I can be a writer, who tries to organize other people's ideas into some kind of a more coherent structure so that it is easier to put things together

Sep 07, 2019 | conservancy.umn.edu

Knuth: I can be a writer, who tries to organize other people's ideas into some kind of a more coherent structure so that it is easier to put things together. I can see that I could be viewed as a scholar that does his best to check out sources of material, so that people get credit where it is due. And to check facts over, not just to look at the abstract of something, but to see what the methods were that did it and to fill in holes if necessary. I look at my role as being able to understand the motivations and terminology of one group of specialists and boil it down to a certain extent so that people in other parts of the field can use it. I try to listen to the theoreticians and select what they have done that is important to the programmer on the street; to remove technical jargon when possible.

But I have never been good at any kind of a role that would be making policy, or advising people on strategies, or what to do. I have always been best at refining things that are there and bringing order out of chaos. I sometimes raise new ideas that might stimulate people, but not really in a way that would be in any way controlling the flow. The only time I have ever advocated something strongly was with literate programming; but I do this always with the caveat that it works for me, not knowing if it would work for anybody else.

When I work with a system that I have created myself, I can always change it if I don't like it. But everybody who works with my system has to work with what I give them. So I am not able to judge my own stuff impartially. So anyway, I have always felt bad about if anyone says, 'Don, please forecast the future,'...

[Sep 06, 2019] Knuth: Programming and architecture are interrelated and it is impossible to create good architecure wthout actually programming at least of a prototype

Notable quotes:
"... When you're writing a document for a human being to understand, the human being will look at it and nod his head and say, "Yeah, this makes sense." But then there's all kinds of ambiguities and vagueness that you don't realize until you try to put it into a computer. Then all of a sudden, almost every five minutes as you're writing the code, a question comes up that wasn't addressed in the specification. "What if this combination occurs?" ..."
"... When you're faced with implementation, a person who has been delegated this job of working from a design would have to say, "Well hmm, I don't know what the designer meant by this." ..."
Sep 06, 2019 | archive.computerhistory.org

...I showed the second version of this design to two of my graduate students, and I said, "Okay, implement this, please, this summer. That's your summer job." I thought I had specified a language. I had to go away. I spent several weeks in China during the summer of 1977, and I had various other obligations. I assumed that when I got back from my summer trips, I would be able to play around with TeX and refine it a little bit. To my amazement, the students, who were outstanding students, had not competed [it]. They had a system that was able to do about three lines of TeX. I thought, "My goodness, what's going on? I thought these were good students." Well afterwards I changed my attitude to saying, "Boy, they accomplished a miracle."

Because going from my specification, which I thought was complete, they really had an impossible task, and they had succeeded wonderfully with it. These students, by the way, [were] Michael Plass, who has gone on to be the brains behind almost all of Xerox's Docutech software and all kind of things that are inside of typesetting devices now, and Frank Liang, one of the key people for Microsoft Word.

He did important mathematical things as well as his hyphenation methods which are quite used in all languages now. These guys were actually doing great work, but I was amazed that they couldn't do what I thought was just sort of a routine task. Then I became a programmer in earnest, where I had to do it. The reason is when you're doing programming, you have to explain something to a computer, which is dumb.

When you're writing a document for a human being to understand, the human being will look at it and nod his head and say, "Yeah, this makes sense." But then there's all kinds of ambiguities and vagueness that you don't realize until you try to put it into a computer. Then all of a sudden, almost every five minutes as you're writing the code, a question comes up that wasn't addressed in the specification. "What if this combination occurs?"

It just didn't occur to the person writing the design specification. When you're faced with implementation, a person who has been delegated this job of working from a design would have to say, "Well hmm, I don't know what the designer meant by this."

If I hadn't been in China they would've scheduled an appointment with me and stopped their programming for a day. Then they would come in at the designated hour and we would talk. They would take 15 minutes to present to me what the problem was, and then I would think about it for a while, and then I'd say, "Oh yeah, do this. " Then they would go home and they would write code for another five minutes and they'd have to schedule another appointment.

I'm probably exaggerating, but this is why I think Bob Floyd's Chiron compiler never got going. Bob worked many years on a beautiful idea for a programming language, where he designed a language called Chiron, but he never touched the programming himself. I think this was actually the reason that he had trouble with that project, because it's so hard to do the design unless you're faced with the low-level aspects of it, explaining it to a machine instead of to another person.

Forsythe, I think it was, who said, "People have said traditionally that you don't understand something until you've taught it in a class. The truth is you don't really understand something until you've taught it to a computer, until you've been able to program it." At this level, programming was absolutely important

[Sep 06, 2019] Knuth: No, I stopped going to conferences. It was too discouraging. Computer programming keeps getting harder because more stuff is discovered

Sep 06, 2019 | conservancy.umn.edu

Knuth: No, I stopped going to conferences. It was too discouraging. Computer programming keeps getting harder because more stuff is discovered. I can cope with learning about one new technique per day, but I can't take ten in a day all at once. So conferences are depressing; it means I have so much more work to do. If I hide myself from the truth I am much happier.

[Sep 06, 2019] How TAOCP was hatched

Notable quotes:
"... Also, Addison-Wesley was the people who were asking me to do this book; my favorite textbooks had been published by Addison Wesley. They had done the books that I loved the most as a student. For them to come to me and say, "Would you write a book for us?", and here I am just a secondyear gradate student -- this was a thrill. ..."
"... But in those days, The Art of Computer Programming was very important because I'm thinking of the aesthetical: the whole question of writing programs as something that has artistic aspects in all senses of the word. The one idea is "art" which means artificial, and the other "art" means fine art. All these are long stories, but I've got to cover it fairly quickly. ..."
Sep 06, 2019 | archive.computerhistory.org

Knuth: This is, of course, really the story of my life, because I hope to live long enough to finish it. But I may not, because it's turned out to be such a huge project. I got married in the summer of 1961, after my first year of graduate school. My wife finished college, and I could use the money I had made -- the $5000 on the compiler -- to finance a trip to Europe for our honeymoon.

We had four months of wedded bliss in Southern California, and then a man from Addison-Wesley came to visit me and said "Don, we would like you to write a book about how to write compilers."

The more I thought about it, I decided "Oh yes, I've got this book inside of me."

I sketched out that day -- I still have the sheet of tablet paper on which I wrote -- I sketched out 12 chapters that I thought ought to be in such a book. I told Jill, my wife, "I think I'm going to write a book."

As I say, we had four months of bliss, because the rest of our marriage has all been devoted to this book. Well, we still have had happiness. But really, I wake up every morning and I still haven't finished the book. So I try to -- I have to -- organize the rest of my life around this, as one main unifying theme. The book was supposed to be about how to write a compiler. They had heard about me from one of their editorial advisors, that I knew something about how to do this. The idea appealed to me for two main reasons. One is that I did enjoy writing. In high school I had been editor of the weekly paper. In college I was editor of the science magazine, and I worked on the campus paper as copy editor. And, as I told you, I wrote the manual for that compiler that we wrote. I enjoyed writing, number one.

Also, Addison-Wesley was the people who were asking me to do this book; my favorite textbooks had been published by Addison Wesley. They had done the books that I loved the most as a student. For them to come to me and say, "Would you write a book for us?", and here I am just a secondyear gradate student -- this was a thrill.

Another very important reason at the time was that I knew that there was a great need for a book about compilers, because there were a lot of people who even in 1962 -- this was January of 1962 -- were starting to rediscover the wheel. The knowledge was out there, but it hadn't been explained. The people who had discovered it, though, were scattered all over the world and they didn't know of each other's work either, very much. I had been following it. Everybody I could think of who could write a book about compilers, as far as I could see, they would only give a piece of the fabric. They would slant it to their own view of it. There might be four people who could write about it, but they would write four different books. I could present all four of their viewpoints in what I would think was a balanced way, without any axe to grind, without slanting it towards something that I thought would be misleading to the compiler writer for the future. I considered myself as a journalist, essentially. I could be the expositor, the tech writer, that could do the job that was needed in order to take the work of these brilliant people and make it accessible to the world. That was my motivation. Now, I didn't have much time to spend on it then, I just had this page of paper with 12 chapter headings on it. That's all I could do while I'm a consultant at Burroughs and doing my graduate work. I signed a contract, but they said "We know it'll take you a while." I didn't really begin to have much time to work on it until 1963, my third year of graduate school, as I'm already finishing up on my thesis. In the summer of '62, I guess I should mention, I wrote another compiler. This was for Univac; it was a FORTRAN compiler. I spent the summer, I sold my soul to the devil, I guess you say, for three months in the summer of 1962 to write a FORTRAN compiler. I believe that the salary for that was $15,000, which was much more than an assistant professor. I think assistant professors were getting eight or nine thousand in those days.

Feigenbaum: Well, when I started in 1960 at [University of California] Berkeley, I was getting $7,600 for the nine-month year.

Knuth: Knuth: Yeah, so you see it. I got $15,000 for a summer job in 1962 writing a FORTRAN compiler. One day during that summer I was writing the part of the compiler that looks up identifiers in a hash table. The method that we used is called linear probing. Basically you take the variable name that you want to look up, you scramble it, like you square it or something like this, and that gives you a number between one and, well in those days it would have been between 1 and 1000, and then you look there. If you find it, good; if you don't find it, go to the next place and keep on going until you either get to an empty place, or you find the number you're looking for. It's called linear probing. There was a rumor that one of Professor Feller's students at Princeton had tried to figure out how fast linear probing works and was unable to succeed. This was a new thing for me. It was a case where I was doing programming, but I also had a mathematical problem that would go into my other [job]. My winter job was being a math student, my summer job was writing compilers. There was no mix. These worlds did not intersect at all in my life at that point. So I spent one day during the summer while writing the compiler looking at the mathematics of how fast does linear probing work. I got lucky, and I solved the problem. I figured out some math, and I kept two or three sheets of paper with me and I typed it up. ["Notes on 'Open' Addressing', 7/22/63] I guess that's on the internet now, because this became really the genesis of my main research work, which developed not to be working on compilers, but to be working on what they call analysis of algorithms, which is, have a computer method and find out how good is it quantitatively. I can say, if I got so many things to look up in the table, how long is linear probing going to take. It dawned on me that this was just one of many algorithms that would be important, and each one would lead to a fascinating mathematical problem. This was easily a good lifetime source of rich problems to work on. Here I am then, in the middle of 1962, writing this FORTRAN compiler, and I had one day to do the research and mathematics that changed my life for my future research trends. But now I've gotten off the topic of what your original question was.

Feigenbaum: We were talking about sort of the.. You talked about the embryo of The Art of Computing. The compiler book morphed into The Art of Computer Programming, which became a seven-volume plan.

Knuth: Exactly. Anyway, I'm working on a compiler and I'm thinking about this. But now I'm starting, after I finish this summer job, then I began to do things that were going to be relating to the book. One of the things I knew I had to have in the book was an artificial machine, because I'm writing a compiler book but machines are changing faster than I can write books. I have to have a machine that I'm totally in control of. I invented this machine called MIX, which was typical of the computers of 1962.

In 1963 I wrote a simulator for MIX so that I could write sample programs for it, and I taught a class at Caltech on how to write programs in assembly language for this hypothetical computer. Then I started writing the parts that dealt with sorting problems and searching problems, like the linear probing idea. I began to write those parts, which are part of a compiler, of the book. I had several hundred pages of notes gathering for those chapters for The Art of Computer Programming. Before I graduated, I've already done quite a bit of writing on The Art of Computer Programming.

I met George Forsythe about this time. George was the man who inspired both of us [Knuth and Feigenbaum] to come to Stanford during the '60s. George came down to Southern California for a talk, and he said, "Come up to Stanford. How about joining our faculty?" I said "Oh no, I can't do that. I just got married, and I've got to finish this book first." I said, "I think I'll finish the book next year, and then I can come up [and] start thinking about the rest of my life, but I want to get my book done before my son is born." Well, John is now 40-some years old and I'm not done with the book. Part of my lack of expertise is any good estimation procedure as to how long projects are going to take. I way underestimated how much needed to be written about in this book. Anyway, I started writing the manuscript, and I went merrily along writing pages of things that I thought really needed to be said. Of course, it didn't take long before I had started to discover a few things of my own that weren't in any of the existing literature. I did have an axe to grind. The message that I was presenting was in fact not going to be unbiased at all. It was going to be based on my own particular slant on stuff, and that original reason for why I should write the book became impossible to sustain. But the fact that I had worked on linear probing and solved the problem gave me a new unifying theme for the book. I was going to base it around this idea of analyzing algorithms, and have some quantitative ideas about how good methods were. Not just that they worked, but that they worked well: this method worked 3 times better than this method, or 3.1 times better than this method. Also, at this time I was learning mathematical techniques that I had never been taught in school. I found they were out there, but they just hadn't been emphasized openly, about how to solve problems of this kind.

So my book would also present a different kind of mathematics than was common in the curriculum at the time, that was very relevant to analysis of algorithm. I went to the publishers, I went to Addison Wesley, and said "How about changing the title of the book from 'The Art of Computer Programming' to 'The Analysis of Algorithms'." They said that will never sell; their focus group couldn't buy that one. I'm glad they stuck to the original title, although I'm also glad to see that several books have now come out called "The Analysis of Algorithms", 20 years down the line.

But in those days, The Art of Computer Programming was very important because I'm thinking of the aesthetical: the whole question of writing programs as something that has artistic aspects in all senses of the word. The one idea is "art" which means artificial, and the other "art" means fine art. All these are long stories, but I've got to cover it fairly quickly.

I've got The Art of Computer Programming started out, and I'm working on my 12 chapters. I finish a rough draft of all 12 chapters by, I think it was like 1965. I've got 3,000 pages of notes, including a very good example of what you mentioned about seeing holes in the fabric. One of the most important chapters in the book is parsing: going from somebody's algebraic formula and figuring out the structure of the formula. Just the way I had done in seventh grade finding the structure of English sentences, I had to do this with mathematical sentences.

Chapter ten is all about parsing of context-free language, [which] is what we called it at the time. I covered what people had published about context-free languages and parsing. I got to the end of the chapter and I said, well, you can combine these ideas and these ideas, and all of a sudden you get a unifying thing which goes all the way to the limit. These other ideas had sort of gone partway there. They would say "Oh, if a grammar satisfies this condition, I can do it efficiently." "If a grammar satisfies this condition, I can do it efficiently." But now, all of a sudden, I saw there was a way to say I can find the most general condition that can be done efficiently without looking ahead to the end of the sentence. That you could make a decision on the fly, reading from left to right, about the structure of the thing. That was just a natural outgrowth of seeing the different pieces of the fabric that other people had put together, and writing it into a chapter for the first time. But I felt that this general concept, well, I didn't feel that I had surrounded the concept. I knew that I had it, and I could prove it, and I could check it, but I couldn't really intuit it all in my head. I knew it was right, but it was too hard for me, really, to explain it well.

So I didn't put in The Art of Computer Programming. I thought it was beyond the scope of my book. Textbooks don't have to cover everything when you get to the harder things; then you have to go to the literature. My idea at that time [is] I'm writing this book and I'm thinking it's going to be published very soon, so any little things I discover and put in the book I didn't bother to write a paper and publish in the journal because I figure it'll be in my book pretty soon anyway. Computer science is changing so fast, my book is bound to be obsolete.

It takes a year for it to go through editing, and people drawing the illustrations, and then they have to print it and bind it and so on. I have to be a little bit ahead of the state-of-the-art if my book isn't going to be obsolete when it comes out. So I kept most of the stuff to myself that I had, these little ideas I had been coming up with. But when I got to this idea of left-to-right parsing, I said "Well here's something I don't really understand very well. I'll publish this, let other people figure out what it is, and then they can tell me what I should have said." I published that paper I believe in 1965, at the end of finishing my draft of the chapter, which didn't get as far as that story, LR(k). Well now, textbooks of computer science start with LR(k) and take off from there. But I want to give you an idea of

[Sep 06, 2019] Most mainstream OO languages with a type system to speak of actually get in the way of correctly classifying data by confusing the separate issues of reusing implementation artefacts (aka subclassing) and classifying data into a hierarchy of concepts (aka subtyping).

Notable quotes:
"... Most mainstream OO languages with a type system to speak of actually get in the way of correctly classifying data by confusing the separate issues of reusing implementation artefacts (aka subclassing) and classifying data into a hierarchy of concepts (aka subtyping). ..."
Sep 06, 2019 | news.ycombinator.com
fhars on Mar 29, 2011
Most mainstream OO languages with a type system to speak of actually get in the way of correctly classifying data by confusing the separate issues of reusing implementation artefacts (aka subclassing) and classifying data into a hierarchy of concepts (aka subtyping).

The only widely used OO language (for sufficiently narrow values of wide and wide values of OO) to get that right used to be Objective Caml, and recently its stepchildren F# and scala. So it is actually FP that helps you with the classification.

Xurinos on Mar 29, 2011

This is a very interesting point and should be highlighted. You said implementation artifacts (especially in reference to reducing code duplication), and for clarity, I think you are referring to the definition of operators on data (class methods, friend methods, and so on).

I agree with you that subclassing (for the purpose of reusing behavior), traits (for adding behavior), and the like can be confused with classification to such an extent that modern designs tend to depart from type systems and be used for mere code organization.

ajays on Mar 29, 2011
"was there really a point to the illusion of wrapping the entrypoint main() function in a class (I am looking at you, Java)?"

Far be it for me to defend Java (I hate the damn thing), but: main is just a function in a class. The class is the entry point, as specified in the command line; main is just what the OS looks for, by convention. You could have a "main" in each class, but only the one in the specified class will be the entry point.

GrooveStomp on Mar 29, 2011
The way of the theorist is to tell any non-theorist that the non-theorist is wrong, then leave without any explanation. Or, simply hand-wave the explanation away, claiming it as "too complex" too fully understand without years of rigorous training. Of course I jest. :)

[Sep 04, 2019] 737 MAX - Boeing Insults International Safety Regulators As New Problems Cause Longer Grounding

The 80286 Intel processors: The Intel 80286[3] (also marketed as the iAPX 286[4] and often called Intel 286) is a 16-bit microprocessor that was introduced on February 1, 1982. The 80286 was employed for the IBM PC/AT, introduced in 1984, and then widely used in most PC/AT compatible computers until the early 1990s.
Notable quotes:
"... The fate of Boeing's civil aircraft business hangs on the re-certification of the 737 MAX. The regulators convened an international meeting to get their questions answered and Boeing arrogantly showed up without having done its homework. The regulators saw that as an insult. Boeing was sent back to do what it was supposed to do in the first place: provide details and analysis that prove the safety of its planes. ..."
"... In recent weeks, Boeing and the FAA identified another potential flight-control computer risk requiring additional software changes and testing, according to two of the government and pilot officials. ..."
"... Any additional software changes will make the issue even more complicated. The 80286 Intel processors the FCC software is running on is limited in its capacity. All the extras procedures Boeing now will add to them may well exceed the system's capabilities. ..."
"... The old architecture was possible because the plane could still be flown without any computer. It was expected that the pilots would detect a computer error and would be able to intervene. The FAA did not require a high design assurance level (DAL) for the system. The MCAS accidents showed that a software or hardware problem can now indeed crash a 737 MAX plane. That changes the level of scrutiny the system will have to undergo. ..."
"... Flight safety regulators know of these complexities. That is why they need to take a deep look into such systems. That Boeing's management was not prepared to answer their questions shows that the company has not learned from its failure. Its culture is still one of finance orientated arrogance. ..."
"... I also want to add that Boeing's focus on profit over safety is not restricted to the 737 Max but undoubtedly permeates the manufacture of spare parts for the rest of the their plane line and all else they make.....I have no intention of ever flying in another Boeing airplane, given the attitude shown by Boeing leadership. ..."
"... So again, Boeing mgmt. mirrors its Neoliberal government officials when it comes to arrogance and impudence. ..."
"... Arrogance? When the money keeps flowing in anyway, it comes naturally. ..."
"... In the neoliberal world order governments, regulators and the public are secondary to corporate profits. ..."
"... I am surprised that none of the coverage has mentioned the fact that, if China's CAAC does not sign off on the mods, it will cripple, if not doom the MAX. ..."
"... I am equally surprised that we continue to sabotage China's export leader, as the WSJ reports today: "China's Huawei Technologies Co. accused the U.S. of "using every tool at its disposal" to disrupt its business, including launching cyberattacks on its networks and instructing law enforcement to "menace" its employees. ..."
"... Boeing is backstopped by the Murkan MIC, which is to say the US taxpayer. ..."
"... Military Industrial Complex welfare programs, including wars in Syria and Yemen, are slowly winding down. We are about to get a massive bill from the financiers who already own everything in this sector, because what they have left now is completely unsustainable, with or without a Third World War. ..."
"... In my mind, the fact that Boeing transferred its head office from Seattle (where the main manufacturing and presumable the main design and engineering functions are based) to Chicago (centre of the neoliberal economic universe with the University of Chicago being its central shrine of worship, not to mention supply of future managers and administrators) in 1997 says much about the change in corporate culture and values from a culture that emphasised technical and design excellence, deliberate redundancies in essential functions (in case of emergencies or failures of core functions), consistently high standards and care for the people who adhered to these principles, to a predatory culture in which profits prevail over people and performance. ..."
"... For many amerikans, a good "offensive" is far preferable than a good defense even if that only involves an apology. Remember what ALL US presidents say.. We will never apologize.. ..."
"... Actually can you show me a single place in the US where ethics are considered a bastion of governorship? ..."
"... You got to be daft or bribed to use intel cpu's in embedded systems. Going from a motorolla cpu, the intel chips were dinosaurs in every way. ..."
"... Initially I thought it was just the new over-sized engines they retro-fitted. A situation that would surely have been easier to get around by just going back to the original engines -- any inefficiencies being less $costly than the time the planes have been grounded. But this post makes the whole rabbit warren 10 miles deeper. ..."
"... That is because the price is propped up by $9 billion share buyback per year . Share buyback is an effective scheme to airlift all the cash out of a company towards the major shareholders. I mean, who wants to develop reliable airplanes if you can funnel the cash into your pockets? ..."
"... If Boeing had invested some of this money that it blew on share buybacks to design a new modern plane from ground up to replace the ancient 737 airframe, these tragedies could have been prevented, and Boeing wouldn't have this nightmare on its hands. But the corporate cost-cutters and financial engineers, rather than real engineers, had the final word. ..."
"... Markets don't care about any of this. They don't care about real engineers either. They love corporate cost-cutters and financial engineers. They want share buybacks, and if something bad happens, they'll overlook the $5 billion to pay for the fallout because it's just a "one-time item." ..."
"... Overall, Boeing buy-backs exceeded 40 billion dollars, one could guess that half or quarter of that would suffice to build a plane that logically combines the latest technologies. E.g. the entire frame design to fit together with engines, processors proper for the information processing load, hydraulics for steering that satisfy force requirements in almost all circumstances etc. New technologies also fail because they are not completely understood, but when the overall design is logical with margins of safety, the faults can be eliminated. ..."
"... Once the buyback ends the dive begins and just before it hits ground zero, they buy the company for pennies on the dollar, possibly with government bailout as a bonus. Then the company flies towards the next climb and subsequent dive. MCAS economics. ..."
"... The problem is not new, and it is well understood. What computer modelling is is cheap, and easy to fudge, and that is why it is popular with people who care about money a lot. Much of what is called "AI" is very similar in its limitations, a complicated way to fudge up the results you want, or something close enough for casual examination. ..."
Sep 04, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

United Airline and American Airlines further prolonged the grounding of their Boeing 737 MAX airplanes. They now schedule the plane's return to the flight line in December. But it is likely that the grounding will continue well into the next year.

After Boeing's shabby design and lack of safety analysis of its Maneuver Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) led to the death of 347 people, the grounding of the type and billions of losses, one would expect the company to show some decency and humility. Unfortunately Boeing behavior demonstrates none.

There is still little detailed information on how Boeing will fix MCAS. Nothing was said by Boeing about the manual trim system of the 737 MAX that does not work when it is needed . The unprotected rudder cables of the plane do not meet safety guidelines but were still certified. The planes flight control computers can be overwhelmed by bad data and a fix will be difficult to implement. Boeing continues to say nothing about these issues.

International flight safety regulators no longer trust the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which failed to uncover those problems when it originally certified the new type. The FAA was also the last regulator to ground the plane after two 737 MAX had crashed. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) asked Boeing to explain and correct five major issues it identified. Other regulators asked additional questions.

Boeing needs to regain the trust of the airlines, pilots and passengers to be able to again sell those planes. Only full and detailed information can achieve that. But the company does not provide any.

As Boeing sells some 80% of its airplanes abroad it needs the good will of the international regulators to get the 737 MAX back into the air. This makes the arrogance it displayed in a meeting with those regulators inexplicable:

Friction between Boeing Co. and international air-safety authorities threatens a new delay in bringing the grounded 737 MAX fleet back into service, according to government and pilot union officials briefed on the matter.

The latest complication in the long-running saga, these officials said, stems from a Boeing briefing in August that was cut short by regulators from the U.S., Europe, Brazil and elsewhere, who complained that the plane maker had failed to provide technical details and answer specific questions about modifications in the operation of MAX flight-control computers.

The fate of Boeing's civil aircraft business hangs on the re-certification of the 737 MAX. The regulators convened an international meeting to get their questions answered and Boeing arrogantly showed up without having done its homework. The regulators saw that as an insult. Boeing was sent back to do what it was supposed to do in the first place: provide details and analysis that prove the safety of its planes.

What did the Boeing managers think those regulatory agencies are? Hapless lapdogs like the FAA managers`who signed off on Boeing 'features' even after their engineers told them that these were not safe?

Buried in the Wall Street Journal piece quoted above is another little shocker:

In recent weeks, Boeing and the FAA identified another potential flight-control computer risk requiring additional software changes and testing, according to two of the government and pilot officials.

The new issue must be going beyond the flight control computer (FCC) issues the FAA identified in June .

Boeing's original plan to fix the uncontrolled activation of MCAS was to have both FCCs active at the same time and to switch MCAS off when the two computers disagree. That was already a huge change in the general architecture which so far consisted of one active and one passive FCC system that could be switched over when a failure occurred.

Any additional software changes will make the issue even more complicated. The 80286 Intel processors the FCC software is running on is limited in its capacity. All the extras procedures Boeing now will add to them may well exceed the system's capabilities.

Changing software in a delicate environment like a flight control computer is extremely difficult. There will always be surprising side effects or regressions where already corrected errors unexpectedly reappear.

The old architecture was possible because the plane could still be flown without any computer. It was expected that the pilots would detect a computer error and would be able to intervene. The FAA did not require a high design assurance level (DAL) for the system. The MCAS accidents showed that a software or hardware problem can now indeed crash a 737 MAX plane. That changes the level of scrutiny the system will have to undergo.

All procedures and functions of the software will have to be tested in all thinkable combinations to ensure that they will not block or otherwise influence each other. This will take months and there is a high chance that new issues will appear during these tests. They will require more software changes and more testing.

Flight safety regulators know of these complexities. That is why they need to take a deep look into such systems. That Boeing's management was not prepared to answer their questions shows that the company has not learned from its failure. Its culture is still one of finance orientated arrogance.

Building safe airplanes requires engineers who know that they may make mistakes and who have the humility to allow others to check and correct their work. It requires open communication about such issues. Boeing's say-nothing strategy will prolong the grounding of its planes. It will increases the damage to Boeing's financial situation and reputation.

--- Previous Moon of Alabama posts on Boeing 737 MAX issues:

Posted by b on September 3, 2019 at 18:05 UTC | Permalink


Choderlos de Laclos , Sep 3 2019 18:15 utc | 1

"The 80286 Intel processors the FCC software is running on is limited in its capacity." You must be joking, right? If this is the case, the problem is unfixable: you can't find two competent software engineers who can program these dinosaur 16-bit processors.
b , Sep 3 2019 18:22 utc | 2
You must be joking, right? If this is the case, the problem is unfixable: you can't find two competent software engineers who can program these dinosaur 16-bit processors.

One of the two is writing this.

Half-joking aside. The 737 MAX FCC runs on 80286 processors. There are ten thousands of programmers available who can program them though not all are qualified to write real-time systems. That resource is not a problem. The processors inherent limits are one.

Meshpal , Sep 3 2019 18:24 utc | 3
Thanks b for the fine 737 max update. Others news sources seem to have dropped coverage. It is a very big deal that this grounding has lasted this long. Things are going to get real bad for Boeing if this bird does not get back in the air soon. In any case their credibility is tarnished if not down right trashed.
BraveNewWorld , Sep 3 2019 18:35 utc | 4
@1 Choderlos de Laclos

What ever software language these are programmed in (my guess is C) the compilers still exist for it and do the translation from the human readable code to the machine code for you. Of course the code could be assembler but writing assembly code for a 286 is far easier than writing it for say an i9 becuase the CPU is so much simpler and has a far smaller set of instructions to work with.

Choderlos de Laclos , Sep 3 2019 18:52 utc | 5
@b: It was a hyperbole. I might be another one, but left them behind as fast as I could. The last time I had to deal with it was an embedded system in 1998-ish. But I am also retiring, and so are thousands of others. The problems with support of a legacy system are a legend.
psychohistorian , Sep 3 2019 18:56 utc | 6
Thanks for the demise of Boeing update b

I commented when you first started writing about this that it would take Boeing down and still believe that to be true. To the extent that Boeing is stonewalling the international safety regulators says to me that upper management and big stock holders are being given time to minimize their exposure before the axe falls.

I also want to add that Boeing's focus on profit over safety is not restricted to the 737 Max but undoubtedly permeates the manufacture of spare parts for the rest of the their plane line and all else they make.....I have no intention of ever flying in another Boeing airplane, given the attitude shown by Boeing leadership.

This is how private financialization works in the Western world. Their bottom line is profit, not service to the flying public. It is in line with the recent public statement by the CEO's from the Business Roundtable that said that they were going to focus more on customer satisfaction over profit but their actions continue to say profit is their primary motive.

The God of Mammon private finance religion can not end soon enough for humanity's sake. It is not like we all have to become China but their core public finance example is well worth following.

karlof1 , Sep 3 2019 19:13 utc | 7
So again, Boeing mgmt. mirrors its Neoliberal government officials when it comes to arrogance and impudence. IMO, Boeing shareholders's hair ought to be on fire given their BoD's behavior and getting ready to litigate.

As b notes, Boeing's international credibility's hanging by a very thin thread. A year from now, Boeing could very well see its share price deeply dive into the Penny Stock category--its current P/E is 41.5:1 which is massively overpriced. Boeing Bombs might come to mean something vastly different from its initial meaning.

bjd , Sep 3 2019 19:22 utc | 8
Arrogance? When the money keeps flowing in anyway, it comes naturally.
What did I just read , Sep 3 2019 19:49 utc | 10
Such seemingly archaic processors are the norm in aerospace. If the planes flight characteristics had been properly engineered from the start the processor wouldn't be an issue. You can't just spray perfume on a garbage pile and call it a rose.
VietnamVet , Sep 3 2019 20:31 utc | 12
In the neoliberal world order governments, regulators and the public are secondary to corporate profits. This is the same belief system that is suspending the British Parliament to guarantee the chaos of a no deal Brexit. The irony is that globalist, Joe Biden's restart the Cold War and nationalist Donald Trump's Trade Wars both assure that foreign regulators will closely scrutinize the safety of the 737 Max. Even if ignored by corporate media and cleared by the FAA to fly in the USA, Boeing and Wall Street's Dow Jones average are cooked gooses with only 20% of the market. Taking the risk of flying the 737 Max on their family vacation or to their next business trip might even get the credentialed class to realize that their subservient service to corrupt Plutocrats is deadly in the long term.
jared , Sep 3 2019 20:55 utc | 14
It doesn't get any TBTF'er than Boing. Bail-out is only phone-call away. With down-turn looming, the line is forming.
Piotr Berman , Sep 3 2019 21:11 utc | 15
"The latest complication in the long-running saga, these officials said, stems from a Boeing BA, -2.66% briefing in August that was cut short by regulators from the U.S., Europe, Brazil and elsewhere, who complained that the plane maker had failed to provide technical details and answer specific questions about modifications in the operation of MAX flight-control computers."

It seems to me that Boeing had no intention to insult anybody, but it has an impossible task. After decades of applying duct tape and baling wire with much success, they finally designed an unfixable plane, and they can either abandon this line of business (narrow bodied airliners) or start working on a new design grounded in 21st century technologies.

Ken Murray , Sep 3 2019 21:12 utc | 16
Boeing's military sales are so much more significant and important to them, they are just ignoring/down-playing their commercial problem with the 737 MAX. Follow the real money.
Arata , Sep 3 2019 21:57 utc | 17
That is unblievable FLight Control comptuer is based on 80286! A control system needs Real Time operation, at least some pre-emptive task operation, in terms of milisecond or microsecond. What ever way you program 80286 you can not achieve RT operation on 80286. I do not think that is the case. My be 80286 is doing some pripherial work, other than control.
Bemildred , Sep 3 2019 22:11 utc | 18
It is quite likely (IMHO) that they are no longer able to provide the requested information, but of course they cannot say that.

I once wrote a keyboard driver for an 80286, part of an editor, in assembler, on my first PC type computer, I still have it around here somewhere I think, the keyboard driver, but I would be rusty like the Titanic when it comes to writing code. I wrote some things in DEC assembler too, on VAXen.

Peter AU 1 , Sep 3 2019 22:14 utc | 19
Arata 16

The spoiler system is fly by wire.

Bemildred , Sep 3 2019 22:17 utc | 20
arata @16: 80286 does interrupts just fine, but you have to grok asynchronous operation, and most coders don't really, I see that every day in Linux and my browser. I wish I could get that box back, it had DOS, you could program on the bare wires, but God it was slow.
Tod , Sep 3 2019 22:28 utc | 21
Boeing will just need to press the TURBO button on the 286 processor. Problem solved.
karlof1 , Sep 3 2019 22:43 utc | 23
Ken Murray @15--

Boeing recently lost a $6+Billion weapons contract thanks to its similar Q&A in that realm of its business. Its annual earnings are due out in October. Plan to short-sell soon!

Godfree Roberts , Sep 3 2019 22:56 utc | 24
I am surprised that none of the coverage has mentioned the fact that, if China's CAAC does not sign off on the mods, it will cripple, if not doom the MAX.

I am equally surprised that we continue to sabotage China's export leader, as the WSJ reports today: "China's Huawei Technologies Co. accused the U.S. of "using every tool at its disposal" to disrupt its business, including launching cyberattacks on its networks and instructing law enforcement to "menace" its employees.

The telecommunications giant also said law enforcement in the U.S. have searched, detained and arrested Huawei employees and its business partners, and have sent FBI agents to the homes of its workers to pressure them to collect information on behalf of the U.S."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/huawei-accuses-the-u-s-of-cyberattacks-threatening-its-employees-11567500484?mod=hp_lead_pos2

Arioch , Sep 3 2019 23:18 utc | 25
I wonder how much blind trust in Boeing is intertwined into the fabric of civic aviation all around the world.

I mean something like this: Boeing publishes some research into failure statistics, solid materials aging or something. One that is really hard and expensive to proceed with. Everything take the results for granted without trying to independently reproduce and verify, because The Boeing!

Some later "derived" researches being made, upon the foundation of some prior works *including* that old Boeing research. Then FAA and similar company institutions around the world make some official regulations and guidelines deriving from the research which was in part derived form original Boeing work. Then insurance companies calculate their tarifs and rate plans, basing their estimation upon those "government standards", and when governments determine taxation levels they use that data too. Then airline companies and airliner leasing companies make their business plans, take huge loans in the banks (and banks do make their own plans expecting those loans to finally be paid back), and so on and so forth, building the cards-deck house, layer after layer.

And among the very many of the cornerstones - there would be dust covered and god-forgotten research made by Boeing 10 or maybe 20 years ago when no one even in drunk delirium could ever imagine questioning Boeing's verdicts upon engineering and scientific matters.

Now, the longevity of that trust is slowly unraveled. Like, the so universally trusted 737NG generation turned out to be inherently unsafe, and while only pilots knew it before, and even of them - only most curious and pedantic pilots, today it becomes public knowledge that 737NG are tainted.

Now, when did this corruption started? Wheat should be some deadline cast into the past, that since the day every other technical data coming from Boeing should be considered unreliable unless passing full-fledged independent verification? Should that day be somewhere in 2000-s? 1990-s? Maybe even 1970-s?

And ALL THE BODY of civic aviation industry knowledge that was accumulated since that date can NO MORE BE TRUSTED and should be almost scrapped and re-researched new! ALL THE tacit INPUT that can be traced back to Boeing and ALL THE DERIVED KNOWLEDGE now has to be verified in its entirety.

Miss Lacy , Sep 3 2019 23:19 utc | 26
Boeing is backstopped by the Murkan MIC, which is to say the US taxpayer. Until the lawsuits become too enormous. I wonder how much that will cost. And speaking of rigged markets - why do ya suppose that Trumpilator et al have been so keen to make huge sales to the Saudis, etc. etc. ? Ya don't suppose they had an inkling of trouble in the wind do ya? Speaking of insiders, how many million billions do ya suppose is being made in the Wall Street "trade war" roller coaster by peeps, munchkins not muppets, who have access to the Tweeter-in-Chief?
C I eh? , Sep 3 2019 23:25 utc | 27
@6 psychohistorian
I commented when you first started writing about this that it would take Boeing down and still believe that to be true. To the extent that Boeing is stonewalling the international safety regulators says to me that upper management and big stock holders are being given time to minimize their exposure before the axe falls.

Have you considered the costs of restructuring versus breaking apart Boeing and selling it into little pieces; to the owners specifically?

The MIC is restructuring itself - by first creating the political conditions to make the transformation highly profitable. It can only be made highly profitable by forcing the public to pay the associated costs of Rape and Pillage Incorporated.

Military Industrial Complex welfare programs, including wars in Syria and Yemen, are slowly winding down. We are about to get a massive bill from the financiers who already own everything in this sector, because what they have left now is completely unsustainable, with or without a Third World War.

It is fine that you won't fly Boeing but that is not the point. You may not ever fly again since air transit is subsidized at every level and the US dollar will no longer be available to fund the world's air travel infrastructure.

You will instead be paying for the replacement of Boeing and seeing what google is planning it may not be for the renewal of the airline business but rather for dedicated ground transportation, self driving cars and perhaps 'aerospace' defense forces, thank you Russia for setting the trend.

Lochearn , Sep 3 2019 23:45 utc | 30
As readers may remember I made a case study of Boeing for a fairly recent PHD. The examiners insisted that this case study be taken out because it was "speculative." I had forecast serious problems with the 787 and the 737 MAX back in 2012. I still believe the 787 is seriously flawed and will go the way of the MAX. I came to admire this once brilliant company whose work culminated in the superb 777.

America really did make some excellent products in the 20th century - with the exception of cars. Big money piled into GM from the early 1920s, especially the ultra greedy, quasi fascist Du Pont brothers, with the result that GM failed to innovate. It produced beautiful cars but technically they were almost identical to previous models.

The only real innovation over 40 years was automatic transmission. Does this sound reminiscent of the 737 MAX? What glued together GM for more than thirty years was the brilliance of CEO Alfred Sloan who managed to keep the Du Ponts (and J P Morgan) more or less happy while delegating total responsibility for production to divisional managers responsible for the different GM brands. When Sloan went the company started falling apart and the memoirs of bad boy John DeLorean testify to the complete disfunctionality of senior management.

At Ford the situation was perhaps even worse in the 1960s and 1970s. Management was at war with the workers, faulty transmissions were knowingly installed. All this is documented in an excellent book by ex-Ford supervisor Robert Dewar in his book "A Savage Factory."

dus7 , Sep 3 2019 23:53 utc | 32
Well, the first thing that came to mind upon reading about Boeing's apparent arrogance overseas - silly, I know - was that Boeing may be counting on some weird Trump sanctions for anyone not cooperating with the big important USian corporation! The U.S. has influence on European and many other countries, but it can only be stretched so far, and I would guess messing with Euro/internation airline regulators, especially in view of the very real fatal accidents with the 737MAX, would be too far.
david , Sep 4 2019 0:09 utc | 34
Please read the following article to get further info about how the 5 big Funds that hold 67% of Boeing stocks are working hard with the big banks to keep the stock high. Meanwhile Boeing is also trying its best to blackmail US taxpayers through Pentagon, for example, by pretending to walk away from a competitive bidding contract because it wants the Air Force to provide better cost formula.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/despite-devastating-737-crashes-boeing-stocks-fly-high/

So basically, Boeing is being kept afloat by US taxpayers because it is "too big to fail" and an important component of Dow. Please tell. Who is the biggest suckers here?

chu teh , Sep 4 2019 0:13 utc | 36
re Piotr Berman | Sep 3 2019 21:11 utc [I have a tiny bit of standing in this matter based on experience with an amazingly similar situation that has not heretofore been mentioned. More at end. Thus I offer my opinion.] Indeed, an impossible task to design a workable answer and still maintain the fiction that 737MAX is a hi-profit-margin upgrade requiring minimal training of already-trained 737-series pilots , either male or female. Turning-off autopilot to bypass runaway stabilizer necessitates : [1]

the earlier 737-series "rollercoaster" procedure to overcome too-high aerodynamic forces must be taught and demonstrated as a memory item to all pilots.

The procedure was designed for early Model 737-series, not the 737MAX which has uniquely different center-of-gravity and pitch-up problem requiring MCAS to auto-correct, especially on take-off. [2] but the "rollercoaster" procedure does not work at all altitudes.

It causes aircraft to lose some altitude and, therefore, requires at least [about] 7,000-feet above-ground clearance to avoid ground contact. [This altitude loss consumed by the procedure is based on alleged reports of simulator demonstrations. There seems to be no known agreement on the actual amount of loss]. [3] The physical requirements to perform the "rollercoaster" procedure were established at a time when female pilots were rare.

Any 737MAX pilots, male or female, will have to pass new physical requirements demonstrating actual conditions on newly-designed flight simulators that mimic the higher load requirements of the 737MAX . Such new standards will also have to compensate for left vs right-handed pilots because the manual-trim wheel is located between the .pilot/copilot seats.

================

Now where/when has a similar situation occurred? I.e., wherein a Federal regulator agency [FAA] allowed a vendor [Boeing] to claim that a modified product did not need full inspection/review to get agency certification of performance [airworthiness]. As you may know, 2 working, nuclear, power plants were forced to shut down and be decommissioned when, in 2011, 2 newly-installed, critical components in each plant were discovered to be defective, beyond repair and not replaceable. These power plants were each producing over 1,000 megawatts of power for over 20 years. In short, the failed components were modifications of the original, successful design that claimed to need only a low-level of Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight and approval. The mods were, in fact, new and untried and yet only tested by computer modeling and theoretical estimations based on experience with smaller/different designs.

<<< The NRC had not given full inspection/oversight to the new units because of manufacturer/operator claims that the changes were not significant. The NRC did not verify the veracity of those claims. >>>

All 4 components [2 required in each plant] were essentially heat-exchangers weighing 640 tons each, having 10,000 tubes carrying radioactive water surrounded by [transferring their heat to] a separate flow of "clean" water. The tubes were progressively damaged and began leaking. The new design failed. It can not be fixed. Thus, both plants of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station are now a complete loss and await dismantling [as the courts will decide who pays for the fiasco].

Jen , Sep 4 2019 0:20 utc | 37
In my mind, the fact that Boeing transferred its head office from Seattle (where the main manufacturing and presumable the main design and engineering functions are based) to Chicago (centre of the neoliberal economic universe with the University of Chicago being its central shrine of worship, not to mention supply of future managers and administrators) in 1997 says much about the change in corporate culture and values from a culture that emphasised technical and design excellence, deliberate redundancies in essential functions (in case of emergencies or failures of core functions), consistently high standards and care for the people who adhered to these principles, to a predatory culture in which profits prevail over people and performance.

Phew! I barely took a breath there! :-)

Lochearn , Sep 4 2019 0:22 utc | 38
@ 32 david

Good article. Boeing is, or used to be, America's biggest manufacturing export. So you are right it cannot be allowed to fail. Boeing is also a manufacturer of military aircraft. The fact that it is now in such a pitiful state is symptomatic of America's decline and decadence and its takeover by financial predators.

jo6pac , Sep 4 2019 0:39 utc | 40
Posted by: Jen | Sep 4 2019 0:20 utc | 35

Nailed, moved to city of dead but not for gotten uncle Milton Frieman friend of aynn rand.

vk , Sep 4 2019 0:53 utc | 41
I don't think Boeing was arrogant. I think the 737 is simply unfixable and that they know that -- hence they went to the meeting with empty hands.
C I eh? , Sep 4 2019 1:14 utc | 42
They did the same with Nortel, whose share value exceeded 300 billion not long before it was scrapped. Insiders took everything while pension funds were wiped out of existence.

It is so very helpful to understand everything you read is corporate/intel propaganda, and you are always being setup to pay for the next great scam. The murder of 300+ people by boeing was yet another tragedy our sadistic elites could not let go to waste.

Walter , Sep 4 2019 3:10 utc | 43

...And to the idea that Boeing is being kept afloat by financial agencies.

Willow , Sep 4 2019 3:16 utc | 44
Aljazerra has a series of excellent investigative documentaries they did on Boeing. Here is one from 2014. https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/boeing787/
Igor Bundy , Sep 4 2019 3:17 utc | 45
For many amerikans, a good "offensive" is far preferable than a good defense even if that only involves an apology. Remember what ALL US presidents say.. We will never apologize.. For the extermination of natives, for shooting down civilian airliners, for blowing up mosques full of worshipers, for bombing hospitals.. for reducing many countries to the stone age and using biological and chemical and nuclear weapons against the planet.. For supporting terrorists who plague the planet now. For basically being able to be unaccountable to anyone including themselves as a peculiar race of feces. So it is not the least surprising that amerikan corporations also follow the same bad manners as those they put into and pre-elect to rule them.
Igor Bundy , Sep 4 2019 3:26 utc | 46
People talk about Seattle as if its a bastion of integrity.. Its the same place Microsoft screwed up countless companies to become the largest OS maker? The same place where Amazon fashions how to screw its own employees to work longer and cheaper? There are enough examples that Seattle is not Toronto.. and will never be a bastion of ethics..

Actually can you show me a single place in the US where ethics are considered a bastion of governorship? Other than the libraries of content written about ethics, rarely do amerikans ever follow it. Yet expect others to do so.. This is getting so perverse that other cultures are now beginning to emulate it. Because its everywhere..

Remember Dallas? I watched people who saw in fascination how business can function like that. Well they cant in the long run but throw enough money and resources and it works wonders in the short term because it destroys the competition. But yea around 1998 when they got rid of the laws on making money by magic, most every thing has gone to hell.. because now there are no constraints but making money.. anywhich way.. Thats all that matters..

Igor Bundy , Sep 4 2019 3:54 utc | 47
You got to be daft or bribed to use intel cpu's in embedded systems. Going from a motorolla cpu, the intel chips were dinosaurs in every way. Requiring the cpu to be almost twice as fast to get the same thing done.. Also its interrupt control was not upto par. A simple example was how the commodore amiga could read from the disk and not stutter or slow down anything else you were doing. I never seen this fixed.. In fact going from 8Mhz to 4GHz seems to have fixed it by brute force. Yes the 8Mhz motorolla cpu worked wonders when you had music, video, IO all going at the same time. Its not just the CPU but the support chips which don't lock up the bus. Why would anyone use Intel? When there are so many specific embedded controllers designed for such specific things.
imo , Sep 4 2019 4:00 utc | 48
Initially I thought it was just the new over-sized engines they retro-fitted. A situation that would surely have been easier to get around by just going back to the original engines -- any inefficiencies being less $costly than the time the planes have been grounded. But this post makes the whole rabbit warren 10 miles deeper.

I do not travel much these days and find the cattle-class seating on these planes a major disincentive. Becoming aware of all these added technical issues I will now positively select for alternatives to 737 and bear the cost.

Joost , Sep 4 2019 4:25 utc | 50
I'm surprised Boeing stock still haven't taken nose dive

Posted by: Bob burger | Sep 3 2019 19:27 utc | 9

That is because the price is propped up by $9 billion share buyback per year . Share buyback is an effective scheme to airlift all the cash out of a company towards the major shareholders. I mean, who wants to develop reliable airplanes if you can funnel the cash into your pockets?

Once the buyback ends the dive begins and just before it hits ground zero, they buy the company for pennies on the dollar, possibly with government bailout as a bonus. Then the company flies towards the next climb and subsequent dive. MCAS economics.

Henkie , Sep 4 2019 7:04 utc | 53
Hi , I am new here in writing but not in reading.. About the 80286 , where is the coprocessor the 80287? How can the 80286 make IEEE math calculations? So how can it fly a controlled flight when it can not calculate its accuracy...... How is it possible that this system is certified? It should have at least a 80386 DX not SX!!!!
snake , Sep 4 2019 7:35 utc | 54
moved to Chicago in 1997 says much about the change in corporate culture and values from a culture that emphasised technical and design excellence, deliberate redundancies in essential functions (in case of emergencies or failures of core functions), consistently high standards and care for the people who adhered to these principles, to a predatory culture in which profits prevail over people and performance.

Jen @ 35 < ==

yes, the morally of the companies and their exclusive hold on a complicit or controlled government always defaults the government to support, enforce and encourage the principles of economic Zionism.

But it is more than just the corporate culture => the corporate fat cats 1. use the rule-making powers of the government to make law for them. Such laws create high valued assets from the pockets of the masses. The most well know of those corporate uses of government is involved with the intangible property laws (copyright, patent, and government franchise). The government generated copyright, franchise and Patent laws are monopolies. So when government subsidizes a successful outcome R&D project its findings are packaged up into a set of monopolies [copyrights, privatized government franchises which means instead of 50 companies or more competing for the next increment in technology, one gains the full advantage of that government research only one can use or abuse it. and the patented and copyrighted technology is used to extract untold billions, in small increments from the pockets of the public. 2. use of the judicial power of governments and their courts in both domestic and international settings, to police the use and to impose fake values in intangible property monopolies. Government-rule made privately owned monopoly rights (intangible property rights) generated from the pockets of the masses, do two things: they exclude, deny and prevent would be competition and their make value in a hidden revenue tax that passes to the privately held monopolist with each sale of a copyrighted, government franchised, or patented service or product. . Please note the one two nature of the "use of government law making powers to generate intangible private monopoly property rights"

Canthama , Sep 4 2019 10:37 utc | 56
There is no doubt Boeing has committed crimes on the 737MAX, its arrogance & greedy should be severely punished by the international commitment as an example to other global Corporations. It represents what is the worst of Corporate America that places profits in front of lives.
Christian J Chuba , Sep 4 2019 11:55 utc | 59
How the U.S. is keeping Russia out of the international market?

Iran and other sanctioned countries are a potential captive market and they have growth opportunities in what we sometimes call the non-aligned, emerging markets countries (Turkey, Africa, SE Asia, India, ...).

One thing I have learned is that the U.S. always games the system, we never play fair. So what did we do. Do their manufacturers use 1% U.S. made parts and they need that for international certification?

BM , Sep 4 2019 12:48 utc | 60
Ultimately all of the issues in the news these days are the same one and the same issue - as the US gets closer and closer to the brink of catastrophic collapse they get ever more desperate. As they get more and more desperate they descend into what comes most naturally to the US - throughout its entire history - frenzied violence, total absence of morality, war, murder, genocide, and everything else that the US is so well known for (by those who are not blinded by exceptionalist propaganda).

The Hong Kong violence is a perfect example - it is impossible that a self-respecting nation state could allow itself to be seen to degenerate into such idiotic degeneracy, and so grossly flaunt the most basic human decency. Ergo , the US is not a self-respecting nation state. It is a failed state.

I am certain the arrogance of Boeing reflects two things: (a) an assurance from the US government that the government will back them to the hilt, come what may, to make sure that the 737Max flies again; and (b) a threat that if Boeing fails to get the 737Max in the air despite that support, the entire top level management and board of directors will be jailed. Boeing know very well they cannot deliver. But just as the US government is desperate to avoid the inevitable collapse of the US, the Boeing top management are desperate to avoid jail. It is a charade.

It is time for international regulators to withdraw certification totally - after the problems are all fixed (I don't believe they ever will be), the plane needs complete new certification of every detail from the bottom up, at Boeing's expense, and with total openness from Boeing. The current Boeing management are not going to cooperate with that, therefore the international regulators need to demand a complete replacement of the management and board of directors as a condition for working with them.

Piotr Berman , Sep 4 2019 13:23 utc | 61
From ZeroHedge link:

If Boeing had invested some of this money that it blew on share buybacks to design a new modern plane from ground up to replace the ancient 737 airframe, these tragedies could have been prevented, and Boeing wouldn't have this nightmare on its hands. But the corporate cost-cutters and financial engineers, rather than real engineers, had the final word.

Markets don't care about any of this. They don't care about real engineers either. They love corporate cost-cutters and financial engineers. They want share buybacks, and if something bad happens, they'll overlook the $5 billion to pay for the fallout because it's just a "one-time item."

And now Boeing still has this plane, instead of a modern plane, and the history of this plane is now tainted, as is its brand, and by extension, that of Boeing. But markets blow that off too. Nothing matters.

Companies are getting away each with their own thing. There are companies that are losing a ton of money and are burning tons of cash, with no indications that they will ever make money. And market valuations are just ludicrous.

======

Thus Boeing issue is part of a much larger picture. Something systemic had to make "markets" less rational. And who is this "market"? In large part, fund managers wracking their brains how to create "decent return" while the cost of borrowing and returns on lending are super low. What remains are forms of real estate and stocks.

Overall, Boeing buy-backs exceeded 40 billion dollars, one could guess that half or quarter of that would suffice to build a plane that logically combines the latest technologies. E.g. the entire frame design to fit together with engines, processors proper for the information processing load, hydraulics for steering that satisfy force requirements in almost all circumstances etc. New technologies also fail because they are not completely understood, but when the overall design is logical with margins of safety, the faults can be eliminated.

Instead, 737 was slowly modified toward failure, eliminating safety margins one by one.

morongobill , Sep 4 2019 14:08 utc | 63

Regarding the 80286 and the 737, don't forget that the air traffic control system and the ICBM system uses old technology as well.

Seems our big systems have feet of old silicon.

Allan Bowman , Sep 4 2019 15:15 utc | 66
Boeing has apparently either never heard of, or ignores a procedure that is mandatory in satellite design and design reviews. This is FMEA or Failure Modes and Effects Analysis. This requires design engineers to document the impact of every potential failure and combination of failures thereby highlighting everthing from catastrophic effects to just annoyances. Clearly BOEING has done none of these and their troubles are a direct result. It can be assumed that their arrogant and incompetent management has not yet understood just how serious their behavior is to the future of the company.
fx , Sep 4 2019 16:08 utc | 69
Once the buyback ends the dive begins and just before it hits ground zero, they buy the company for pennies on the dollar, possibly with government bailout as a bonus. Then the company flies towards the next climb and subsequent dive. MCAS economics.

Posted by: Joost | Sep 4 2019 4:25 utc | 50

Well put!

Bemildred , Sep 4 2019 16:11 utc | 70
Computer modelling is what they are talking about in the cliche "Garbage in, garbage out".

The problem is not new, and it is well understood. What computer modelling is is cheap, and easy to fudge, and that is why it is popular with people who care about money a lot. Much of what is called "AI" is very similar in its limitations, a complicated way to fudge up the results you want, or something close enough for casual examination.

In particular cases where you have a well-defined and well-mathematized theory, then you can get some useful results with models. Like in Physics, Chemistry.

And they can be useful for "realistic" training situations, like aircraft simulators. The old story about wargame failures against Iran is another such situation. A lot of video games are big simulations in essence. But that is not reality, it's fake reality.

Trond , Sep 4 2019 17:01 utc | 79
@ SteveK9 71 "By the way, the problem was caused by Mitsubishi, who designed the heat exchangers."

Ahh. The furriners...

I once made the "mistake" of pointing out (in a comment under an article in Salon) that the reactors that exploded at Fukushima was made by GE and that GE people was still in charge of the reactors of American quality when they exploded. (The amerikans got out on one of the first planes out of the country).

I have never seen so many angry replies to one of my comments. I even got e-mails for several weeks from angry Americans.

c1ue , Sep 4 2019 19:44 utc | 80
@Henkie #53 You need floating point for scientific calculations, but I really doubt the 737 is doing any scientific research. Also, a regular CPU can do mathematical calculations. It just isn't as fast nor has the same capacity as a dedicated FPU. Another common use for FPUs is in live action shooter games - the neo-physics portions utilize scientific-like calculations to create lifelike actions. I sold computer systems in the 1990s while in school - Doom was a significant driver for newer systems (as well as hedge fund types). Again, don't see why an airplane needs this.

[Aug 31, 2019] Programming is about Effective Communication

Aug 31, 2019 | developers.slashdot.org

Anonymous Coward , Friday February 22, 2019 @02:42PM ( #58165060 )

Algorithms, not code ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

Sad to see these are all books about coding and coding style. Nothing at all here about algorithms, or data structures.

My vote goes for Algorithms by Sedgewick

Seven Spirals ( 4924941 ) , Friday February 22, 2019 @02:57PM ( #58165150 )
MOTIF Programming by Marshall Brain ( Score: 3 )

Amazing how little memory and CPU MOTIF applications take. Once you get over the callbacks, it's actually not bad!

Seven Spirals ( 4924941 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Interesting. Sorry you had that experience. I'm not sure what you mean by a "multi-line text widget". I can tell you that early versions of OpenMOTIF were very very buggy in my experience. You probably know this, but after OpenMOTIF was completed and revved a few times the original MOTIF code was released as open-source. Many of the bugs I'd been seeing (and some just strange visual artifacts) disappeared. I know a lot of people love QT and it's produced real apps and real results - I won't poo-poo it. How

SuperKendall ( 25149 ) writes:
Design and Evolution of C++ ( Score: 2 )

Even if you don't like C++ much, The Design and Evolution of C++ [amazon.com] is a great book for understanding why pretty much any language ends up the way it does, seeing the tradeoffs and how a language comes to grow and expand from simple roots. It's way more interesting to read than you might expect (not very dry, and more about human interaction than you would expect).

Other than that reading through back posts in a lot of coding blogs that have been around a long time is probably a really good idea.

Also a side re

shanen ( 462549 ) writes:
What about books that hadn't been written yet? ( Score: 2 )

You young whippersnappers don't 'preciate how good you have it!

Back in my day, the only book about programming was the 1401 assembly language manual!

But seriously, folks, it's pretty clear we still don't know shite about how to program properly. We have some fairly clear success criteria for improving the hardware, but the criteria for good software are clear as mud, and the criteria for ways to produce good software are much muddier than that.

Having said that, I will now peruse the thread rather carefully

shanen ( 462549 ) writes:
TMI, especially PII ( Score: 2 )

Couldn't find any mention of Guy Steele, so I'll throw in The New Hacker's Dictionary , which I once owned in dead tree form. Not sure if Version 4.4.7 http://catb.org/jargon/html/ [catb.org] is the latest online... Also remember a couple of his language manuals. Probably used the Common Lisp one the most...

Didn't find any mention of a lot of books that I consider highly relevant, but that may reflect my personal bias towards history. Not really relevant for most programmers.

TMI, but if I open up my database on all t

UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) , Friday February 22, 2019 @03:52PM ( #58165532 )
Programming is about **Effective Communication** ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

I've been programming for the past ~40 years and I'll try to summarize what I believe are the most important bits about programming (pardon the pun.) Think of this as a META: " HOWTO: Be A Great Programmer " summary. (I'll get to the books section in a bit.)

1. All code can be summarized as a trinity of 3 fundamental concepts:

* Linear ; that is, sequence: A, B, C
* Cyclic ; that is, unconditional jumps: A-B-C-goto B
* Choice ; that is, conditional jumps: if A then B

2. ~80% of programming is NOT about code; it is about Effective Communication. Whether that be:

* with your compiler / interpreter / REPL
* with other code (levels of abstraction, level of coupling, separation of concerns, etc.)
* with your boss(es) / manager(s)
* with your colleagues
* with your legal team
* with your QA dept
* with your customer(s)
* with the general public

The other ~20% is effective time management and design. A good programmer knows how to budget their time. Programming is about balancing the three conflicting goals of the Program Management Triangle [wikipedia.org]: You can have it on time, on budget, on quality. Pick two.

3. Stages of a Programmer

There are two old jokes:

In Lisp all code is data. In Haskell all data is code.

And:

Progression of a (Lisp) Programmer:

* The newbie realizes that the difference between code and data is trivial.
* The expert realizes that all code is data.
* The true master realizes that all data is code.

(Attributed to Aristotle Pagaltzis)

The point of these jokes is that as you work with systems you start to realize that a data-driven process can often greatly simplify things.

4. Know Thy Data

Fred Books once wrote

"Show me your flowcharts (source code), and conceal your tables (domain model), and I shall continue to be mystified; show me your tables (domain model) and I won't usually need your flowcharts (source code): they'll be obvious."

A more modern version would read like this:

Show me your code and I'll have to see your data,
Show me your data and I won't have to see your code.

The importance of data can't be understated:

* Optimization STARTS with understanding HOW the data is being generated and used, NOT the code as has been traditionally taught.
* Post 2000 "Big Data" has been called the new oil. We are generating upwards to millions of GB of data every second. Analyzing that data is import to spot trends and potential problems.

5. There are three levels of optimizations. From slowest to fastest run-time:

a) Bit-twiddling hacks [stanford.edu]
b) Algorithmic -- Algorithmic complexity or Analysis of algorithms [wikipedia.org] (such as Big-O notation)
c) Data-Orientated Design [dataorienteddesign.com] -- Understanding how hardware caches such as instruction and data caches matter. Optimize for the common case, NOT the single case that OOP tends to favor.

Optimizing is understanding Bang-for-the-Buck. 80% of code execution is spent in 20% of the time. Speeding up hot-spots with bit twiddling won't be as effective as using a more efficient algorithm which, in turn, won't be as efficient as understanding HOW the data is manipulated in the first place.

6. Fundamental Reading

Since the OP specifically asked about books -- there are lots of great ones. The ones that have impressed me that I would mark as "required" reading:

* The Mythical Man-Month
* Godel, Escher, Bach
* Knuth: The Art of Computer Programming
* The Pragmatic Programmer
* Zero Bugs and Program Faster
* Writing Solid Code / Code Complete by Steve McConnell
* Game Programming Patterns [gameprogra...tterns.com] (*)
* Game Engine Design
* Thinking in Java by Bruce Eckel
* Puzzles for Hackers by Ivan Sklyarov

(*) I did NOT list Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software as that leads to typical, bloated, over-engineered crap. The main problem with "Design Patterns" is that a programmer will often get locked into a mindset of seeing everything as a pattern -- even when a simple few lines of code would solve th eproblem. For example here is 1,100+ of Crap++ code such as Boost's over-engineered CRC code [boost.org] when a mere ~25 lines of SIMPLE C code would have done the trick. When was the last time you ACTUALLY needed to _modify_ a CRC function? The BIG picture is that you are probably looking for a BETTER HASHING function with less collisions. You probably would be better off using a DIFFERENT algorithm such as SHA-2, etc.

7. Do NOT copy-pasta

Roughly 80% of bugs creep in because someone blindly copied-pasted without thinking. Type out ALL code so you actually THINK about what you are writing.

8. K.I.S.S.

Over-engineering and aka technical debt, will be your Achilles' heel. Keep It Simple, Silly.

9. Use DESCRIPTIVE variable names

You spend ~80% of your time READING code, and only ~20% writing it. Use good, descriptive variable names. Far too programmers write usless comments and don't understand the difference between code and comments:

Code says HOW, Comments say WHY

A crap comment will say something like: // increment i

No, Shit Sherlock! Don't comment the obvious!

A good comment will say something like: // BUGFIX: 1234: Work-around issues caused by A, B, and C.

10. Ignoring Memory Management doesn't make it go away -- now you have two problems. (With apologies to JWZ)

TINSTAAFL.

11. Learn Multi-Paradigm programming [wikipedia.org].

If you don't understand both the pros and cons of these programming paradigms ...

* Procedural
* Object-Orientated
* Functional, and
* Data-Orientated Design

... then you will never really understand programming, nor abstraction, at a deep level, along with how and when it should and shouldn't be used.

12. Multi-disciplinary POV

ALL non-trivial code has bugs. If you aren't using static code analysis [wikipedia.org] then you are not catching as many bugs as the people who are.

Also, a good programmer looks at his code from many different angles. As a programmer you must put on many different hats to find them:

* Architect -- design the code
* Engineer / Construction Worker -- implement the code
* Tester -- test the code
* Consumer -- doesn't see the code, only sees the results. Does it even work?? Did you VERIFY it did BEFORE you checked your code into version control?

13. Learn multiple Programming Languages

Each language was designed to solve certain problems. Learning different languages, even ones you hate, will expose you to different concepts. e.g. If you don't how how to read assembly language AND your high level language then you will never be as good as the programmer who does both.

14. Respect your Colleagues' and Consumers Time, Space, and Money.

Mobile game are the WORST at respecting people's time, space and money turning "players into payers." They treat customers as whales. Don't do this. A practical example: If you are a slack channel with 50+ people do NOT use @here. YOUR fire is not their emergency!

15. Be Passionate

If you aren't passionate about programming, that is, you are only doing it for the money, it will show. Take some pride in doing a GOOD job.

16. Perfect Practice Makes Perfect.

If you aren't programming every day you will never be as good as someone who is. Programming is about solving interesting problems. Practice solving puzzles to develop your intuition and lateral thinking. The more you practice the better you get.

"Sorry" for the book but I felt it was important to summarize the "essentials" of programming.

--
Hey Slashdot. Fix your shitty filter so long lists can be posted.: "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 37.0)."

raymorris ( 2726007 ) , Friday February 22, 2019 @05:39PM ( #58166230 ) Journal
Shared this with my team ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

You crammed a lot of good ideas into a short post.
I'm sending my team at work a link to your post.

You mentioned code can data. Linus Torvalds had this to say:

"I'm a huge proponent of designing your code around the data, rather than the other way around, and I think it's one of the reasons git has been fairly successful [â¦] I will, in fact, claim that the difference between a bad programmer and a good one is whether he considers his code or his data structures more important."

"Bad programmers worry about the code. Good programmers worry about data structures and their relationships."

I'm inclined to agree. Once the data structure is right, the code oftem almost writes itself. It'll be easy to write and easy to read because it's obvious how one would handle data structured in that elegant way.

Writing the code necessary to transform the data from the input format into the right structure can be non-obvious, but it's normally worth it.

[Aug 31, 2019] Slashdot Asks How Did You Learn How To Code - Slashdot

Aug 31, 2019 | ask.slashdot.org

GreatDrok ( 684119 ) , Saturday June 04, 2016 @10:03PM ( #52250917 ) Journal

Programming, not coding ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

i learnt to program at school from a Ph.D computer scientist. We never even had computers in the class. We learnt to break the problem down into sections using flowcharts or pseudo-code and then we would translate that program into whatever coding language we were using. I still do this usually in my notebook where I figure out all the things I need to do and then write the skeleton of the code using a series of comments for what each section of my program and then I fill in the code for each section. It is a combination of top down and bottom up programming, writing routines that can be independently tested and validated.

[Jul 23, 2019] Object-Oriented Programming -- The Trillion Dollar Disaster

While OO critique is good (althoth most point are far from new) and up to the point the proposed solution is not. There is no universal opener for creating elegant reliable programs.
Notable quotes:
"... Object-Oriented Programming has been created with one goal in mind -- to manage the complexity of procedural codebases. In other words, it was supposed to improve code organization. There's no objective and open evidence that OOP is better than plain procedural programming. ..."
"... The bitter truth is that OOP fails at the only task it was intended to address. It looks good on paper -- we have clean hierarchies of animals, dogs, humans, etc. However, it falls flat once the complexity of the application starts increasing. Instead of reducing complexity, it encourages promiscuous sharing of mutable state and introduces additional complexity with its numerous design patterns . OOP makes common development practices, like refactoring and testing, needlessly hard. ..."
"... C++ is a horrible [object-oriented] language And limiting your project to C means that people don't screw things up with any idiotic "object model" c&@p. -- Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux ..."
"... Many dislike speed limits on the roads, but they're essential to help prevent people from crashing to death. Similarly, a good programming framework should provide mechanisms that prevent us from doing stupid things. ..."
"... Unfortunately, OOP provides developers too many tools and choices, without imposing the right kinds of limitations. Even though OOP promises to address modularity and improve reusability, it fails to deliver on its promises (more on this later). OOP code encourages the use of shared mutable state, which has been proven to be unsafe time and time again. OOP typically requires a lot of boilerplate code (low signal-to-noise ratio). ..."
Jul 23, 2019 | medium.com

The ultimate goal of every software developer should be to write reliable code. Nothing else matters if the code is buggy and unreliable. And what is the best way to write code that is reliable? Simplicity . Simplicity is the opposite of complexity . Therefore our first and foremost responsibility as software developers should be to reduce code complexity.

Disclaimer

I'll be honest, I'm not a raving fan of object-orientation. Of course, this article is going to be biased. However, I have good reasons to dislike OOP.

I also understand that criticism of OOP is a very sensitive topic -- I will probably offend many readers. However, I'm doing what I think is right. My goal is not to offend, but to raise awareness of the issues that OOP introduces.

I'm not criticizing Alan Kay's OOP -- he is a genius. I wish OOP was implemented the way he designed it. I'm criticizing the modern Java/C# approach to OOP.

I will also admit that I'm angry. Very angry. I think that it is plain wrong that OOP is considered the de-facto standard for code organization by many people, including those in very senior technical positions. It is also wrong that many mainstream languages don't offer any other alternatives to code organization other than OOP.

Hell, I used to struggle a lot myself while working on OOP projects. And I had no single clue why I was struggling this much. Maybe I wasn't good enough? I had to learn a couple more design patterns (I thought)! Eventually, I got completely burned out.

This post sums up my first-hand decade-long journey from Object-Oriented to Functional programming. I've seen it all. Unfortunately, no matter how hard I try, I can no longer find use cases for OOP. I have personally seen OOP projects fail because they become too complex to maintain.


TLDR

Object oriented programs are offered as alternatives to correct ones -- Edsger W. Dijkstra , pioneer of computer science

<img src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*MTb-Xx5D0H6LUJu_cQ9fMQ.jpeg" width="700" height="467"/>
Photo by Sebastian Herrmann on Unsplash

Object-Oriented Programming has been created with one goal in mind -- to manage the complexity of procedural codebases. In other words, it was supposed to improve code organization. There's no objective and open evidence that OOP is better than plain procedural programming.

The bitter truth is that OOP fails at the only task it was intended to address. It looks good on paper -- we have clean hierarchies of animals, dogs, humans, etc. However, it falls flat once the complexity of the application starts increasing. Instead of reducing complexity, it encourages promiscuous sharing of mutable state and introduces additional complexity with its numerous design patterns . OOP makes common development practices, like refactoring and testing, needlessly hard.

Some might disagree with me, but the truth is that modern OOP has never been properly designed. It never came out of a proper research institution (in contrast with Haskell/FP). I do not consider Xerox or another enterprise to be a "proper research institution". OOP doesn't have decades of rigorous scientific research to back it up. Lambda calculus offers a complete theoretical foundation for Functional Programming. OOP has nothing to match that. OOP mainly "just happened".

Using OOP is seemingly innocent in the short-term, especially on greenfield projects. But what are the long-term consequences of using OOP? OOP is a time bomb, set to explode sometime in the future when the codebase gets big enough.

Projects get delayed, deadlines get missed, developers get burned-out, adding in new features becomes next to impossible. The organization labels the codebase as the "legacy codebase" , and the development team plans a rewrite .

OOP is not natural for the human brain, our thought process is centered around "doing" things -- go for a walk, talk to a friend, eat pizza. Our brains have evolved to do things, not to organize the world into complex hierarchies of abstract objects.

OOP code is non-deterministic -- unlike with functional programming, we're not guaranteed to get the same output given the same inputs. This makes reasoning about the program very hard. As an oversimplified example, the output of 2+2 or calculator.Add(2, 2) mostly is equal to four, but sometimes it might become equal to three, five, and maybe even 1004. The dependencies of the Calculator object might change the result of the computation in subtle, but profound ways.


The Need for a Resilient Framework

I know, this may sound weird, but as programmers, we shouldn't trust ourselves to write reliable code. Personally, I am unable to write good code without a strong framework to base my work on. Yes, there are frameworks that concern themselves with some very particular problems (e.g. Angular or ASP.Net).

I'm not talking about the software frameworks. I'm talking about the more abstract dictionary definition of a framework: "an essential supporting structure " -- frameworks that concern themselves with the more abstract things like code organization and tackling code complexity. Even though Object-Oriented and Functional Programming are both programming paradigms, they're also both very high-level frameworks.

Limiting our choices

C++ is a horrible [object-oriented] language And limiting your project to C means that people don't screw things up with any idiotic "object model" c&@p. -- Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux

Linus Torvalds is widely known for his open criticism of C++ and OOP. One thing he was 100% right about is limiting programmers in the choices they can make. In fact, the fewer choices programmers have, the more resilient their code becomes. In the quote above, Linus Torvalds highly recommends having a good framework to base our code upon.

<img src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*ujt2PMrbhCZuGhufoxfr5w.jpeg" width="700" height="465"/>
Photo by specphotops on Unsplash

Many dislike speed limits on the roads, but they're essential to help prevent people from crashing to death. Similarly, a good programming framework should provide mechanisms that prevent us from doing stupid things.

A good programming framework helps us to write reliable code. First and foremost, it should help reduce complexity by providing the following things:

  1. Modularity and reusability
  2. Proper state isolation
  3. High signal-to-noise ratio

Unfortunately, OOP provides developers too many tools and choices, without imposing the right kinds of limitations. Even though OOP promises to address modularity and improve reusability, it fails to deliver on its promises (more on this later). OOP code encourages the use of shared mutable state, which has been proven to be unsafe time and time again. OOP typically requires a lot of boilerplate code (low signal-to-noise ratio).

... ... ...

Messaging

Alan Kay coined the term "Object Oriented Programming" in the 1960s. He had a background in biology and was attempting to make computer programs communicate the same way living cells do.

<img src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*bzRsnzakR7O4RMbDfEZ1sA.jpeg" width="700" height="467"/>
Photo by Muukii on Unsplash

Alan Kay's big idea was to have independent programs (cells) communicate by sending messages to each other. The state of the independent programs would never be shared with the outside world (encapsulation).

That's it. OOP was never intended to have things like inheritance, polymorphism, the "new" keyword, and the myriad of design patterns.

OOP in its purest form

Erlang is OOP in its purest form. Unlike more mainstream languages, it focuses on the core idea of OOP -- messaging. In Erlang, objects communicate by passing immutable messages between objects.

Is there proof that immutable messages are a superior approach compared to method calls?

Hell yes! Erlang is probably the most reliable language in the world. It powers most of the world's telecom (and hence the internet) infrastructure. Some of the systems written in Erlang have reliability of 99.9999999% (you read that right -- nine nines). Code Complexity

With OOP-inflected programming languages, computer software becomes more verbose, less readable, less descriptive, and harder to modify and maintain.

-- Richard Mansfield

The most important aspect of software development is keeping the code complexity down. Period. None of the fancy features matter if the codebase becomes impossible to maintain. Even 100% test coverage is worth nothing if the codebase becomes too complex and unmaintainable .

What makes the codebase complex? There are many things to consider, but in my opinion, the top offenders are: shared mutable state, erroneous abstractions, and low signal-to-noise ratio (often caused by boilerplate code). All of them are prevalent in OOP.


The Problems of State

<img src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*1WeuR9OoKyD5EvtT9KjXOA.jpeg" width="700" height="467"/>
Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

What is state? Simply put, state is any temporary data stored in memory. Think variables or fields/properties in OOP. Imperative programming (including OOP) describes computation in terms of the program state and changes to that state . Declarative (functional) programming describes the desired results instead, and don't specify changes to the state explicitly.

... ... ...

To make the code more efficient, objects are passed not by their value, but by their reference . This is where "dependency injection" falls flat.

Let me explain. Whenever we create an object in OOP, we pass references to its dependencies to the constructor . Those dependencies also have their own internal state. The newly created object happily stores references to those dependencies in its internal state and is then happy to modify them in any way it pleases. And it also passes those references down to anything else it might end up using.

This creates a complex graph of promiscuously shared objects that all end up changing each other's state. This, in turn, causes huge problems since it becomes almost impossible to see what caused the program state to change. Days might be wasted trying to debug such state changes. And you're lucky if you don't have to deal with concurrency (more on this later).

Methods/Properties

The methods or properties that provide access to particular fields are no better than changing the value of a field directly. It doesn't matter whether you mutate an object's state by using a fancy property or method -- the result is the same: mutated state.

Some people say that OOP tries to model the real world. This is simply not true -- OOP has nothing to relate to in the real world. Trying to model programs as objects probably is one of the biggest OOP mistakes.

The real world is not hierarchical

OOP attempts to model everything as a hierarchy of objects. Unfortunately, that is not how things work in the real world. Objects in the real world interact with each other using messages, but they mostly are independent of each other.

Inheritance in the real world

OOP inheritance is not modeled after the real world. The parent object in the real world is unable to change the behavior of child objects at run-time. Even though you inherit your DNA from your parents, they're unable to make changes to your DNA as they please. You do not inherit "behaviors" from your parents, you develop your own behaviors. And you're unable to "override" your parents' behaviors.

The real world has no methods

Does the piece of paper you're writing on have a "write" method ? No! You take an empty piece of paper, pick up a pen, and write some text. You, as a person, don't have a "write" method either -- you make the decision to write some text based on outside events or your internal thoughts.


The Kingdom of Nouns

Objects bind functions and data structures together in indivisible units. I think this is a fundamental error since functions and data structures belong in totally different worlds.

-- Joe Armstrong , creator of Erlang

Objects (or nouns) are at the very core of OOP. A fundamental limitation of OOP is that it forces everything into nouns. And not everything should be modeled as nouns. Operations (functions) should not be modeled as objects. Why are we forced to create a Multiplier class when all we need is a function that multiplies two numbers? Simply have a Multiply function, let data be data and let functions be functions!

In non-OOP languages, doing trivial things like saving data to a file is straightforward -- very similar to how you would describe an action in plain English.

Real-world example, please!

Sure, going back to the painter example, the painter owns a PaintingFactory . He has hired a dedicated BrushManager , ColorManager , a CanvasManager and a MonaLisaProvider . His good friend zombie makes use of a BrainConsumingStrategy . Those objects, in turn, define the following methods: CreatePainting , FindBrush , PickColor , CallMonaLisa , and ConsumeBrainz .

Of course, this is plain stupidity, and could never have happened in the real world. How much unnecessary complexity has been created for the simple act of drawing a painting?

There's no need to invent strange concepts to hold your functions when they're allowed to exist separately from the objects.


Unit Testing
<img src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*xGn4uGgVyrRAXnqSwTF69w.jpeg" width="700" height="477"/>
Photo by Ani Kolleshi on Unsplash

Automated testing is an important part of the development process and helps tremendously in preventing regressions (i.e. bugs being introduced into existing code). Unit Testing plays a huge role in the process of automated testing.

Some might disagree, but OOP code is notoriously difficult to unit test. Unit Testing assumes testing things in isolation, and to make a method unit-testable:

  1. Its dependencies have to be extracted into a separate class.
  2. Create an interface for the newly created class.
  3. Declare fields to hold the instance of the newly created class.
  4. Make use of a mocking framework to mock the dependencies.
  5. Make use of a dependency-injection framework to inject the dependencies.

How much more complexity has to be created just to make a piece of code testable? How much time was wasted just to make some code testable?

> PS we'd also have to instantiate the entire class in order to test a single method. This will also bring in the code from all of its parent classes.

With OOP, writing tests for legacy code is even harder -- almost impossible. Entire companies have been created ( TypeMock ) around the issue of testing legacy OOP code.

Boilerplate code

Boilerplate code is probably the biggest offender when it comes to the signal-to-noise ratio. Boilerplate code is "noise" that is required to get the program to compile. Boilerplate code takes time to write and makes the codebase less readable because of the added noise.

While "program to an interface, not to an implementation" is the recommended approach in OOP, not everything should become an interface. We'd have to resort to using interfaces in the entire codebase, for the sole purpose of testability. We'd also probably have to make use of dependency injection, which further introduced unnecessary complexity.

Testing private methods

Some people say that private methods shouldn't be tested I tend to disagree, unit testing is called "unit" for a reason -- test small units of code in isolation. Yet testing of private methods in OOP is nearly impossible. We shouldn't be making private methods internal just for the sake of testability.

In order to achieve testability of private methods, they usually have to be extracted into a separate object. This, in turn, introduces unnecessary complexity and boilerplate code.


Refactoring

Refactoring is an important part of a developer's day-to-day job. Ironically, OOP code is notoriously hard to refactor. Refactoring is supposed to make the code less complex, and more maintainable. On the contrary, refactored OOP code becomes significantly more complex -- to make the code testable, we'd have to make use of dependency injection, and create an interface for the refactored class. Even then, refactoring OOP code is really hard without dedicated tools like Resharper.

https://medium.com/media/b557e5152569ad4569e250d2c2ba21b6

In the simple example above, the line count has more than doubled just to extract a single method. Why does refactoring create even more complexity, when the code is being refactored in order to decrease complexity in the first place?

Contrast this to a similar refactor of non-OOP code in JavaScript:

https://medium.com/media/36d6f2f2e78929c6bcd783f12c929f90

The code has literally stayed the same -- we simply moved the isValidInput function to a different file and added a single line to import that function. We've also added _isValidInput to the function signature for the sake of testability.

This is a simple example, but in practice the complexity grows exponentially as the codebase gets bigger.

And that's not all. Refactoring OOP code is extremely risky . Complex dependency graphs and state scattered all over OOP codebase, make it impossible for the human brain to consider all of the potential issues.


The Band-aids
<img src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*JOtbVvacgu-nH3ZR4mY2Og.jpeg" width="700" height="567"/>
Image source: Photo by Pixabay from Pexels

What do we do when something is not working? It is simple, we only have two options -- throw it away or try fixing it. OOP is something that can't be thrown away easily, millions of developers are trained in OOP. And millions of organizations worldwide are using OOP.

You probably see now that OOP doesn't really work , it makes our code complex and unreliable. And you're not alone! People have been thinking hard for decades trying to address the issues prevalent in OOP code. They've come up with a myriad of design patterns.

Design patterns

OOP provides a set of guidelines that should theoretically allow developers to incrementally build larger and larger systems: SOLID principle, dependency injection, design patterns, and others.

Unfortunately, the design patterns are nothing other than band-aids. They exist solely to address the shortcomings of OOP. A myriad of books has even been written on the topic. They wouldn't have been so bad, had they not been responsible for the introduction of enormous complexity to our codebases.

The problem factory

In fact, it is impossible to write good and maintainable Object-Oriented code.

On one side of the spectrum we have an OOP codebase that is inconsistent and doesn't seem to adhere to any standards. On the other side of the spectrum, we have a tower of over-engineered code, a bunch of erroneous abstractions built one on top of one another. Design patterns are very helpful in building such towers of abstractions.

Soon, adding in new functionality, and even making sense of all the complexity, gets harder and harder. The codebase will be full of things like SimpleBeanFactoryAwareAspectInstanceFactory , AbstractInterceptorDrivenBeanDefinitionDecorator , TransactionAwarePersistenceManagerFactoryProxy or RequestProcessorFactoryFactory .

Precious brainpower has to be wasted trying to understand the tower of abstractions that the developers themselves have created. The absence of structure is in many cases better than having bad structure (if you ask me).

<img src="https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*_xDSrTC0F2lke6OYtkRm8g.png" width="700" height="308"/>
Image source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/418x95/theory_vs_reality/

Further reading: FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition

[Jul 22, 2019] Is Object-Oriented Programming a Trillion Dollar Disaster - Slashdot

Jul 22, 2019 | developers.slashdot.org

Is Object-Oriented Programming a Trillion Dollar Disaster? (medium.com) Posted by EditorDavid on Monday July 22, 2019 @01:04AM from the OOPs dept. Senior full-stack engineer Ilya Suzdalnitski recently published a lively 6,000-word essay calling object-oriented programming "a trillion dollar disaster." Precious time and brainpower are being spent thinking about "abstractions" and "design patterns" instead of solving real-world problems... Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) has been created with one goal in mind -- to manage the complexity of procedural codebases. In other words, it was supposed to improve code organization . There's no objective and open evidence that OOP is better than plain procedural programming ... Instead of reducing complexity, it encourages promiscuous sharing of mutable state and introduces additional complexity with its numerous design patterns . OOP makes common development practices, like refactoring and testing, needlessly hard...

Using OOP is seemingly innocent in the short-term, especially on greenfield projects. But what are the long-term consequences of using OOP? OOP is a time bomb, set to explode sometime in the future when the codebase gets big enough. Projects get delayed, deadlines get missed, developers get burned-out, adding in new features becomes next to impossible . The organization labels the codebase as the " legacy codebase ", and the development team plans a rewrite .... OOP provides developers too many tools and choices, without imposing the right kinds of limitations. Even though OOP promises to address modularity and improve reusability, it fails to deliver on its promises...

I'm not criticizing Alan Kay's OOP -- he is a genius. I wish OOP was implemented the way he designed it. I'm criticizing the modern Java/C# approach to OOP... I think that it is plain wrong that OOP is considered the de-facto standard for code organization by many people, including those in very senior technical positions. It is also wrong that many mainstream languages don't offer any other alternatives to code organization other than OOP.

The essay ultimately blames Java for the popularity of OOP, citing Alan Kay's comment that Java "is the most distressing thing to happen to computing since MS-DOS." It also quotes Linus Torvalds's observation that "limiting your project to C means that people don't screw things up with any idiotic 'object model'."

And it ultimately suggests Functional Programming as a superior alternative, making the following assertions about OOP:

"OOP code encourages the use of shared mutable state, which has been proven to be unsafe time and time again... [E]ncapsulation, in fact, is glorified global state." "OOP typically requires a lot of boilerplate code (low signal-to-noise ratio)." "Some might disagree, but OOP code is notoriously difficult to unit test... [R]efactoring OOP code is really hard without dedicated tools like Resharper." "It is impossible to write good and maintainable Object-Oriented code."

segedunum ( 883035 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @05:36AM ( #58964224 )

Re:Not Tiresome, Hilariously Hypocritical ( Score: 4 , Informative)
There's no objective and open evidence that OOP is better than plain procedural programming...

...which is followed by the author's subjective opinions about why procedural programming is better than OOP. There's no objective comparison of the pros and cons of OOP vs procedural just a rant about some of OOP's problems.

We start from the point-of-view that OOP has to prove itself. Has it? Has any project or programming exercise ever taken less time because it is object-oriented?

Precious time and brainpower are being spent thinking about "abstractions" and "design patterns" instead of solving real-world problems...

...says the person who took the time to write a 6,000 word rant on "why I hate OOP".

Sadly, that was something you hallucinated. He doesn't say that anywhere.

mfnickster ( 182520 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @10:54AM ( #58965660 )
Re:Tiresome ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

Inheritance, while not "inherently" bad, is often the wrong solution. See: Why extends is evil [javaworld.com]

Composition is frequently a more appropriate choice. Aaron Hillegass wrote this funny little anecdote in Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X [google.com]:

"Once upon a time, there was a company called Taligent. Taligent was created by IBM and Apple to develop a set of tools and libraries like Cocoa. About the time Taligent reached the peak of its mindshare, I met one of its engineers at a trade show. I asked him to create a simple application for me: A window would appear with a button, and when the button was clicked, the words 'Hello, World!' would appear in a text field. The engineer created a project and started subclassing madly: subclassing the window and the button and the event handler. Then he started generating code: dozens of lines to get the button and the text field onto the window. After 45 minutes, I had to leave. The app still did not work. That day, I knew that the company was doomed. A couple of years later, Taligent quietly closed its doors forever."

Darinbob ( 1142669 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @03:00AM ( #58963760 )
Re:The issue ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Almost every programming methodology can be abused by people who really don't know how to program well, or who don't want to. They'll happily create frameworks, implement new development processes, and chart tons of metrics, all while avoiding the work of getting the job done. In some cases the person who writes the most code is the same one who gets the least amount of useful work done.

So, OOP can be misused the same way. Never mind that OOP essentially began very early and has been reimplemented over and over, even before Alan Kay. Ie, files in Unix are essentially an object oriented system. It's just data encapsulation and separating work into manageable modules. That's how it was before anyone ever came up with the dumb name "full-stack developer".

cardpuncher ( 713057 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @04:06AM ( #58963948 )
Re:The issue ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

As a developer who started in the days of FORTRAN (when it was all-caps), I've watched the rise of OOP with some curiosity. I think there's a general consensus that abstraction and re-usability are good things - they're the reason subroutines exist - the issue is whether they are ends in themselves.

I struggle with the whole concept of "design patterns". There are clearly common themes in software, but there seems to be a great deal of pressure these days to make your implementation fit some pre-defined template rather than thinking about the application's specific needs for state and concurrency. I have seen some rather eccentric consequences of "patternism".

Correctly written, OOP code allows you to encapsulate just the logic you need for a specific task and to make that specific task available in a wide variety of contexts by judicious use of templating and virtual functions that obviate the need for "refactoring". Badly written, OOP code can have as many dangerous side effects and as much opacity as any other kind of code. However, I think the key factor is not the choice of programming paradigm, but the design process. You need to think first about what your code is intended to do and in what circumstances it might be reused. In the context of a larger project, it means identifying commonalities and deciding how best to implement them once. You need to document that design and review it with other interested parties. You need to document the code with clear information about its valid and invalid use. If you've done that, testing should not be a problem.

Some people seem to believe that OOP removes the need for some of that design and documentation. It doesn't and indeed code that you intend to be reused needs *more* design and documentation than the glue that binds it together in any one specific use case. I'm still a firm believer that coding begins with a pencil, not with a keyboard. That's particularly true if you intend to design abstract interfaces that will serve many purposes. In other words, it's more work to do OOP properly, so only do it if the benefits outweigh the costs - and that usually means you not only know your code will be genuinely reusable but will also genuinely be reused.

ImdatS ( 958642 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @04:43AM ( #58964070 ) Homepage
Re:The issue ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
[...] I'm still a firm believer that coding begins with a pencil, not with a keyboard. [...]

This!
In fact, even more: I'm a firm believer that coding begins with a pencil designing the data model that you want to implement.

Everything else is just code that operates on that data model. Though I agree with most of what you say, I believe the classical "MVC" design-pattern is still valid. And, you know what, there is a reason why it is called "M-V-C": Start with the Model, continue with the View and finalize with the Controller. MVC not only stood for Model-View-Controller but also for the order of the implementation of each.

And preferably, as you stated correctly, "... start with pencil & paper ..."

Rockoon ( 1252108 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @05:23AM ( #58964192 )
Re:The issue ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
I struggle with the whole concept of "design patterns".

Because design patterns are stupid.

A reasonable programmer can understand reasonable code so long as the data is documented even when the code isnt documented, but will struggle immensely if it were the other way around. Bad programmers create objects for objects sake, and because of that they have to follow so called "design patterns" because no amount of code commenting makes the code easily understandable when its a spaghetti web of interacting "objects" The "design patterns" dont make the code easier the read, just easier to write.

Those OOP fanatics, if they do "document" their code, add comments like "// increment the index" which is useless shit.

The big win of OOP is only in the encapsulation of the data with the code, and great code treats objects like data structures with attached subroutines, not as "objects" , and document the fuck out of the contained data, while more or less letting the code document itself. and keep OO elements to a minimum. As it turns out, OOP is just much more effort than procedural and it rarely pays off to invest that effort, at least for me.

Z00L00K ( 682162 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @05:14AM ( #58964162 ) Homepage
Re:The issue ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

The problem isn't the object orientation paradigm itself, it's how it's applied.

The big problem in any project is that you have to understand how to break down the final solution into modules that can be developed independently of each other to a large extent and identify the items that are shared. But even when you have items that are apparently identical don't mean that they will be that way in the long run, so shared code may even be dangerous because future developers don't know that by fixing problem A they create problems B, C, D and E.

Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) writes: < MJennings.USA@NOT_any_of_THISgmail.com > on Monday July 22, 2019 @06:03AM ( #58964326 ) Homepage
Eternal September? ( Score: 4 , Informative)

Eternal September [wikipedia.org]

gweihir ( 88907 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @07:48AM ( #58964672 )
Re:The issue ( Score: 3 )
Any time you make something easier, you lower the bar as well and now have a pack of idiots that never could have been hired if it weren't for a programming language that stripped out a lot of complexity for them.

Exactly. There are quite a few aspects of writing code that are difficult regardless of language and there the difference in skill and insight really matters.

Joce640k ( 829181 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @04:14AM ( #58963972 ) Homepage
Re:The issue ( Score: 2 )

OO programming doesn't have any real advantages for small projects.

ImdatS ( 958642 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @04:36AM ( #58964040 ) Homepage
Re:The issue ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

I have about 35+ years of software development experience, including with procedural, OOP and functional programming languages.

My experience is: The question "is procedural better than OOP or functional?" (or vice-versa) has a single answer: "it depends".

Like in your cases above, I would exactly do the same: use some procedural language that solves my problem quickly and easily.

In large-scale applications, I mostly used OOP (having learned OOP with Smalltalk & Objective-C). I don't like C++ or Java - but that's a matter of personal preference.

I use Python for large-scale scripts or machine learning/AI tasks.

I use Perl for short scripts that need to do a quick task.

Procedural is in fact easier to grasp for beginners as OOP and functional require a different way of thinking. If you start developing software, after a while (when the project gets complex enough) you will probably switch to OOP or functional.

Again, in my opinion neither is better than the other (procedural, OOP or functional). It just depends on the task at hand (and of course on the experience of the software developer).

spazmonkey ( 920425 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @01:22AM ( #58963430 )
its the way OOP is taught ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

There is nothing inherently wrong with some of the functionality it offers, its the way OOP is abused as a substitute for basic good programming practices. I was helping interns - students from a local CC - deal with idiotic assignments like making a random number generator USING CLASSES, or displaying text to a screen USING CLASSES. Seriously, WTF? A room full of career programmers could not even figure out how you were supposed to do that, much less why. What was worse was a lack of understanding of basic programming skill or even the use of variables, as the kids were being taught EVERY program was to to be assembled solely by sticking together bits of libraries. There was no coding, just hunting for snippets of preexisting code to glue together. Zero idea they could add their own, much less how to do it. OOP isn't the problem, its the idea that it replaces basic programming skills and best practice.

sjames ( 1099 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @02:30AM ( #58963680 ) Homepage Journal
Re:its the way OOP is taught ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

That and the obsession with absofrackinglutely EVERYTHING just having to be a formally declared object including the while program being an object with a run() method.

Some things actually cry out to be objects, some not so much.Generally, I find that my most readable and maintainable code turns out to be a procedural program that manipulates objects.

Even there, some things just naturally want to be a struct or just an array of values.

The same is true of most ingenious ideas in programming. It's one thing if code is demonstrating a particular idea, but production code is supposed to be there to do work, not grind an academic ax.

For example, slavish adherence to "patterns". They're quite useful for thinking about code and talking about code, but they shouldn't be the end of the discussion. They work better as a starting point. Some programs seem to want patterns to be mixed and matched.

In reality those problems are just cargo cult programming one level higher.

I suspect a lot of that is because too many developers barely grasp programming and never learned to go beyond the patterns they were explicitly taught.

When all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.

bradley13 ( 1118935 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @02:15AM ( #58963622 ) Homepage
It depends... ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

There are a lot of mediocre programmers who follow the principle "if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail". They know OOP, so they think that every problem must be solved in an OOP way. In fact, OOP works well when your program needs to deal with relatively simple, real-world objects: the modelling follows naturally. If you are dealing with abstract concepts, or with highly complex real-world objects, then OOP may not be the best paradigm.

In Java, for example, you can program imperatively, by using static methods. The problem is knowing when to break the rules. For example, I am working on a natural language system that is supposed to generate textual answers to user inquiries. What "object" am I supposed to create to do this task? An "Answer" object that generates itself? Yes, that would work, but an imperative, static "generate answer" method makes at least as much sense.

There are different ways of thinking, different ways of modelling a problem. I get tired of the purists who think that OO is the only possible answer. The world is not a nail.

Beechmere ( 538241 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @02:31AM ( #58963684 )
Class? Object? ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

I'm approaching 60, and I've been coding in COBOL, VB, FORTRAN, REXX, SQL for almost 40 years. I remember seeing Object Oriented Programming being introduced in the 80s, and I went on a course once (paid by work). I remember not understanding the concept of "Classes", and my impression was that the software we were buying was just trying to invent stupid new words for old familiar constructs (eg: Files, Records, Rows, Tables, etc). So I never transitioned away from my reliable mainframe programming platform. I thought the phrase OOP had dies out long ago, along with "Client Server" (whatever that meant). I'm retiring in a few years, and the mainframe will outlive me. Everything else is buggy.

cb88 ( 1410145 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @03:11AM ( #58963794 )
Going back to Torvald's quote.... ( Score: 5 , Funny)

"limiting your project to C means that people don't screw things up with any idiotic 'object model'."

GTK .... hold by beer... it is not a good argument against OOP languages. But first, lets see how OOP came into place. OOP was designed to provide encapsulation, like components, support reuse and code sharing. It was the next step coming from modules and units, which where better than libraries, as functions and procedures had namespaces, which helped structuring code. OOP is a great idea when writing UI toolkits or similar stuff, as you can as

DrXym ( 126579 ) , Monday July 22, 2019 @04:57AM ( #58964116 )
No ( Score: 3 )

Like all things OO is fine in moderation but it's easy to go completely overboard, decomposing, normalizing, producing enormous inheritance trees. Yes your enormous UML diagram looks impressive, and yes it will be incomprehensible, fragile and horrible to maintain.

That said, it's completely fine in moderation. The same goes for functional programming. Most programmers can wrap their heads around things like functions, closures / lambdas, streams and so on. But if you mean true functional programming then forget it.

As for the kernel's choice to use C, that really boils down to the fact that a kernel needs to be lower level than a typical user land application. It has to do its own memory allocation and other things that were beyond C++ at the time. STL would have been usable, so would new / delete, and exceptions & unwinding. And at that point why even bother? That doesn't mean C is wonderful or doesn't inflict its own pain and bugs on development. But at the time, it was the only sane choice.

[Jul 22, 2019] Almost right

Jul 22, 2019 | developers.slashdot.org
Tough Love ( 215404 ), Monday July 22, 2019 @01:27AM ( #58963442 )

The entire software world is a multi-trillion dollar disaster.

Agile, Waterfall, Oop, fucking Javascript or worse its wannabe spawn of the devil Node. C, C++, Java wankers, did I say wankers? Yes wankers.

IT architects, pundit of the week, carpetbaggers, Aspies, total incompetents moving from job to job, you name it.

Disaster, complete and utter. Anybody who doesn't know this hasn't been paying attention.

About the only bright spot is a few open source projects like Linux Kernel, Postgres, Samba, Squid etc, totally outnumbered by wankers and posers.

[Jul 01, 2019] I worked twenty years in commercial software development including in aviation for UA and while Indian software developers are capable, their corporate culture is completely different as is based on feudal workplace relations of subordinates and management that results with extreme cronyism

Notable quotes:
"... Being powerless within calcifies totalitarian corporate culture ..."
"... ultimately promoted wide spread culture of obscurantism and opportunism what amounts to extreme office politics of covering their own butts often knowing that entire development strategy is flawed, as long as they are not personally blamed or if they in fact benefit by collapse of the project. ..."
"... As I worked side by side and later as project manager with Indian developers I can attest to that culture which while widely spread also among American developers reaches extremes among Indian corporations which infect often are engaged in fraud to be blamed on developers. ..."
Jul 01, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
dh-mtl , Jun 30, 2019 3:51:11 PM | 29

@Kalen , Jun 30, 2019 12:58:14 PM | 13

The programmers in India are well capable of writing good software. The difficulty lies in communicating the design requirements for the software. If they do not know in detail how air planes are engineered, they will implement the design to the letter but not to its intent.

I worked twenty years in commercial software development including in aviation for UA and while Indian software developers are capable, their corporate culture is completely different as is based on feudal workplace relations of subordinates and management that results with extreme cronyism, far exceeding that in the US as such relations are not only based on extreme exploitation (few jobs hundreds of qualified candidates) but on personal almost paternal like relations that preclude required independence of judgment and practically eliminates any major critical discussions about efficacy of technological solutions and their risks.

Being powerless within calcifies totalitarian corporate culture facing alternative of hurting family-like relations with bosses' and their feelings, who emotionally and in financial terms committed themselves to certain often wrong solutions dictated more by margins than technological imperatives, ultimately promoted wide spread culture of obscurantism and opportunism what amounts to extreme office politics of covering their own butts often knowing that entire development strategy is flawed, as long as they are not personally blamed or if they in fact benefit by collapse of the project.

As I worked side by side and later as project manager with Indian developers I can attest to that culture which while widely spread also among American developers reaches extremes among Indian corporations which infect often are engaged in fraud to be blamed on developers.

In fact it is shocking contrast with German culture that practically prevents anyone engaging in any project as it is almost always, in its entirety, discussed, analyzed, understood and fully supported by every member of the team, otherwise they often simply refused to work on project citing professional ethics. High quality social welfare state and handsome unemployment benefits definitely supported such ethical stand back them

While what I describe happened over twenty years ago it is still applicable I believe.

[Jun 30, 2019] Design Genius Jony Ive Leaves Apple, Leaving Behind Crapified Products That Cannot Be Repaired naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... Honestly, since 2015 feels like Apple wants to abandon it's PC business but just doesn't know how so ..."
"... The new line seems like a valid refresh, but the prices are higher than ever, and remember young people are earning less than ever, so I still think they are looking for a way out of the PC trade, maybe this refresh is to just buy time for an other five years before they close up. ..."
"... I wonder how much those tooling engineers in the US make compared to their Chinese competitors? It seems like a neoliberal virtuous circle: loot/guts education, then find skilled labor from places that still support education, by moving abroad or importing workers, reducing wages and further undermining the local skill base. ..."
"... I sympathize with y'all. It's not uncommon for good products to become less useful and more trouble as the original designers, etc., get arrogant from their success and start to believe that every idea they have is a useful improvement. Not even close. Too much of fixing things that aren't broken and gilding lilies. ..."
Jun 30, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

As iFixit notes :

The iPod, the iPhone, the MacBook Air, the physical Apple Store, even the iconic packaging of Apple products -- these products changed how we view and use their categories, or created new categories, and will be with us a long time.

But the title of that iFixit post, Jony Ive's Fragmented Legacy: Unreliable, Unrepairable, Beautiful Gadgets , makes clear that those beautiful products carried with them considerable costs- above and beyond their high prices. They're unreliable, and difficult to repair.

Ironically. both Jobs and Ive were inspired by Dieter Rams – whom iFixit calls "the legendary industrial designer renowned for functional and simple consumer products." And unlike Apple. Rams believed that good design didn't have to come at the expense of either durability or the environment:

Rams loves durable products that are environmentally friendly. That's one of his 10 principles for good design : "Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment." But Ive has never publicly discussed the dissonance between his inspiration and Apple's disposable, glued-together products. For years, Apple has openly combated green standards that would make products easier to repair and recycle, stating that they need "complete design flexibility" no matter the impact on the environment.

Complete Design Flexibility Spells Environmental Disaster

In fact, that complete design flexibility – at least as practiced by Ive – has resulted in crapified products that are an environmental disaster. Their lack of durability means they must be repaired to be functional, and the lack of repairability means many of these products end up being tossed prematurely – no doubt not a bug, but a feature. As Vice recounts :

But history will not be kind to Ive, to Apple, or to their design choices. While the company popularized the smartphone and minimalistic, sleek, gadget design, it also did things like create brand new screws designed to keep consumers from repairing their iPhones.

Under Ive, Apple began gluing down batteries inside laptops and smartphones (rather than screwing them down) to shave off a fraction of a millimeter at the expense of repairability and sustainability.

It redesigned MacBook Pro keyboards with mechanisms that are, again, a fraction of a millimeter thinner, but that are easily defeated by dust and crumbs (the computer I am typing on right now -- which is six months old -- has a busted spacebar and 'r' key). These keyboards are not easily repairable, even by Apple, and many MacBook Pros have to be completely replaced due to a single key breaking. The iPhone 6 Plus had a design flaw that led to its touch screen spontaneously breaking -- it then told consumers there was no problem for months before ultimately creating a repair program . Meanwhile, Apple's own internal tests showed those flaws . He designed AirPods, which feature an unreplaceable battery that must be physically destroyed in order to open .

Vice also notes that in addition to Apple's products becoming "less modular, less consumer friendly, less upgradable, less repairable, and, at times, less functional than earlier models", Apple's design decisions have not been confined to Apple. Instead, "Ive's influence is obvious in products released by Samsung, HTC, Huawei, and others, which have similarly traded modularity for sleekness."

Right to Repair

As I've written before, Apple is leading opponent of giving consumers a right to repair. Nonetheless, there's been some global progress on this issue (see Global Gains on Right to Repair ). And we've also seen a widening of support in the US for such a right. The issue has arisen in the current presidential campaign, with Elizabeth Warren throwing down the gauntlet by endorsing a right to repair for farm tractors. The New York Times has also taken up the cause more generally (see Right to Repair Initiatives Gain Support in US ). More than twenty states are considering enacting right to repair statutes.


samhill , June 30, 2019 at 5:41 pm

I've been using Apple since 1990, I concur with the article about h/w and add that from Snow Leopard to Sierra the OSX was buggy as anything from the Windows world if not more so. Got better with High Sierra but still not up to the hype. I haven't lived with Mojave. I use Apple out of habit, haven't felt the love from them since Snow Leopard, exactly when they became a cell phone company. People think Apple is Mercedes and PCs are Fords, but for a long time now in practical use, leaving aside the snazzy aesthetics, under the hood it's GM vs Ford. I'm not rich enough to buy a $1500 non-upgradable, non-repairable product so the new T2 protected computers can't be for me.

The new Dell XPS's are tempting, they got the right idea, if you go to their service page you can dl complete service instructions, diagrams, and blow ups. They don't seem at all worried about my hurting myself.

In the last few years PCs offer what before I could only get from Apple; good screen, back lit keyboard, long battery life, trim size.

Honestly, since 2015 feels like Apple wants to abandon it's PC business but just doesn't know how so it's trying to drive off all the old legacy power users, the creative people that actually work hard for their money, exchanging them for rich dilettantes, hedge fund managers, and status seekers – an easier crowd to finally close up shop on.

The new line seems like a valid refresh, but the prices are higher than ever, and remember young people are earning less than ever, so I still think they are looking for a way out of the PC trade, maybe this refresh is to just buy time for an other five years before they close up.

When you start thinking like this about a company you've been loyal to for 30 years something is definitely wrong.

TG , June 30, 2019 at 6:09 pm

The reason that Apple moved the last of its production to China is, quite simply, that China now has basically the entire industrial infrastructure that we used to have. We have been hollowed out, and are now essentially third-world when it comes to industry. The entire integrated supply chain that defines an industrial power, is now gone.

The part about China no longer being a low-wage country is correct. China's wages have been higher than Mexico's for some time. But the part about the skilled workers is a slap in the face.

How can US workers be skilled at manufacturing, when there are no longer any jobs here where they can learn or use those skills?

fdr-fan , June 30, 2019 at 6:10 pm

A thin rectangle isn't more beautiful than a thick rectangle. They're both just rectangles.

Skip Intro , June 30, 2019 at 2:14 pm

I wonder how much those tooling engineers in the US make compared to their Chinese competitors? It seems like a neoliberal virtuous circle: loot/guts education, then find skilled labor from places that still support education, by moving abroad or importing workers, reducing wages and further undermining the local skill base.

EMtz , June 30, 2019 at 4:08 pm

They lost me when they made the iMac so thin it couldn't play a CD – and had the nerve to charge $85 for an Apple player. Bought another brand for $25. I don't care that it's not as pretty. I do care that I had to buy it at all.

I need a new cellphone. You can bet it won't be an iPhone.

John Zelnicker , June 30, 2019 at 4:24 pm

Jerri-Lynn – Indeed, a great article.

Although I have never used an Apple product, I sympathize with y'all. It's not uncommon for good products to become less useful and more trouble as the original designers, etc., get arrogant from their success and start to believe that every idea they have is a useful improvement. Not even close. Too much of fixing things that aren't broken and gilding lilies.

Charles Leseau , June 30, 2019 at 5:13 pm

Worst computer I've ever owned: Apple Macbook Pro, c. 2011 or so.

Died within 2 years, and also more expensive than the desktops I've built since that absolutely crush it in every possible performance metric (and last longer).

Meanwhile, I also still use a $300 Best Buy Toshiba craptop that has now lasted for 8 straight years.

Never again.

Alfred , June 30, 2019 at 5:23 pm

"Beautiful objects" – aye, there's the rub. In point of fact, the goal of industrial design is not to create beautiful objects. It is the goal of the fine arts to create beautiful objects. The goal of design is to create useful things that are easy to use and are effective at their tasks. Some -- including me -- would add to those most basic goals, the additional goals of being safe to use, durable, and easy to repair; perhaps even easy to adapt or suitable for recycling, or conservative of precious materials. The principles of good product design are laid out admirably in the classic book by Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things (1988). So this book was available to Jony Ive (born 1967) during his entire career (which overlapped almost exactly the wonder years of Postmodernism – and therein lies a clue). It would indeed be astonishing to learn that Ive took no notice of it. Yet Norman's book can be used to show that Ive's Apple violated so many of the principles of good design, so habitually, as to raise the suspicion that the company was not engaged in "product design" at all. The output Apple in the Ive era, I'd say, belongs instead to the realm of so-called "commodity aesthetics," which aims to give manufactured items a sufficiently seductive appearance to induce their purchase – nothing more. Aethetics appears as Dieter Rams's principle 3, as just one (and the only purely commercial) function in his 10; so in a theoretical context that remains ensconced within a genuine, Modernist functionalism. But in the Apple dispensation that single (aesthetic) principle seems to have subsumed the entire design enterprise – precisely as one would expect from "the cultural logic of late capitalism" (hat tip to Mr Jameson). Ive and his staff of formalists were not designing industrial products, or what Norman calls "everyday things," let alone devices; they were aestheticizing products in ways that first, foremost, and almost only enhanced their performance as expressions of a brand. Their eyes turned away from the prosaic prize of functionality to focus instead on the more profitable prize of sales -- to repeat customers, aka the devotees of 'iconic' fetishism. Thus did they serve not the masses but Mammon, and they did so as minions of minimalism. Nor was theirs the minimalism of the Frankfurt kitchen, with its deep roots in ethics and ergonomics. It was only superficially Miesian. Bauhaus-inspired? Oh, please. Only the more careless readers of Tom Wolfe and Wikipedia could believe anything so preposterous. Surely Steve Jobs, he of the featureless black turtleneck by Issey Miyake, knew better. Anyone who has so much as walked by an Apple Store, ever, should know better. And I guess I should know how to write shorter

[Jun 29, 2019] Boeing Outsourced Its 737 MAX Software To $9-Per-Hour Engineers

Jun 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

The software at the heart of the Boeing 737 MAX crisis was developed at a time when the company was laying off experienced engineers and replacing them with temporary workers making as little as $9 per hour, according to Bloomberg .

In an effort to cut costs, Boeing was relying on subcontractors making paltry wages to develop and test its software. Often times, these subcontractors would be from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace, like India.

Boeing had recent college graduates working for Indian software developer HCL Technologies Ltd. in a building across from Seattle's Boeing Field, in flight test groups supporting the MAX. The coders from HCL designed to specifications set by Boeing but, according to Mark Rabin, a former Boeing software engineer, "it was controversial because it was far less efficient than Boeing engineers just writing the code."

Rabin said: "...it took many rounds going back and forth because the code was not done correctly."

In addition to cutting costs, the hiring of Indian companies may have landed Boeing orders for the Indian military and commercial aircraft, like a $22 billion order received in January 2017 . That order included 100 737 MAX 8 jets and was Boeing's largest order ever from an Indian airline. India traditionally orders from Airbus.

HCL engineers helped develop and test the 737 MAX's flight display software while employees from another Indian company, Cyient Ltd, handled the software for flight test equipment. In 2011, Boeing named Cyient, then known as Infotech, to a list of its "suppliers of the year".

One HCL employee posted online: "Provided quick workaround to resolve production issue which resulted in not delaying flight test of 737-Max (delay in each flight test will cost very big amount for Boeing) ."

But Boeing says the company didn't rely on engineers from HCL for the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which was linked to both last October's crash and March's crash. The company also says it didn't rely on Indian companies for the cockpit warning light issue that was disclosed after the crashes.

A Boeing spokesperson said: "Boeing has many decades of experience working with supplier/partners around the world. Our primary focus is on always ensuring that our products and services are safe, of the highest quality and comply with all applicable regulations."

HCL, on the other hand, said: "HCL has a strong and long-standing business relationship with The Boeing Company, and we take pride in the work we do for all our customers. However, HCL does not comment on specific work we do for our customers. HCL is not associated with any ongoing issues with 737 Max."

Recent simulator tests run by the FAA indicate that software issues on the 737 MAX run deeper than first thought. Engineers who worked on the plane, which Boeing started developing eight years ago, complained of pressure from managers to limit changes that might introduce extra time or cost.

Rick Ludtke, a former Boeing flight controls engineer laid off in 2017, said: "Boeing was doing all kinds of things, everything you can imagine, to reduce cost , including moving work from Puget Sound, because we'd become very expensive here. All that's very understandable if you think of it from a business perspective. Slowly over time it appears that's eroded the ability for Puget Sound designers to design."

Rabin even recalled an incident where senior software engineers were told they weren't needed because Boeing's productions were mature. Rabin said: "I was shocked that in a room full of a couple hundred mostly senior engineers we were being told that we weren't needed."

Any given jetliner is made up of millions of parts and millions of lines of code. Boeing has often turned over large portions of the work to suppliers and subcontractors that follow its blueprints. But beginning in 2004 with the 787 Dreamliner, Boeing sought to increase profits by providing high-level specs and then asking suppliers to design more parts themselves.

Boeing also promised to invest $1.7 billion in Indian companies as a result of an $11 billion order in 2005 from Air India. This investment helped HCL and other software developers.

For the 787, HCL offered a price to Boeing that they couldn't refuse, either: free. HCL "took no up-front payments on the 787 and only started collecting payments based on sales years later".

Rockwell Collins won the MAX contract for cockpit displays and relied in part on HCL engineers and contract engineers from Cyient to test flight test equipment.

Charles LoveJoy, a former flight-test instrumentation design engineer at the company, said: "We did have our challenges with the India team. They met the requirements, per se, but you could do it better."


Anonymous IX , 2 minutes ago link

I love it. A company which fell in love so much with their extraordinary profits that they sabatoged their design and will now suffer enormous financial consequences. They're lucky to have all their defense/military contracts.

scraping_by , 4 minutes ago link

Oftentimes, it's the cut-and-paste code that's the problem. If you don't have a good appreciation for what every line does, you're never going to know what the sub or entire program does.

vienna_proxy , 7 minutes ago link

hahahaha non-technical managers making design decisions are complete **** ups wherever they go and here it blew up in their faces rofl

Ignorance is bliss , 2 minutes ago link

I see this all the time, and a lot of the time these non-technical decision makers are women.

hispanicLoser , 13 minutes ago link

By 2002 i could not sit down with any developers without hearing at least one story about how they had been in a code review meeting and seen absolute garbage turned out by H-1B workers.

Lots of people have known about this problem for many years now.

brazilian , 11 minutes ago link

May the gods damn all financial managers! One of the two professions, along with bankers, which have absolutely no social value whatsoever. There should be open hunting season on both!

scraping_by , 15 minutes ago link

Shifting to high-level specs puts more power in the hands of management/accounting types, since it doesn't require engineering knowledge to track a deadline. Indeed, this whole story is the wet dream of business school, the idea of being able to accomplish technical tasks purely by demand. A lot of public schools teach kids science is magic so when they grow up, the think they can just give directions and technology appears.

pops , 20 minutes ago link

In this country, one must have a license from the FAA to work on commercial aircraft. That means training and certification that usually results in higher pay for those qualified to perform the repairs to the aircraft your family will fly on.

In case you're not aware, much of the heavy stuff like D checks (overhaul) have been outsourced by the airlines to foreign countries where the FAA has nothing to say about it. Those contractors can hire whoever they wish for whatever they'll accept. I have worked with some of those "mechanics" who cannot even read.

Keep that in mind next time the TSA perv is fondling your junk. That might be your last sexual encounter.

Klassenfeind , 22 minutes ago link

Boeing Outsourced Its 737 MAX Software To $9-Per-Hour Engineers

Long live the free market, right Tylers?

You ZH guys always rally against minimum wage here, well there you go: $9/hr aircraft 'engineers!' Happy now?

asteroids , 25 minutes ago link

You gotta be kidding. You let kids straight out of school write mission critical code? How ******* stupid are you BA?

reader2010 , 20 minutes ago link

Go to India. There are many outsourcing companies that only hire new college graduates for work and they are paid less than $2 an hour for the job.

For the DoD contractors, they have to bring them to the US to work. There are tons of H1B guys from India working for defense contractors.

[Jun 29, 2019] Hiring aircraft computer engineers at $9/hr by Boeing is a great idea. Who could argue with smart cost saving?

Jun 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Anonymous IX , 3 minutes ago link

I love it. A company which fell in love so much with their extraordinary profits that they sabatoged their design and will now suffer enormous financial consequences. They're lucky to have all their defense/military contracts.

[Jun 29, 2019] If you have to be told that H-1B code in critical aircraft software might be not reliable you are too stupid to live

Jun 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

hispanicLoser , 25 minutes ago link

If you have to be told that H-1B code in aircraft software is not reliable you are too stupid to live.

zob2020 , 16 minutes ago link

Or this online shop designed back in 1997. It was supposed to take over all internet shopping that didn't really exist back then yet. And they used Indian doctors to code. Well sure they ended up with a site... but one so heavy with pictures it took 30min to open one page, another 20min to even click on a product to read its text etc-. This with good university internet.

Unsurprisingly i don't think they ever managed to sell anything. But they gave out free movie tickets to every registered customer... so me & friend each registered some 80 accounts and went to free movies for a good bit over a year.

mailman must have had fun delivering 160 letters to random names in the same student apartment :D

[May 17, 2019] Shareholder Capitalism, the Military, and the Beginning of the End for Boeing

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Like many of its Wall Street counterparts, Boeing also used complexity as a mechanism to obfuscate and conceal activity that is incompetent, nefarious and/or harmful to not only the corporation itself but to society as a whole (instead of complexity being a benign byproduct of a move up the technology curve). ..."
"... The economists who built on Friedman's work, along with increasingly aggressive institutional investors, devised solutions to ensure the primacy of enhancing shareholder value, via the advocacy of hostile takeovers, the promotion of massive stock buybacks or repurchases (which increased the stock value), higher dividend payouts and, most importantly, the introduction of stock-based pay for top executives in order to align their interests to those of the shareholders. These ideas were influenced by the idea that corporate efficiency and profitability were impinged upon by archaic regulation and unionization, which, according to the theory, precluded the ability to compete globally. ..."
"... "Return on Net Assets" (RONA) forms a key part of the shareholder capitalism doctrine. ..."
"... If the choice is between putting a million bucks into new factory machinery or returning it to shareholders, say, via dividend payments, the latter is the optimal way to go because in theory it means higher net returns accruing to the shareholders (as the "owners" of the company), implicitly assuming that they can make better use of that money than the company itself can. ..."
"... It is an absurd conceit to believe that a dilettante portfolio manager is in a better position than an aviation engineer to gauge whether corporate investment in fixed assets will generate productivity gains well north of the expected return for the cash distributed to the shareholders. But such is the perverse fantasy embedded in the myth of shareholder capitalism ..."
"... When real engineering clashes with financial engineering, the damage takes the form of a geographically disparate and demoralized workforce: The factory-floor denominator goes down. Workers' wages are depressed, testing and quality assurance are curtailed. ..."
May 17, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the corresponding end of the Soviet Empire gave the fullest impetus imaginable to the forces of globalized capitalism, and correspondingly unfettered access to the world's cheapest labor. What was not to like about that? It afforded multinational corporations vastly expanded opportunities to fatten their profit margins and increase the bottom line with seemingly no risk posed to their business model.

Or so it appeared. In 2000, aerospace engineer L.J. Hart-Smith's remarkable paper, sardonically titled "Out-Sourced Profits – The Cornerstone of Successful Subcontracting," laid out the case against several business practices of Hart-Smith's previous employer, McDonnell Douglas, which had incautiously ridden the wave of outsourcing when it merged with the author's new employer, Boeing. Hart-Smith's intention in telling his story was a cautionary one for the newly combined Boeing, lest it follow its then recent acquisition down the same disastrous path.

Of the manifold points and issues identified by Hart-Smith, there is one that stands out as the most compelling in terms of understanding the current crisis enveloping Boeing: The embrace of the metric "Return on Net Assets" (RONA). When combined with the relentless pursuit of cost reduction (via offshoring), RONA taken to the extreme can undermine overall safety standards.

Related to this problem is the intentional and unnecessary use of complexity as an instrument of propaganda. Like many of its Wall Street counterparts, Boeing also used complexity as a mechanism to obfuscate and conceal activity that is incompetent, nefarious and/or harmful to not only the corporation itself but to society as a whole (instead of complexity being a benign byproduct of a move up the technology curve).

All of these pernicious concepts are branches of the same poisoned tree: " shareholder capitalism ":

[A] notion best epitomized by Milton Friedman that the only social responsibility of a corporation is to increase its profits, laying the groundwork for the idea that shareholders, being the owners and the main risk-bearing participants, ought therefore to receive the biggest rewards. Profits therefore should be generated first and foremost with a view toward maximizing the interests of shareholders, not the executives or managers who (according to the theory) were spending too much of their time, and the shareholders' money, worrying about employees, customers, and the community at large. The economists who built on Friedman's work, along with increasingly aggressive institutional investors, devised solutions to ensure the primacy of enhancing shareholder value, via the advocacy of hostile takeovers, the promotion of massive stock buybacks or repurchases (which increased the stock value), higher dividend payouts and, most importantly, the introduction of stock-based pay for top executives in order to align their interests to those of the shareholders. These ideas were influenced by the idea that corporate efficiency and profitability were impinged upon by archaic regulation and unionization, which, according to the theory, precluded the ability to compete globally.

"Return on Net Assets" (RONA) forms a key part of the shareholder capitalism doctrine. In essence, it means maximizing the returns of those dollars deployed in the operation of the business. Applied to a corporation, it comes down to this: If the choice is between putting a million bucks into new factory machinery or returning it to shareholders, say, via dividend payments, the latter is the optimal way to go because in theory it means higher net returns accruing to the shareholders (as the "owners" of the company), implicitly assuming that they can make better use of that money than the company itself can.

It is an absurd conceit to believe that a dilettante portfolio manager is in a better position than an aviation engineer to gauge whether corporate investment in fixed assets will generate productivity gains well north of the expected return for the cash distributed to the shareholders. But such is the perverse fantasy embedded in the myth of shareholder capitalism.

Engineering reality, however, is far more complicated than what is outlined in university MBA textbooks. For corporations like McDonnell Douglas, for example, RONA was used not as a way to prioritize new investment in the corporation but rather to justify disinvestment in the corporation. This disinvestment ultimately degraded the company's underlying profitability and the quality of its planes (which is one of the reasons the Pentagon helped to broker the merger with Boeing; in another perverse echo of the 2008 financial disaster, it was a politically engineered bailout).

RONA in Practice

When real engineering clashes with financial engineering, the damage takes the form of a geographically disparate and demoralized workforce: The factory-floor denominator goes down. Workers' wages are depressed, testing and quality assurance are curtailed. Productivity is diminished, even as labor-saving technologies are introduced. Precision machinery is sold off and replaced by inferior, but cheaper, machines. Engineering quality deteriorates. And the upshot is that a reliable plane like Boeing's 737, which had been a tried and true money-spinner with an impressive safety record since 1967, becomes a high-tech death trap.

The drive toward efficiency is translated into a drive to do more with less. Get more out of workers while paying them less. Make more parts with fewer machines. Outsourcing is viewed as a way to release capital by transferring investment from skilled domestic human capital to offshore entities not imbued with the same talents, corporate culture and dedication to quality. The benefits to the bottom line are temporary; the long-term pathologies become embedded as the company's market share begins to shrink, as the airlines search for less shoddy alternatives.

You must do one more thing if you are a Boeing director: you must erect barriers to bad news, because there is nothing that bursts a magic bubble faster than reality, particularly if it's bad reality.

The illusion that Boeing sought to perpetuate was that it continued to produce the same thing it had produced for decades: namely, a safe, reliable, quality airplane. But it was doing so with a production apparatus that was stripped, for cost reasons, of many of the means necessary to make good aircraft. So while the wine still came in a bottle signifying Premier Cru quality, and still carried the same price, someone had poured out the contents and replaced them with cheap plonk.

And that has become remarkably easy to do in aviation. Because Boeing is no longer subject to proper independent regulatory scrutiny. This is what happens when you're allowed to " self-certify" your own airplane , as the Washington Post described: "One Boeing engineer would conduct a test of a particular system on the Max 8, while another Boeing engineer would act as the FAA's representative, signing on behalf of the U.S. government that the technology complied with federal safety regulations."

This is a recipe for disaster. Boeing relentlessly cut costs, it outsourced across the globe to workforces that knew nothing about aviation or aviation's safety culture. It sent things everywhere on one criteria and one criteria only: lower the denominator. Make it the same, but cheaper. And then self-certify the plane, so that nobody, including the FAA, was ever the wiser.

Boeing also greased the wheels in Washington to ensure the continuation of this convenient state of regulatory affairs for the company. According to OpenSecrets.org , Boeing and its affiliates spent $15,120,000 in lobbying expenses in 2018, after spending, $16,740,000 in 2017 (along with a further $4,551,078 in 2018 political contributions, which placed the company 82nd out of a total of 19,087 contributors). Looking back at these figures over the past four elections (congressional and presidential) since 2012, these numbers represent fairly typical spending sums for the company.

But clever financial engineering, extensive political lobbying and self-certification can't perpetually hold back the effects of shoddy engineering. One of the sad byproducts of the FAA's acquiescence to "self-certification" is how many things fall through the cracks so easily.

[Feb 11, 2019] 6 most prevalent problems in the software development world

Dec 01, 2018 | www.catswhocode.com

November 20, 2018

[Jan 14, 2019] Quickly move an executable between systems with ELF Statifier Linux.com The source for Linux information by Ben Martin

Oct 23, 2008 | monkeyiq.blogspot.com

Shared libraries that are dynamically linked make more efficient use of disk space than those that are statically linked, and more importantly allow you to perform security updates in a more efficient manner, but executables compiled against a particular version of a dynamic library expect that version of the shared library to be available on the machine they run on. If you are running machines with both Fedora 9 and openSUSE 11, the versions of some shared libraries are likely to be slightly different, and if you copy an executable between the machines, the file might fail to execute because of these version differences.

With ELF Statifier you can create a statically linked version of an executable, so the executable includes the shared libraries instead of seeking them at run time. A statically linked executable is much more likely to run on a different Linux distribution or a different version of the same distribution.

Of course, to do this you sacrifice some disk space, because the statically linked executable includes a copy of the shared libraries that it needs, but in these days of terabyte disks the space consideration is less important than the security one. Consider what happens if your executables are dynamically linked to a shared library, say libfoo, and there is a security update to libfoo. When your applications are dynamically linked you can just update the shared copy of libfoo and your applications will no longer be vulnerable to the security issue in the older libfoo. If on the other hand you have a statically linked executable, it will still include and use its own private copy of the old libfoo. You'll have to recreate the statically linked executable to get the newer libfoo and security update.

Still, there are times when you want to take a daemon you compiled on a Fedora machine and run it on your openSUSE machine without having to recompile it and all its dependencies. Sometimes you just want it to execute now and can rebuild it later if desired. Of course, the machine you copy the executable from and the one on which you want to run it must have the same architecture.

ELF Statifier is packaged as a 1-Click install for openSUSE 10.3 but not for Ubuntu Hardy or Fedora. I'll use version 1.6.14 of ELF Statifier and build it from source on a Fedora 9 x86 machine. ELF Statifier does not use autotools, so you compile by simply invoking make . Compilation and installation is shown below.

$ tar xzvf statifier-1.6.14.tar.gz
$ cd ./statifier-*
$ make
$ sudo make install

As an example of how to use the utility, I'll create a statically linked version of the ls binary in the commands shown below. First I create a personal copy of the dynamically linked executable and inspect it to see what it dynamically links to. You run statifier with the path to the dynamically linked executable as the first argument and the path where you want to create the statically linked executable as the second argument. Notice that the ldd command reports that no dynamically linked libraries are required by ls-static. The next command shows that the binary size has grown significantly for the static version of ls.

$ mkdir test
$ cd ./test
$ cp -a /bin/ls ls-dynamic
$ ls -lh
-rwxr-xr-x 1 ben ben 112K 2008-08-01 04:05 ls-dynamic
$ ldd ls-dynamic
linux-gate.so.1 => (0x00110000)
librt.so.1 => /lib/librt.so.1 (0x00a3a000)
libselinux.so.1 => /lib/libselinux.so.1 (0x00a06000)
libacl.so.1 => /lib/libacl.so.1 (0x00d8a000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x0084e000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x009eb000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x0082e000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x009e4000)
libattr.so.1 => /lib/libattr.so.1 (0x0606d000)

$ statifier ls-dynamic ls-static
$ ldd ls-static
not a dynamic executable

$ ls -lh ls-static
-rwxr-x--- 1 ben ben 2.0M 2008-10-03 12:05 ls-static

$ ls-static /tmp
...
$ ls-static -lh
Segmentation fault

As you can see above, the statified ls crashes when you run it with the -l option. If you get segmentation faults when running your statified executables you should disable stack randomization and recreate the statified executable. The stack and address space randomization feature of the Linux kernel makes the locations used for the stack and other important parts of an executable change every time it is executed. Randomizing things each time you run a binary hinders attacks such as the return-to-libc attack because the location of libc functions changes all the time.

You are giving away some security by changing the randomize_va_space parameter as shown below. The change to randomize_va_space affects not only attacks on the executables themselves but also exploit attempts that rely on buffer overflows to compromise the system. Without randomization, both attacks become more straightforward. If you set randomize_va_space to zero as shown below and recreate the ls-static binary, things should work as expected. You'll have to leave the stack randomization feature disabled in order to execute the statified executable.

# cd /proc/sys/kernel
# cat randomize_va_space
2
# echo -n 0 >| randomize_va_space
# cat randomize_va_space
0

There are a few other tricks up statifier's sleeve: you can set or unset environment variables for the statified executable, and include additional libraries (LD_PRELOAD libraries) into the static executable. Being able to set additional environment variables for a static executable is useful when the binary you are statifying relies on finding additional resources like configuration files. If the binary allows you to tell it where to find its resources through environment variables, you can include these settings directly into the statified executable.

The ability to include preloaded shared libraries into the statified binary (LD_PRELOADing) is probably a less commonly used feature. One use is including additional functionality such as making the statically linked executable "trashcan friendly" by default, perhaps using delsafe , but without needing to install any additional software on the machine that is running the statically linked executable.

Security measures that randomize the address space of binaries might interfere with ELF Statifier and cause it not to work. But when you just want to move the execution of an application to another Linux machine, ELF Statifier might get you up and running without the hassle of a recompile.

Categories:

[Dec 27, 2018] The Yoda of Silicon Valley by Siobhan Roberts

Highly recommended!
Although he is certainly a giant, Knuth will never be able to complete this monograph - the technology developed too quickly. Three volumes came out in 1963-1968 and then there was a lull. January 10, he will be 81. At this age it is difficult to work in the field of mathematics and system programming. So we will probably never see the complete fourth volume.
This inability to finish the work he devoted a large part of hi life is definitely a tragedy. The key problem here is that now it is simply impossible to cover the whole area of ​​system programming and related algorithms for one person. But the first three volumes played tremendous positive role for sure.
Also he was distracted for several years to create TeX. He needed to create a non-profit and complete this work by attracting the best minds from the outside. But he is by nature a loner, as many great scientists are, and prefer to work this way.
His other mistake is due to the fact that MIX - his emulator was too far from the IBM S/360, which became the standard de-facto in mid-60th. He then realized that this was a blunder and replaced MIX with more modem emulator MIXX, but it was "too little, too late" and it took time and effort. So the first three volumes and fragments of the fourth is all that we have now and probably forever.
Not all volumes fared equally well with time. The third volume suffered most IMHO and as of 2019 is partially obsolete. Also it was written by him in some haste and some parts of it are are far from clearly written ( it was based on earlier lectures of Floyd, so it was oriented of single CPU computers only. Now when multiprocessor machines, huge amount of RAM and SSD hard drives are the norm, the situation is very different from late 60th. It requires different sorting algorithms (the importance of mergesort increased, importance of quicksort decreased). He also got too carried away with sorting random numbers and establishing upper bound and average run time. The real data is almost never random and typically contain sorted fragments. For example, he overestimated the importance of quicksort and thus pushed the discipline in the wrong direction.
Notable quotes:
"... These days, it is 'coding', which is more like 'code-spraying'. Throw code at a problem until it kind of works, then fix the bugs in the post-release, or the next update. ..."
"... AI is a joke. None of the current 'AI' actually is. It is just another new buzz-word to throw around to people that do not understand it at all. ..."
"... One good teacher makes all the difference in life. More than one is a rare blessing. ..."
Dec 17, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

With more than one million copies in print, "The Art of Computer Programming " is the Bible of its field. "Like an actual bible, it is long and comprehensive; no other book is as comprehensive," said Peter Norvig, a director of research at Google. After 652 pages, volume one closes with a blurb on the back cover from Bill Gates: "You should definitely send me a résumé if you can read the whole thing."

The volume opens with an excerpt from " McCall's Cookbook ":

Here is your book, the one your thousands of letters have asked us to publish. It has taken us years to do, checking and rechecking countless recipes to bring you only the best, only the interesting, only the perfect.

Inside are algorithms, the recipes that feed the digital age -- although, as Dr. Knuth likes to point out, algorithms can also be found on Babylonian tablets from 3,800 years ago. He is an esteemed algorithmist; his name is attached to some of the field's most important specimens, such as the Knuth-Morris-Pratt string-searching algorithm. Devised in 1970, it finds all occurrences of a given word or pattern of letters in a text -- for instance, when you hit Command+F to search for a keyword in a document.

... ... ...

During summer vacations, Dr. Knuth made more money than professors earned in a year by writing compilers. A compiler is like a translator, converting a high-level programming language (resembling algebra) to a lower-level one (sometimes arcane binary) and, ideally, improving it in the process. In computer science, "optimization" is truly an art, and this is articulated in another Knuthian proverb: "Premature optimization is the root of all evil."

Eventually Dr. Knuth became a compiler himself, inadvertently founding a new field that he came to call the "analysis of algorithms." A publisher hired him to write a book about compilers, but it evolved into a book collecting everything he knew about how to write for computers -- a book about algorithms.

... ... ...

When Dr. Knuth started out, he intended to write a single work. Soon after, computer science underwent its Big Bang, so he reimagined and recast the project in seven volumes. Now he metes out sub-volumes, called fascicles. The next installation, "Volume 4, Fascicle 5," covering, among other things, "backtracking" and "dancing links," was meant to be published in time for Christmas. It is delayed until next April because he keeps finding more and more irresistible problems that he wants to present.

In order to optimize his chances of getting to the end, Dr. Knuth has long guarded his time. He retired at 55, restricted his public engagements and quit email (officially, at least). Andrei Broder recalled that time management was his professor's defining characteristic even in the early 1980s.

Dr. Knuth typically held student appointments on Friday mornings, until he started spending his nights in the lab of John McCarthy, a founder of artificial intelligence, to get access to the computers when they were free. Horrified by what his beloved book looked like on the page with the advent of digital publishing, Dr. Knuth had gone on a mission to create the TeX computer typesetting system, which remains the gold standard for all forms of scientific communication and publication. Some consider it Dr. Knuth's greatest contribution to the world, and the greatest contribution to typography since Gutenberg.

This decade-long detour took place back in the age when computers were shared among users and ran faster at night while most humans slept. So Dr. Knuth switched day into night, shifted his schedule by 12 hours and mapped his student appointments to Fridays from 8 p.m. to midnight. Dr. Broder recalled, "When I told my girlfriend that we can't do anything Friday night because Friday night at 10 I have to meet with my adviser, she thought, 'This is something that is so stupid it must be true.'"

... ... ...

Lucky, then, Dr. Knuth keeps at it. He figures it will take another 25 years to finish "The Art of Computer Programming," although that time frame has been a constant since about 1980. Might the algorithm-writing algorithms get their own chapter, or maybe a page in the epilogue? "Definitely not," said Dr. Knuth.

"I am worried that algorithms are getting too prominent in the world," he added. "It started out that computer scientists were worried nobody was listening to us. Now I'm worried that too many people are listening."


Scott Kim Burlingame, CA Dec. 18

Thanks Siobhan for your vivid portrait of my friend and mentor. When I came to Stanford as an undergrad in 1973 I asked who in the math dept was interested in puzzles. They pointed me to the computer science dept, where I met Knuth and we hit it off immediately. Not only a great thinker and writer, but as you so well described, always present and warm in person. He was also one of the best teachers I've ever had -- clear, funny, and interested in every student (his elegant policy was each student can only speak twice in class during a period, to give everyone a chance to participate, and he made a point of remembering everyone's names). Some thoughts from Knuth I carry with me: finding the right name for a project is half the work (not literally true, but he labored hard on finding the right names for TeX, Metafont, etc.), always do your best work, half of why the field of computer science exists is because it is a way for mathematically minded people who like to build things can meet each other, and the observation that when the computer science dept began at Stanford one of the standard interview questions was "what instrument do you play" -- there was a deep connection between music and computer science, and indeed the dept had multiple string quartets. But in recent decades that has changed entirely. If you do a book on Knuth (he deserves it), please be in touch.

IMiss America US Dec. 18

I remember when programming was art. I remember when programming was programming. These days, it is 'coding', which is more like 'code-spraying'. Throw code at a problem until it kind of works, then fix the bugs in the post-release, or the next update.

AI is a joke. None of the current 'AI' actually is. It is just another new buzz-word to throw around to people that do not understand it at all. We should be in a golden age of computing. Instead, we are cutting all corners to get something out as fast as possible. The technology exists to do far more. It is the human element that fails us.

Ronald Aaronson Armonk, NY Dec. 18

My particular field of interest has always been compiler writing and have been long awaiting Knuth's volume on that subject. I would just like to point out that among Kunth's many accomplishments is the invention of LR parsers, which are widely used for writing programming language compilers.

Edward Snowden Russia Dec. 18

Yes, \TeX, and its derivative, \LaTeX{} contributed greatly to being able to create elegant documents. It is also available for the web in the form MathJax, and it's about time the New York Times supported MathJax. Many times I want one of my New York Times comments to include math, but there's no way to do so! It comes up equivalent to: $e^{i\pi}+1$.

48 Recommend
henry pick new york Dec. 18

I read it at the time, because what I really wanted to read was volume 7, Compilers. As I understood it at the time, Professor Knuth wrote it in order to make enough money to build an organ. That apparantly happened by 3:Knuth, Searching and Sorting. The most impressive part is the mathemathics in Semi-numerical (2:Knuth). A lot of those problems are research projects over the literature of the last 400 years of mathematics.

Steve Singer Chicago Dec. 18

I own the three volume "Art of Computer Programming", the hardbound boxed set. Luxurious. I don't look at it very often thanks to time constraints, given my workload. But your article motivated me to at least pick it up and carry it from my reserve library to a spot closer to my main desk so I can at least grab Volume 1 and try to read some of it when the mood strikes. I had forgotten just how heavy it is, intellectual content aside. It must weigh more than 25 pounds.

Terry Hayes Los Altos, CA Dec. 18

I too used my copies of The Art of Computer Programming to guide me in several projects in my career, across a variety of topic areas. Now that I'm living in Silicon Valley, I enjoy seeing Knuth at events at the Computer History Museum (where he was a 1998 Fellow Award winner), and at Stanford. Another facet of his teaching is the annual Christmas Lecture, in which he presents something of recent (or not-so-recent) interest. The 2018 lecture is available online - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cR9zDlvP88

Chris Tong Kelseyville, California Dec. 17

One of the most special treats for first year Ph.D. students in the Stanford University Computer Science Department was to take the Computer Problem-Solving class with Don Knuth. It was small and intimate, and we sat around a table for our meetings. Knuth started the semester by giving us an extremely challenging, previously unsolved problem. We then formed teams of 2 or 3. Each week, each team would report progress (or lack thereof), and Knuth, in the most supportive way, would assess our problem-solving approach and make suggestions for how to improve it. To have a master thinker giving one feedback on how to think better was a rare and extraordinary experience, from which I am still benefiting! Knuth ended the semester (after we had all solved the problem) by having us over to his house for food, drink, and tales from his life. . . And for those like me with a musical interest, he let us play the magnificent pipe organ that was at the center of his music room. Thank you Professor Knuth, for giving me one of the most profound educational experiences I've ever had, with such encouragement and humor!

Been there Boulder, Colorado Dec. 17

I learned about Dr. Knuth as a graduate student in the early 70s from one of my professors and made the financial sacrifice (graduate student assistantships were not lucrative) to buy the first and then the second volume of the Art of Computer Programming. Later, at Bell Labs, when I was a bit richer, I bought the third volume. I have those books still and have used them for reference for years. Thank you Dr, Knuth. Art, indeed!

Gianni New York Dec. 18

@Trerra In the good old days, before Computer Science, anyone could take the Programming Aptitude Test. Pass it and companies would train you. Although there were many mathematicians and scientists, some of the best programmers turned out to be music majors. English, Social Sciences, and History majors were represented as well as scientists and mathematicians. It was a wonderful atmosphere to work in . When I started to look for a job as a programmer, I took Prudential Life Insurance's version of the Aptitude Test. After the test, the interviewer was all bent out of shape because my verbal score was higher than my math score; I was a physics major. Luckily they didn't hire me and I got a job with IBM.

M Martínez Miami Dec. 17

In summary, "May the force be with you" means: Did you read Donald Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming"? Excellent, we loved this article. We will share it with many young developers we know.

mds USA Dec. 17

Dr. Knuth is a great Computer Scientist. Around 25 years ago, I met Dr. Knuth in a small gathering a day before he was awarded a honorary Doctorate in a university. This is my approximate recollection of a conversation. I said-- " Dr. Knuth, you have dedicated your book to a computer (one with which he had spent a lot of time, perhaps a predecessor to PDP-11). Isn't it unusual?". He said-- "Well, I love my wife as much as anyone." He then turned to his wife and said --"Don't you think so?". It would be nice if scientists with the gift of such great minds tried to address some problems of ordinary people, e.g. a model of economy where everyone can get a job and health insurance, say, like Dr. Paul Krugman.

Nadine NYC Dec. 17

I was in a training program for women in computer systems at CUNY graduate center, and they used his obtuse book. It was one of the reasons I dropped out. He used a fantasy language to describe his algorithms in his book that one could not test on computers. I already had work experience as a programmer with algorithms and I know how valuable real languages are. I might as well have read Animal Farm. It might have been different if he was the instructor.

Doug McKenna Boulder Colorado Dec. 17

Don Knuth's work has been a curious thread weaving in and out of my life. I was first introduced to Knuth and his The Art of Computer Programming back in 1973, when I was tasked with understanding a section of the then-only-two-volume Book well enough to give a lecture explaining it to my college algorithms class. But when I first met him in 1981 at Stanford, he was all-in on thinking about typography and this new-fangled system of his called TeX. Skip a quarter century. One day in 2009, I foolishly decided kind of on a whim to rewrite TeX from scratch (in my copious spare time), as a simple C library, so that its typesetting algorithms could be put to use in other software such as electronic eBook's with high-quality math typesetting and interactive pictures. I asked Knuth for advice. He warned me, prepare yourself, it's going to consume five years of your life. I didn't believe him, so I set off and tried anyway. As usual, he was right.

Baddy Khan San Francisco Dec. 17

I have signed copied of "Fundamental Algorithms" in my library, which I treasure. Knuth was a fine teacher, and is truly a brilliant and inspiring individual. He taught during the same period as Vint Cerf, another wonderful teacher with a great sense of humor who is truly a "father of the internet". One good teacher makes all the difference in life. More than one is a rare blessing.

Indisk Fringe Dec. 17

I am a biologist, specifically a geneticist. I became interested in LaTeX typesetting early in my career and have been either called pompous or vilified by people at all levels for wanting to use. One of my PhD advisors famously told me to forget LaTeX because it was a thing of the past. I have now forgotten him completely. I still use LaTeX almost every day in my work even though I don't generally typeset with equations or algorithms. My students always get trained in using proper typesetting. Unfortunately, the publishing industry has all but largely given up on TeX. Very few journals in my field accept TeX manuscripts, and most of them convert to word before feeding text to their publishing software. Whatever people might argue against TeX, the beauty and elegance of a property typeset document is unparalleled. Long live LaTeX

PaulSFO San Francisco Dec. 17

A few years ago Severo Ornstein (who, incidentally, did the hardware design for the first router, in 1969), and his wife Laura, hosted a concert in their home in the hills above Palo Alto. During a break a friend and I were chatting when a man came over and *asked* if he could chat with us (a high honor, indeed). His name was Don. After a few minutes I grew suspicious and asked "What's your last name?" Friendly, modest, brilliant; a nice addition to our little chat.

Tim Black Wilmington, NC Dec. 17

When I was a physics undergraduate (at Trinity in Hartford), I was hired to re-write professor's papers into TeX. Seeing the beauty of TeX, I wrote a program that re-wrote my lab reports (including graphs!) into TeX. My lab instructors were amazed! How did I do it? I never told them. But I just recognized that Knuth was a genius and rode his coat-tails, as I have continued to do for the last 30 years!

Jack512 Alexandria VA Dec. 17

A famous quote from Knuth: "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." Anyone who has ever programmed a computer will feel the truth of this in their bones.

[Dec 11, 2018] Software "upgrades" require workers to constantly relearn the same task because some young "genius" observed that a carefully thought out interface "looked tired" and glitzed it up.

Dec 11, 2018 | www.ianwelsh.net

S Brennan permalink April 24, 2016

My grandfather, in the early 60's could board a 707 in New York and arrive in LA in far less time than I can today. And no, I am not counting 4 hour layovers with the long waits to be "screened", the jets were 50-70 knots faster, back then your time was worth more, today less.

Not counting longer hours AT WORK, we spend far more time commuting making for much longer work days, back then your time was worth more, today less!

Software "upgrades" require workers to constantly relearn the same task because some young "genius" observed that a carefully thought out interface "looked tired" and glitzed it up. Think about the almost perfect Google Maps driver interface being redesigned by people who take private buses to work. Way back in the '90's your time was worth more than today!

Life is all the "time" YOU will ever have and if we let the elite do so, they will suck every bit of it out of you.

[Nov 07, 2018] The Computer Languages Employers Want Most in Silicon Valley

Nov 07, 2018 | qz.com


Quartz
Michael J. Coren
November 2, 2018

The Indeed jobs website determined, by counting the most requested computer languages in technology job postings, that Java and Python were most desired by employers across the U.S. The site compared posts from employers in San Francisco, San Jose, and the wider U.S. between October 2017 and October 2018. Analysis found most of the non-Python or non-Java languages to be a reflection of the digital economy's demands, with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript buttressing the everyday Web. Meanwhile, SQL and PHP drive back-end functions such as data retrieval and dynamic content display. Although languages from tech giants such as Microsoft's C# and Apple's Swift for iOS and macOS applications were not among the top 10, both were cited as among the language skills most wanted by developers. Meanwhile, Amazon Web Services, which has proved vital to cloud computing, did crack the top 10.

[Nov 05, 2018] Revisiting the Unix philosophy in 2018 Opensource.com by Michael Hausenblas

Nov 05, 2018 | opensource.com

Revisiting the Unix philosophy in 2018 The old strategy of building small, focused applications is new again in the modern microservices environment.

Program Design in the Unix Environment " in the AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal, in which they argued the Unix philosophy, using the example of BSD's cat -v implementation. In a nutshell that philosophy is: Build small, focused programs -- in whatever language -- that do only one thing but do this thing well, communicate via stdin / stdout , and are connected through pipes.

Sound familiar?

Yeah, I thought so. That's pretty much the definition of microservices offered by James Lewis and Martin Fowler:

In short, the microservice architectural style is an approach to developing a single application as a suite of small services, each running in its own process and communicating with lightweight mechanisms, often an HTTP resource API.

While one *nix program or one microservice may be very limited or not even very interesting on its own, it's the combination of such independently working units that reveals their true benefit and, therefore, their power.

*nix vs. microservices

The following table compares programs (such as cat or lsof ) in a *nix environment against programs in a microservices environment.

*nix Microservices
Unit of execution program using stdin / stdout service with HTTP or gRPC API
Data flow Pipes ?
Configuration & parameterization Command-line arguments,
environment variables, config files
JSON/YAML docs
Discovery Package manager, man, make DNS, environment variables, OpenAPI

Let's explore each line in slightly greater detail.

Unit of execution

More on Microservices

The unit of execution in *nix (such as Linux) is an executable file (binary or interpreted script) that, ideally, reads input from stdin and writes output to stdout . A microservices setup deals with a service that exposes one or more communication interfaces, such as HTTP or gRPC APIs. In both cases, you'll find stateless examples (essentially a purely functional behavior) and stateful examples, where, in addition to the input, some internal (persisted) state decides what happens. Data flow

Traditionally, *nix programs could communicate via pipes. In other words, thanks to Doug McIlroy , you don't need to create temporary files to pass around and each can process virtually endless streams of data between processes. To my knowledge, there is nothing comparable to a pipe standardized in microservices, besides my little Apache Kafka-based experiment from 2017 .

Configuration and parameterization

How do you configure a program or service -- either on a permanent or a by-call basis? Well, with *nix programs you essentially have three options: command-line arguments, environment variables, or full-blown config files. In microservices, you typically deal with YAML (or even worse, JSON) documents, defining the layout and configuration of a single microservice as well as dependencies and communication, storage, and runtime settings. Examples include Kubernetes resource definitions , Nomad job specifications , or Docker Compose files. These may or may not be parameterized; that is, either you have some templating language, such as Helm in Kubernetes, or you find yourself doing an awful lot of sed -i commands.

Discovery

How do you know what programs or services are available and how they are supposed to be used? Well, in *nix, you typically have a package manager as well as good old man; between them, they should be able to answer all the questions you might have. In a microservices setup, there's a bit more automation in finding a service. In addition to bespoke approaches like Airbnb's SmartStack or Netflix's Eureka , there usually are environment variable-based or DNS-based approaches that allow you to discover services dynamically. Equally important, OpenAPI provides a de-facto standard for HTTP API documentation and design, and gRPC does the same for more tightly coupled high-performance cases. Last but not least, take developer experience (DX) into account, starting with writing good Makefiles and ending with writing your docs with (or in?) style .

Pros and cons

Both *nix and microservices offer a number of challenges and opportunities

Composability

It's hard to design something that has a clear, sharp focus and can also play well with others. It's even harder to get it right across different versions and to introduce respective error case handling capabilities. In microservices, this could mean retry logic and timeouts -- maybe it's a better option to outsource these features into a service mesh? It's hard, but if you get it right, its reusability can be enormous.

Observability

In a monolith (in 2018) or a big program that tries to do it all (in 1984), it's rather straightforward to find the culprit when things go south. But, in a

yes | tr \\n x | head -c 450m | grep n

or a request path in a microservices setup that involves, say, 20 services, how do you even start to figure out which one is behaving badly? Luckily we have standards, notably OpenCensus and OpenTracing . Observability still might be the biggest single blocker if you are looking to move to microservices.

Global state

While it may not be such a big issue for *nix programs, in microservices, global state remains something of a discussion. Namely, how to make sure the local (persistent) state is managed effectively and how to make the global state consistent with as little effort as possible.

Wrapping up

In the end, the question remains: Are you using the right tool for a given task? That is, in the same way a specialized *nix program implementing a range of functions might be the better choice for certain use cases or phases, it might be that a monolith is the best option for your organization or workload. Regardless, I hope this article helps you see the many, strong parallels between the Unix philosophy and microservices -- maybe we can learn something from the former to benefit the latter.

Michael Hausenblas is a Developer Advocate for Kubernetes and OpenShift at Red Hat where he helps appops to build and operate apps. His background is in large-scale data processing and container orchestration and he's experienced in advocacy and standardization at W3C and IETF. Before Red Hat, Michael worked at Mesosphere, MapR and in two research institutions in Ireland and Austria. He contributes to open source software incl. Kubernetes, speaks at conferences and user groups, and shares good practices...

[Nov 05, 2018] The Linux Philosophy for SysAdmins And Everyone Who Wants To Be One eBook by David Both

Nov 05, 2018 | www.amazon.com

Elegance is one of those things that can be difficult to define. I know it when I see it, but putting what I see into a terse definition is a challenge. Using the Linux diet
command, Wordnet provides one definition of elegance as, "a quality of neatness and ingenious simplicity in the solution of a problem (especially in science or mathematics); 'the simplicity and elegance of his invention.'"

In the context of this book, I think that elegance is a state of beauty and simplicity in the design and working of both hardware and software. When a design is elegant,
software and hardware work better and are more efficient. The user is aided by simple, efficient, and understandable tools.

Creating elegance in a technological environment is hard. It is also necessary. Elegant solutions produce elegant results and are easy to maintain and fix. Elegance does not happen by accident; you must work for it.

The quality of simplicity is a large part of technical elegance. So large, in fact that it deserves a chapter of its own, Chapter 18, "Find the Simplicity," but we do not ignore it here. This chapter discusses what it means for hardware and software to be elegant.

Hardware Elegance

Yes, hardware can be elegant -- even beautiful, pleasing to the eye. Hardware that is well designed is more reliable as well. Elegant hardware solutions improve reliability'.

[Oct 27, 2018] One issue with Microsoft (not just Microsoft) is that their business model (not the benefit of the users) requires frequent changes in the systems, so bugs are introduced at the steady clip.

Oct 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman , Oct 26, 2018 2:55:29 PM | 5 ">link

"Even Microsoft, the biggest software company in the world, recently screwed up..."

Isn't it rather logical than the larger a company is, the more screw ups it can make? After all, Microsofts has armies of programmers to make those bugs.

Once I created a joke that the best way to disable missile defense would be to have a rocket that can stop in mid-air, thus provoking the software to divide be zero and crash. One day I told that joke to a military officer who told me that something like that actually happened, but it was in the Navy and it involved a test with a torpedo. Not only the program for "torpedo defense" went down but the system crashed too and the engine of the ship stopped working as well. I also recall explanations that a new complex software system typically has all major bugs removed after being used for a year. And the occasion was Internal Revenue Service changing hardware and software leading to widely reported problems.

One issue with Microsoft (not just Microsoft) is that their business model (not the benefit of the users) requires frequent changes in the systems, so bugs are introduced at the steady clip. Of course, they do not make money on bugs per se, but on new features that in time make it impossible to use older versions of the software and hardware.

[Sep 21, 2018] 'It Just Seems That Nobody is Interested in Building Quality, Fast, Efficient, Lasting, Foundational Stuff Anymore'

Sep 21, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org

Nikita Prokopov, a software programmer and author of Fira Code, a popular programming font, AnyBar, a universal status indicator, and some open-source Clojure libraries, writes :

Remember times when an OS, apps and all your data fit on a floppy? Your desktop todo app is probably written in Electron and thus has userland driver for Xbox 360 controller in it, can render 3d graphics and play audio and take photos with your web camera. A simple text chat is notorious for its load speed and memory consumption. Yes, you really have to count Slack in as a resource-heavy application. I mean, chatroom and barebones text editor, those are supposed to be two of the less demanding apps in the whole world. Welcome to 2018.

At least it works, you might say. Well, bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger means someone has lost control. Bigger means we don't know what's going on. Bigger means complexity tax, performance tax, reliability tax. This is not the norm and should not become the norm . Overweight apps should mean a red flag. They should mean run away scared. 16Gb Android phone was perfectly fine 3 years ago. Today with Android 8.1 it's barely usable because each app has become at least twice as big for no apparent reason. There are no additional functions. They are not faster or more optimized. They don't look different. They just...grow?

iPhone 4s was released with iOS 5, but can barely run iOS 9. And it's not because iOS 9 is that much superior -- it's basically the same. But their new hardware is faster, so they made software slower. Don't worry -- you got exciting new capabilities like...running the same apps with the same speed! I dunno. [...] Nobody understands anything at this point. Neither they want to. We just throw barely baked shit out there, hope for the best and call it "startup wisdom." Web pages ask you to refresh if anything goes wrong. Who has time to figure out what happened? Any web app produces a constant stream of "random" JS errors in the wild, even on compatible browsers.

[...] It just seems that nobody is interested in building quality, fast, efficient, lasting, foundational stuff anymore. Even when efficient solutions have been known for ages, we still struggle with the same problems: package management, build systems, compilers, language design, IDEs. Build systems are inherently unreliable and periodically require full clean, even though all info for invalidation is there. Nothing stops us from making build process reliable, predictable and 100% reproducible. Just nobody thinks its important. NPM has stayed in "sometimes works" state for years.


K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) , Friday September 21, 2018 @11:32AM ( #57354556 )

Re:Why should they? ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

Less resource use to accomplish the required tasks? Both in manufacturing (more chips from the same amount of manufacturing input) and in operation (less power used)?

K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) writes: on Friday September 21, 2018 @11:58AM ( #57354754 )
Re:Why should they? ( Score: 2 )

Ehm...so for example using smaller cars with better mileage to commute isn't more environmentally friendly either, according to you?https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12644750&cid=57354556#

DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) writes: on Friday September 21, 2018 @12:04PM ( #57354826 )
Re:Why should they? ( Score: 2 )

iPhone 4S used to be the best and could run all the applications.

Today, the same power is not sufficient because of software bloat. So you could say that all the iPhones since the iPhone 4S are devices that were created and then dumped for no reason.

It doesn't matter since we can't change the past and it doesn't matter much since improvements are slowing down so people are changing their phones less often.

Mark of the North ( 19760 ) , Friday September 21, 2018 @01:02PM ( #57355296 )
Re:Why should they? ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

Can you really not see the connection between inefficient software and environmental harm? All those computers running code that uses four times as much data, and four times the number crunching, as is reasonable? That excess RAM and storage has to be built as well as powered along with the CPU. Those material and electrical resources have to come from somewhere.

But the calculus changes completely when the software manufacturer hosts the software (or pays for the hosting) for their customers. Our projected AWS bill motivated our management to let me write the sort of efficient code I've been trained to write. After two years of maintaining some pretty horrible legacy code, it is a welcome change.

The big players care a great deal about efficiency when they can't outsource inefficiency to the user's computing resources.

eth1 ( 94901 ) , Friday September 21, 2018 @11:45AM ( #57354656 )
Re:Why should they? ( Score: 5 , Informative)
We've been trained to be a consuming society of disposable goods. The latest and greatest feature will always be more important than something that is reliable and durable for the long haul.

It's not just consumer stuff.

The network team I'm a part of has been dealing with more and more frequent outages, 90% of which are due to bugs in software running our devices. These aren't fly-by-night vendors either, they're the "no one ever got fired for buying X" ones like Cisco, F5, Palo Alto, EMC, etc.

10 years ago, outages were 10% bugs, and 90% human error, now it seems to be the other way around. Everyone's chasing features, because that's what sells, so there's no time for efficiency/stability/security any more.

LucasBC ( 1138637 ) , Friday September 21, 2018 @12:05PM ( #57354836 )
Re:Why should they? ( Score: 3 , Interesting)

Poor software engineering means that very capable computers are no longer capable of running modern, unnecessarily bloated software. This, in turn, leads to people having to replace computers that are otherwise working well, solely for the reason to keep up with software that requires more and more system resources for no tangible benefit. In a nutshell -- sloppy, lazy programming leads to more technology waste. That impacts the environment. I have a unique perspective in this topic. I do web development for a company that does electronics recycling. I have suffered the continued bloat in software in the tools I use (most egregiously, Adobe), and I see the impact of technological waste in the increasing amount of electronics recycling that is occurring. Ironically, I'm working at home today because my computer at the office kept stalling every time I had Photoshop and Illustrator open at the same time. A few years ago that wasn't a problem.

arglebargle_xiv ( 2212710 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )

There is one place where people still produce stuff like the OP wants, and that's embedded. Not IoT wank, but real embedded, running on CPUs clocked at tens of MHz with RAM in two-digit kilobyte (not megabyte or gigabyte) quantities. And a lot of that stuff is written to very exacting standards, particularly where something like realtime control and/or safety is involved.

The one problem in this area is the endless battle with standards morons who begin each standard with an implicit "assume an infinitely

commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) , Friday September 21, 2018 @03:58PM ( #57356680 ) Journal
Re:Why should they? ( Score: 3 )

> Poor software engineering means that very capable computers are no longer capable of running modern, unnecessarily bloated software.

Not just computers.

You can add Smart TVs, settop internet boxes, Kindles, tablets, et cetera that must be thrown-away when they become too old (say 5 years) to run the latest bloatware. Software non-engineering is causing a lot of working hardware to be landfilled, and for no good reason.

[Sep 21, 2018] Fast, cheap (efficient) and reliable (robust, long lasting): pick 2

Sep 21, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org

JoeDuncan ( 874519 ) , Friday September 21, 2018 @12:58PM ( #57355276 )

Obligatory ( Score: 2 )

Fast, cheap (efficient) and reliable (robust, long lasting): pick 2.

roc97007 ( 608802 ) , Friday September 21, 2018 @12:16PM ( #57354946 ) Journal
Re:Bloat = growth ( Score: 2 )

There's probably some truth to that. And it's a sad commentary on the industry.

[Sep 21, 2018] Since Moore's law appears to have stalled since at least five years ago, it will be interesting to see if we start to see algorithm research or code optimization techniques coming to the fore again.

Sep 21, 2018 | tech.slashdot.org

Anonymous Coward , Friday September 21, 2018 @11:26AM ( #57354512 )

Moore's law ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

When the speed of your processor doubles every two year along with a concurrent doubling of RAM and disk space, then you can get away with bloatware.

Since Moore's law appears to have stalled since at least five years ago, it will be interesting to see if we start to see algorithm research or code optimization techniques coming to the fore again.

[Sep 16, 2018] After the iron curtain fell, there was a big demand for Russian-trained programmers because they could program in a very efficient and light manner that didn't demand too much of the hardware, if I remember correctly

Notable quotes:
"... It's a bit of chicken-and-egg problem, though. Russia, throughout 20th century, had problem with developing small, effective hardware, so their programmers learned how to code to take maximum advantage of what they had, with their technological deficiency in one field giving rise to superiority in another. ..."
"... Russian tech ppl should always be viewed with certain amount of awe and respect...although they are hardly good on everything. ..."
"... Soviet university training in "cybernetics" as it was called in the late 1980s involved two years of programming on blackboards before the students even touched an actual computer. ..."
"... I recall flowcharting entirely on paper before committing a program to punched cards. ..."
Aug 01, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Bill Herschel 2 days ago ,

Very, very slightly off-topic.

Much has been made, including in this post, of the excellent organization of Russian forces and Russian military technology.

I have been re-investigating an open-source relational database system known as PosgreSQL (variously), and I remember finding perhaps a decade ago a very useful whole text search feature of this system which I vaguely remember was written by a Russian and, for that reason, mildly distrusted by me.

Come to find out that the principle developers and maintainers of PostgreSQL are Russian. OMG. Double OMG, because the reason I chose it in the first place is that it is the best non-proprietary RDBS out there and today is supported on Google Cloud, AWS, etc.

The US has met an equal or conceivably a superior, case closed. Trump's thoroughly odd behavior with Putin is just one but a very obvious one example of this.

Of course, Trump's nationalistic blather is creating a "base" of people who believe in the godliness of the US. They are in for a very serious disappointment.

kao_hsien_chih Bill Herschel a day ago ,

After the iron curtain fell, there was a big demand for Russian-trained programmers because they could program in a very efficient and "light" manner that didn't demand too much of the hardware, if I remember correctly.

It's a bit of chicken-and-egg problem, though. Russia, throughout 20th century, had problem with developing small, effective hardware, so their programmers learned how to code to take maximum advantage of what they had, with their technological deficiency in one field giving rise to superiority in another.

Russia has plenty of very skilled, very well-trained folks and their science and math education is, in a way, more fundamentally and soundly grounded on the foundational stuff than US (based on my personal interactions anyways).

Russian tech ppl should always be viewed with certain amount of awe and respect...although they are hardly good on everything.

TTG kao_hsien_chih a day ago ,

Well said. Soviet university training in "cybernetics" as it was called in the late 1980s involved two years of programming on blackboards before the students even touched an actual computer.

It gave the students an understanding of how computers works down to the bit flipping level. Imagine trying to fuzz code in your head.

FarNorthSolitude TTG a day ago ,

I recall flowcharting entirely on paper before committing a program to punched cards. I used to do hex and octal math in my head as part of debugging core dumps. Ah, the glory days.

Honeywell once made a military computer that was 10 bit. That stumped me for a while, as everything was 8 or 16 bit back then.

kao_hsien_chih FarNorthSolitude 10 hours ago ,

That used to be fairly common in the civilian sector (in US) too: computing time was expensive, so you had to make sure that the stuff worked flawlessly before it was committed.

No opportunity to seeing things go wrong and do things over like much of how things happen nowadays. Russians, with their hardware limitations/shortages, I imagine must have been much more thorough than US programmers were back in the old days, and you could only get there by being very thoroughly grounded n the basics.

[Sep 07, 2018] How Can We Fix The Broken Economics of Open Source?

Notable quotes:
"... [with some subset of features behind a paywall] ..."
Sep 07, 2018 | news.slashdot.org

If we take consulting, services, and support off the table as an option for high-growth revenue generation (the only thing VCs care about), we are left with open core [with some subset of features behind a paywall] , software as a service, or some blurring of the two... Everyone wants infrastructure software to be free and continuously developed by highly skilled professional developers (who in turn expect to make substantial salaries), but no one wants to pay for it. The economics of this situation are unsustainable and broken ...

[W]e now come to what I have recently called "loose" open core and SaaS. In the future, I believe the most successful OSS projects will be primarily monetized via this method. What is it? The idea behind "loose" open core and SaaS is that a popular OSS project can be developed as a completely community driven project (this avoids the conflicts of interest inherent in "pure" open core), while value added proprietary services and software can be sold in an ecosystem that forms around the OSS...

Unfortunately, there is an inflection point at which in some sense an OSS project becomes too popular for its own good, and outgrows its ability to generate enough revenue via either "pure" open core or services and support... [B]uilding a vibrant community and then enabling an ecosystem of "loose" open core and SaaS businesses on top appears to me to be the only viable path forward for modern VC-backed OSS startups.
Klein also suggests OSS foundations start providing fellowships to key maintainers, who currently "operate under an almost feudal system of patronage, hopping from company to company, trying to earn a living, keep the community vibrant, and all the while stay impartial..."

"[A]s an industry, we are going to have to come to terms with the economic reality: nothing is free, including OSS. If we want vibrant OSS projects maintained by engineers that are well compensated and not conflicted, we are going to have to decide that this is something worth paying for. In my opinion, fellowships provided by OSS foundations and funded by companies generating revenue off of the OSS is a great way to start down this path."

[Apr 30, 2018] New Book Describes Bluffing Programmers in Silicon Valley

Notable quotes:
"... Live Work Work Work Die: A Journey into the Savage Heart of Silicon Valley ..."
"... Older generations called this kind of fraud "fake it 'til you make it." ..."
"... Nowadays I work 9:30-4:30 for a very good, consistent paycheck and let some other "smart person" put in 75 hours a week dealing with hiring ..."
"... It's not a "kids these days" sort of issue, it's *always* been the case that shameless, baseless self-promotion wins out over sincere skill without the self-promotion, because the people who control the money generally understand boasting more than they understand the technology. ..."
"... In the bad old days we had a hell of a lot of ridiculous restriction We must somehow made our programs to run successfully inside a RAM that was 48KB in size (yes, 48KB, not 48MB or 48GB), on a CPU with a clock speed of 1.023 MHz ..."
"... So what are the uses for that? I am curious what things people have put these to use for. ..."
"... Also, Oracle, SAP, IBM... I would never buy from them, nor use their products. I have used plenty of IBM products and they suck big time. They make software development 100 times harder than it could be. ..."
"... I have a theory that 10% of people are good at what they do. It doesn't really matter what they do, they will still be good at it, because of their nature. These are the people who invent new things, who fix things that others didn't even see as broken and who automate routine tasks or simply question and erase tasks that are not necessary. ..."
"... 10% are just causing damage. I'm not talking about terrorists and criminals. ..."
"... Programming is statistically a dead-end job. Why should anyone hone a dead-end skill that you won't be able to use for long? For whatever reason, the industry doesn't want old programmers. ..."
Apr 30, 2018 | news.slashdot.org

Long-time Slashdot reader Martin S. pointed us to this an excerpt from the new book Live Work Work Work Die: A Journey into the Savage Heart of Silicon Valley by Portland-based investigator reporter Corey Pein.

The author shares what he realized at a job recruitment fair seeking Java Legends, Python Badasses, Hadoop Heroes, "and other gratingly childish classifications describing various programming specialities.

" I wasn't the only one bluffing my way through the tech scene. Everyone was doing it, even the much-sought-after engineering talent.

I was struck by how many developers were, like myself, not really programmers , but rather this, that and the other. A great number of tech ninjas were not exactly black belts when it came to the actual onerous work of computer programming. So many of the complex, discrete tasks involved in the creation of a website or an app had been automated that it was no longer necessary to possess knowledge of software mechanics. The coder's work was rarely a craft. The apps ran on an assembly line, built with "open-source", off-the-shelf components. The most important computer commands for the ninja to master were copy and paste...

[M]any programmers who had "made it" in Silicon Valley were scrambling to promote themselves from coder to "founder". There wasn't necessarily more money to be had running a startup, and the increase in status was marginal unless one's startup attracted major investment and the right kind of press coverage. It's because the programmers knew that their own ladder to prosperity was on fire and disintegrating fast. They knew that well-paid programming jobs would also soon turn to smoke and ash, as the proliferation of learn-to-code courses around the world lowered the market value of their skills, and as advances in artificial intelligence allowed for computers to take over more of the mundane work of producing software. The programmers also knew that the fastest way to win that promotion to founder was to find some new domain that hadn't yet been automated. Every tech industry campaign designed to spur investment in the Next Big Thing -- at that time, it was the "sharing economy" -- concealed a larger programme for the transformation of society, always in a direction that favoured the investor and executive classes.

"I wasn't just changing careers and jumping on the 'learn to code' bandwagon," he writes at one point. "I was being steadily indoctrinated in a specious ideology."


Anonymous Coward , Saturday April 28, 2018 @11:40PM ( #56522045 )

older generations already had a term for this ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

Older generations called this kind of fraud "fake it 'til you make it."

raymorris ( 2726007 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @02:05AM ( #56522343 ) Journal
The people who are smarter won't ( Score: 5 , Informative)

> The people can do both are smart enough to build their own company and compete with you.

Been there, done that. Learned a few lessons. Nowadays I work 9:30-4:30 for a very good, consistent paycheck and let some other "smart person" put in 75 hours a week dealing with hiring, managing people, corporate strategy, staying up on the competition, figuring out tax changes each year and getting taxes filed six times each year, the various state and local requirements, legal changes, contract hassles, etc, while hoping the company makes money this month so they can take a paycheck and lay their rent.

I learned that I'm good at creating software systems and I enjoy it. I don't enjoy all-nighters, partners being dickheads trying to pull out of a contract, or any of a thousand other things related to running a start-up business. I really enjoy a consistent, six-figure compensation package too.

brian.stinar ( 1104135 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

* getting taxes filled eighteen times a year.

I pay monthly gross receipts tax (12), quarterly withholdings (4) and a corporate (1) and individual (1) returns. The gross receipts can vary based on the state, so I can see how six times a year would be the minimum.

Cederic ( 9623 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Fuck no. Cost of full automation: $4m Cost of manual entry: $0 Opportunity cost of manual entry: $800/year

At worse, pay for an accountant, if you can get one that cheaply. Bear in mind talking to them incurs most of that opportunity cost anyway.

serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Nowadays I work 9:30-4:30 for a very good, consistent paycheck and let some other "smart person" put in 75 hours a week dealing with hiring

There's nothing wrong with not wnting to run your own business, it's not for most people, and even if it was, the numbers don't add up. But putting the scare qoutes in like that makes it sound like you have huge chip on your shoulder. Those things re just as essential to the business as your work and without them you wouldn't have the steady 9:30-4:30 with good paycheck.

raymorris ( 2726007 ) writes:
Important, and dumb. ( Score: 3 , Informative)

Of course they are important. I wouldn't have done those things if they weren't important!

I frequently have friends say things like "I love baking. I can't get enough of baking. I'm going to open a bakery.". I ask them "do you love dealing with taxes, every month? Do you love contract law? Employment law? Marketing? Accounting?" If you LOVE baking, the smart thing to do is to spend your time baking. Running a start-up business, you're not going to do much baking.

If you love marketing, employment law, taxes

raymorris ( 2726007 ) writes:
Four tips for a better job. Who has more? ( Score: 3 )

I can tell you a few things that have worked for me. I'll go in chronological order rather than priority order.

Make friends in the industry you want to be in. Referrals are a major way people get jobs.

Look at the job listings for jobs you'd like to have and see which skills a lot of companies want, but you're missing. For me that's Java. A lot companies list Java skills and I'm not particularly good with Java. Then consider learning the skills you lack, the ones a lot of job postings are looking for.

Certifi

goose-incarnated ( 1145029 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @02:34PM ( #56524475 ) Journal
Re: older generations already had a term for this ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
You don't understand the point of an ORM do you? I'd suggest reading why they exist

They exist because programmers value code design more than data design. ORMs are the poster-child for square-peg-round-hole solutions, which is why all ORMs choose one of three different ways of squashing hierarchical data into a relational form, all of which are crappy.

If the devs of the system (the ones choosing to use an ORM) had any competence at all they'd design their database first because in any application that uses a database the database is the most important bit, not the OO-ness or Functional-ness of the design.

Over the last few decades I've seen programs in a system come and go; a component here gets rewritten, a component there gets rewritten, but you know what? They all have to work with the same damn data.

You can more easily switch out your code for new code with new design in a new language, than you can switch change the database structure. So explain to me why it is that you think the database should be mangled to fit your OO code rather than mangling your OO code to fit the database?

cheekyboy ( 598084 ) writes:
im sick of reinventors and new frameworks ( Score: 3 )

Stick to the one thing for 10-15years. Often all this new shit doesn't do jack different to the old shit, its not faster, its not better. Every dick wants to be famous so make another damn library/tool with his own fancy name and feature, instead of enhancing an existing product.

gbjbaanb ( 229885 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

amen to that.

Or kids who can't hack the main stuff, suddenly discover the cool new, and then they can pretend they're "learning" it, and when the going gets tough (as it always does) they can declare the tech to be pants and move to another.

hence we had so many people on the bandwagon for functional programming, then dumped it for ruby on rails, then dumped that for Node.js, not sure what they're on at currently, probably back to asp.net.

Greyfox ( 87712 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

How much code do you have to reuse before you're not really programming anymore? When I started in this business, it was reasonably possible that you could end up on a project that didn't particularly have much (or any) of an operating system. They taught you assembly language and the process by which the system boots up, but I think if I were to ask most of the programmers where I work, they wouldn't be able to explain how all that works...

djinn6 ( 1868030 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )
It really feels like if you know what you're doing it should be possible to build a team of actually good programmers and put everyone else out of business by actually meeting your deliverables, but no one has yet. I wonder why that is.

You mean Amazon, Google, Facebook and the like? People may not always like what they do, but they manage to get things done and make plenty of money in the process. The problem for a lot of other businesses is not having a way to identify and promote actually good programmers. In your example, you could've spent 10 minutes fixing their query and saved them days of headache, but how much recognition will you actually get? Where is your motivation to help them?

Junta ( 36770 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

It's not a "kids these days" sort of issue, it's *always* been the case that shameless, baseless self-promotion wins out over sincere skill without the self-promotion, because the people who control the money generally understand boasting more than they understand the technology. Yes it can happen that baseless boasts can be called out over time by a large enough mass of feedback from competent peers, but it takes a *lot* to overcome the tendency for them to have faith in the boasts.

It does correlate stron

cheekyboy ( 598084 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

And all these modern coders forget old lessons, and make shit stuff, just look at instagram windows app, what a load of garbage shit, that us old fuckers could code in 2-3 weeks.

Instagram - your app sucks, cookie cutter coders suck, no refinement, coolness. Just cheap ass shit, with limited usefulness.

Just like most of commercial software that's new - quick shit.

Oh and its obvious if your an Indian faking it, you haven't worked in 100 companies at the age of 29.

Junta ( 36770 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Here's another problem, if faced with a skilled team that says "this will take 6 months to do right" and a more naive team that says "oh, we can slap that together in a month", management goes with the latter. Then the security compromises occur, then the application fails due to pulling in an unvetted dependency update live into production. When the project grows to handling thousands instead of dozens of users and it starts mysteriously folding over and the dev team is at a loss, well the choice has be

molarmass192 ( 608071 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @02:15AM ( #56522359 ) Homepage Journal
Re:older generations already had a term for this ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

These restrictions is a large part of what makes Arduino programming "fun". If you don't plan out your memory usage, you're gonna run out of it. I cringe when I see 8MB web pages of bloated "throw in everything including the kitchen sink and the neighbor's car". Unfortunately, the careful and cautious way is a dying in favor of the throw 3rd party code at it until it does something. Of course, I don't have time to review it but I'm sure everybody else has peer reviewed it for flaws and exploits line by line.

AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) writes: < mojo@@@world3...net > on Sunday April 29, 2018 @05:15AM ( #56522597 ) Homepage Journal
Re:older generations already had a term for this ( Score: 4 , Informative)
Unfortunately, the careful and cautious way is a dying in favor of the throw 3rd party code at it until it does something.

Of course. What is the business case for making it efficient? Those massive frameworks are cached by the browser and run on the client's system, so cost you nothing and save you time to market. Efficient costs money with no real benefit to the business.

If we want to fix this, we need to make bloat have an associated cost somehow.

locketine ( 1101453 ) writes:
Re: older generations already had a term for this ( Score: 2 )

My company is dealing with the result of this mentality right now. We released the web app to the customer without performance testing and doing several majorly inefficient things to meet deadlines. Once real load was put on the application by users with non-ideal hardware and browsers, the app was infuriatingly slow. Suddenly our standard sub-40 hour workweek became a 50+ hour workweek for months while we fixed all the inefficient code and design issues.

So, while you're right that getting to market and opt

serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

In the bad old days we had a hell of a lot of ridiculous restriction We must somehow made our programs to run successfully inside a RAM that was 48KB in size (yes, 48KB, not 48MB or 48GB), on a CPU with a clock speed of 1.023 MHz

We still have them. In fact some of the systems I've programmed have been more resource limited than the gloriously spacious 32KiB memory of the BBC model B. Take the PIC12F or 10F series. A glorious 64 bytes of RAM, max clock speed of 16MHz, but not unusual to run it 32kHz.

serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

So what are the uses for that? I am curious what things people have put these to use for.

It's hard to determine because people don't advertise use of them at all. However, I know that my electric toothbrush uses an Epson 4 bit MCU of some description. It's got a status LED, basic NiMH batteryb charger and a PWM controller for an H Bridge. Braun sell a *lot* of electric toothbrushes. Any gadget that's smarter than a simple switch will probably have some sort of basic MCU in it. Alarm system components, sensor

tlhIngan ( 30335 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 , Insightful)
b) No computer ever ran at 1.023 MHz. It was either a nice multiple of 1Mhz or maybe a multiple of 3.579545Mhz (ie. using the TV output circuit's color clock crystal to drive the CPU).

Well, it could be used to drive the TV output circuit, OR, it was used because it's a stupidly cheap high speed crystal. You have to remember except for a few frequencies, most crystals would have to be specially cut for the desired frequency. This occurs even today, where most oscillators are either 32.768kHz (real time clock

Anonymous Coward writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 , Interesting)

Yeah, nice talk. You could have stopped after the first sentence. The other AC is referring to the Commodore C64 [wikipedia.org]. The frequency has nothing to do with crystal availability but with the simple fact that everything in the C64 is synced to the TV. One clock cycle equals 8 pixels. The graphics chip and the CPU take turns accessing the RAM. The different frequencies dictated by the TV standards are the reason why the CPU in the NTSC version of the C64 runs at 1.023MHz and the PAL version at 0.985MHz.

Wraithlyn ( 133796 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

LOL what exactly is so special about 16K RAM? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]

I cut my teeth on a VIC20 (5K RAM), then later a C64 (which ran at 1.023MHz...)

Anonymous Coward writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 , Interesting)

Commodore 64 for the win. I worked for a company that made detection devices for the railroad, things like monitoring axle temperatures, reading the rail car ID tags. The original devices were made using Commodore 64 boards using software written by an employee at the one rail road company working with them.

The company then hired some electrical engineers to design custom boards using the 68000 chips and I was hired as the only programmer. Had to rewrite all of the code which was fine...

wierd_w ( 1375923 ) , Saturday April 28, 2018 @11:58PM ( #56522075 )
... A job fair can easily test this competency. ( Score: 4 , Interesting)

Many of these languages have an interactive interpreter. I know for a fact that Python does.

So, since job-fairs are an all day thing, and setup is already a thing for them -- set up a booth with like 4 computers at it, and an admin station. The 4 terminals have an interactive session with the interpreter of choice. Every 20min or so, have a challenge for "Solve this problem" (needs to be easy and already solved in general. Programmers hate being pimped without pay. They don't mind tests of skill, but hate being pimped. Something like "sort this array, while picking out all the prime numbers" or something.) and see who steps up. The ones that step up have confidence they can solve the problem, and you can quickly see who can do the work and who can't.

The ones that solve it, and solve it to your satisfaction, you offer a nice gig to.

ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @01:50AM ( #56522321 )
Re:... A job fair can easily test this competency. ( Score: 5 , Informative)
Then you get someone good at sorting arrays while picking out prime numbers, but potentially not much else.

The point of the test is not to identify the perfect candidate, but to filter out the clearly incompetent. If you can't sort an array and write a function to identify a prime number, I certainly would not hire you. Passing the test doesn't get you a job, but it may get you an interview ... where there will be other tests.

wierd_w ( 1375923 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

BINGO!

(I am not even a professional programmer, but I can totally perform such a trivially easy task. The example tests basic understanding of loop construction, function construction, variable use, efficient sorting, and error correction-- especially with mixed type arrays. All of these are things any programmer SHOULD now how to do, without being overly complicated, or clearly a disguised occupational problem trying to get a free solution. Like I said, programmers hate being pimped, and will be turned off

wierd_w ( 1375923 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @04:02AM ( #56522443 )
Re: ... A job fair can easily test this competency ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Again, the quality applicant and the code monkey both have something the fakers do not-- Actual comprehension of what a program is, and how to create one.

As Bill points out, this is not the final exam. This is the "Oh, I see you do actually know how to program-- show me more" portion of the process. This is the part that HR drones are not capable of performing, due to Dunning-Krueger. Those that are actually, REALLY competent will do more than just satisfy the requirements of the challenge, they will provide actually working solutions to the challenge that properly validate their input, and return proper error states if the input is invalid, etc-- You can learn a LOT about a potential hire by observing their work. *THAT* is what this is really about. The triviality of the problem is a necessity, because you ***DON'T*** try to get free solutions out of people.

I realize that may be difficult for you to comprehend, but you *DON'T* do that. The job fair is to let people know that you have a position available, and try to curry interest in people to apply. A successful pre-screening is confidence building, and helps the potential hire to feel that your company is actually interested in actually hiring somebody, and not just fucking off in the booth, to cover for "failing to find somebody" and then "Getting yet another H1B". It gives them a chance to show you what they can do. That is what it is for, and what it does. It also excludes the fakers that this article is about-- The ones that can talk a good talk, but could not program a simple boolean check condition if their life depended on it.

If it were not for the time constraints of a job fair (usually only 2 days, and in that time you need to try and pre-screen as many as possible), I would suggest a tiered challenge, with progressively harder challenges, where you hand out resumes to the ones that make it to the top 3 brackets, but that is not the way the world works.

luis_a_espinal ( 1810296 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )
This in my opinion is really a waste of time. Challenges like this have to be so simple they can be done walking up to a booth are not likely to filter the "all talks" any better than a few interview questions could (imperson so the candidate can't just google it).

Tougher more involved stuff isn't good either it gives a huge advantage to the full time job hunter, the guy or gal that already has a 9-5 and a family that wants to seem them has not got time for games. We have been struggling with hiring where I work ( I do a lot of the interviews ) and these are the conclusions we have reached

You would be surprised at the number of people with impeccable-looking resumes failing at something as simple as the FizzBuzz test [codinghorror.com]

PaulRivers10 ( 4110595 ) writes:
Re: ... A job fair can easily test this competenc ( Score: 2 )

The only thing fuzzbuzz tests is "have you done fizzbuzz before"? It's a short question filled with every petty trick the author could think ti throw in there. If you haven't seen the tricks they trip you up for no reason related to your actual coding skills. Once you have seen them they're trivial and again unrelated to real work. Fizzbuzz is best passed by someone aiming to game the interview system. It passes people gaming it and trips up people who spent their time doing on the job real work.

Hognoxious ( 631665 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )
they trip you up for no reason related to your actual codung skills.

Bullshit!

luis_a_espinal ( 1810296 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @07:49AM ( #56522861 ) Homepage
filter the lame code monkeys ( Score: 4 , Informative)
Lame monkey tests select for lame monkeys.

A good programmer first and foremost has a clean mind. Experience suggests puzzle geeks, who excel at contrived tests, are usually sloppy thinkers.

No. Good programmers can trivially knock out any of these so-called lame monkey tests. It's lame code monkeys who can't do it. And I've seen their work. Many night shifts and weekends I've burned trying to fix their shit because they couldn't actually do any of the things behind what you call "lame monkey tests", like:

    pulling expensive invariant calculations out of loops using for loops to scan a fucking table to pull rows or calculate an aggregate when they could let the database do what it does best with a simple SQL statement systems crashing under actual load because their shitty code was never stress tested ( but it worked on my dev box! .) again with databases, having to redo their schemas because they were fattened up so much with columns like VALUE1, VALUE2, ... VALUE20 (normalize you assholes!) chatting remote APIs - because these code monkeys cannot think about the need for bulk operations in increasingly distributed systems. storing dates in unsortable strings because the idiots do not know most modern programming languages have a date data type.

Oh and the most important, off-by-one looping errors. I see this all the time, the type of thing a good programmer can spot on quickly because he or she can do the so-called "lame monkey tests" that involve arrays and sorting.

I've seen the type: "I don't need to do this shit because I have business knowledge and I code for business and IT not google", and then they go and code and fuck it up... and then the rest of us have to go clean up their shit at 1AM or on weekends.

If you work as an hourly paid contractor cleaning that crap, it can be quite lucrative. But sooner or later it truly sucks the energy out of your soul.

So yeah, we need more lame monkey tests ... to filter the lame code monkeys.

ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )
Someone could Google the problem with the phone then step up and solve the challenge.

If given a spec, someone can consistently cobble together working code by Googling, then I would love to hire them. That is the most productive way to get things done.

There is nothing wrong with using external references. When I am coding, I have three windows open: an editor, a testing window, and a browser with a Stackoverflow tab open.

Junta ( 36770 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Yeah, when we do tech interviews, we ask questions that we are certain they won't be able to answer, but want to see how they would think about the problem and what questions they ask to get more data and that they don't just fold up and say "well that's not the sort of problem I'd be thinking of" The examples aren't made up or anything, they are generally selection of real problems that were incredibly difficult that our company had faced before, that one may not think at first glance such a position would

bobstreo ( 1320787 ) writes:
Nothing worse ( Score: 2 )

than spending weeks interviewing "good" candidates for an opening, selecting a couple and hiring them as contractors, then finding out they are less than unqualified to do the job they were hired for.

I've seen it a few times, Java "experts", Microsoft "experts" with years of experience on their resumes, but completely useless in coding, deployment or anything other than buying stuff from the break room vending machines.

That being said, I've also seen projects costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, with y

Anonymous Coward , Sunday April 29, 2018 @12:34AM ( #56522157 )
Re:Nothing worse ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

The moment you said "contractors", and you have lost any sane developer. Keep swimming, its not a fish.

Anonymous Coward writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 , Informative)

I agree with this. I consider myself to be a good programmer and I would never go into contractor game. I also wonder, how does it take you weeks to interview someone and you still can't figure out if the person can't code? I could probably see that in 15 minutes in a pair coding session.

Also, Oracle, SAP, IBM... I would never buy from them, nor use their products. I have used plenty of IBM products and they suck big time. They make software development 100 times harder than it could be. Their technical supp

Lanthanide ( 4982283 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

It's weeks to interview multiple different candidates before deciding on 1 or 2 of them. Not weeks per person.

Anonymous Coward writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 , Insightful)
That being said, I've also seen projects costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, with years of delays from companies like Oracle, Sun, SAP, and many other "vendors"

Software development is a hard thing to do well, despite the general thinking of technology becoming cheaper over time, and like health care the quality of the goods and services received can sometimes be difficult to ascertain. However, people who don't respect developers and the problems we solve are very often the same ones who continually frustrate themselves by trying to cheap out, hiring outsourced contractors, and then tearing their hair out when sub par results are delivered, if anything is even del

pauljlucas ( 529435 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

As part of your interview process, don't you have candidates code a solution to a problem on a whiteboard? I've interviewed lots of "good" candidates (on paper) too, but they crashed and burned when challenged with a coding exercise. As a result, we didn't make them job offers.

VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) writes:
I do the opposite ( Score: 2 )

I'm not a great coder but good enough to get done what clients want done. If I'm not sure or don't think I can do it, I tell them. I think they appreciate the honesty. I don't work in a tech-hub, startups or anything like that so I'm not under the same expectations and pressures that others may be.

Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) writes:
Bigger building blocks ( Score: 2 )

OK, so yes, I know plenty of programmers who do fake it. But stitching together components isn't "fake" programming.

Back in the day, we had to write our own code to loop through an XML file, looking for nuggets. Now, we just use an XML serializer. Back then, we had to write our own routines to send TCP/IP messages back and forth. Now we just use a library.

I love it! I hated having to make my own bricks before I could build a house. Now, I can get down to the business of writing the functionality I want, ins

Anonymous Coward writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 , Insightful)

But, I suspect you could write the component if you had to. That makes you a very different user of that component than someone who just knows it as a magic black box.

Because of this, you understand the component better and have real knowledge of its strengths and limitations. People blindly using components with only a cursory idea of their internal operation often cause major performance problems. They rarely recognize when it is time to write their own to overcome a limitation (or even that it is possibl

Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

You're right on all counts. A person who knows how the innards work, is better than someone who doesn't, all else being equal. Still, today's world is so specialized that no one can possibly learn it all. I've never built a processor, as you have, but I still have been able to build a DNA matching algorithm for a major DNA lab.

I would argue that anyone who can skillfully use off-the-shelf components can also learn how to build components, if they are required to.

thesupraman ( 179040 ) writes:
Ummm. ( Score: 2 )

1, 'Back in the Day' there was no XML, XMl was not very long ago.
2, its a parser, a serialiser is pretty much the opposite (unless this weeks fashion has redefined that.. anything is possible).
3, 'Back then' we didnt have TCP stacks...

But, actually I agree with you. I can only assume the author thinks there are lots of fake plumbers because they dont cast their own toilet bowels from raw clay, and use pre-build fittings and pipes! That car mechanics start from raw steel scrap and a file.. And that you need

Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

For the record, XML was invented in 1997, you know, in the last century! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And we had a WinSock library in 1992. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Yes, I agree with you on the "middle ground." My reaction was to the author's point that "not knowing how to build the components" was the same as being a "fake programmer."

Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @01:46AM ( #56522313 ) Homepage
Re:Bigger building blocks ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

If I'm a plumber, and I don't know anything about the engineering behind the construction of PVC pipe, I can still be a good plumber. If I'm an electrician, and I don't understand the role of a blast furnace in the making of the metal components, I can still be a good electrician.

The analogy fits. If I'm a programmer, and I don't know how to make an LZW compression library, I can still be a good programmer. It's a matter of layers. These days, we specialize. You've got your low-level programmers that make the components, the high level programmers that put together the components, the graphics guys who do HTML/CSS, and the SQL programmers that just know about databases. Every person has their specialty. It's no longer necessary to be a low-level programmer, or jack-of-all-trades, to be "good."

If I don't know the layout of the IP header, I can still write quality networking software, and if I know XSLT, I can still do cool stuff with XML, even if I don't know how to write a good parser.

frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )

I was with you until you said " I can still do cool stuff with XML".

Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

LOL yeah I know it's all JSON now. I've been around long enough to see these fads come and go. Frankly, I don't see a whole lot of advantage of JSON over XML. It's not even that much more compact, about 10% or so. But the point is that the author laments the "bad old days" when you had to create all your own building blocks, and you didn't have a team of specialists. I for one don't want to go back to those days!

careysub ( 976506 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )

The main advantage is that JSON is that it is consistent. XML has attributes, embedded optional stuff within tags. That was derived from the original SGML ancestor where is was thought to be a convenience for the human authors who were supposed to be making the mark-up manually. Programmatically it is a PITA.

Cederic ( 9623 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )

I got shit for decrying XML back when it was the trendy thing. I've had people apologise to me months later because they've realized I was right, even though at the time they did their best to fuck over my career because XML was the new big thing and I wasn't fully on board.

XML has its strengths and its place, but fuck me it taught me how little some people really fucking understand shit.

Anonymous Coward writes:
Silicon Valley is Only Part of the Tech Business ( Score: 2 , Informative)

And a rather small part at that, albeit a very visible and vocal one full of the proverbial prima donas. However, much of the rest of the tech business, or at least the people working in it, are not like that. It's small groups of developers working in other industries that would not typically be considered technology. There are software developers working for insurance companies, banks, hedge funds, oil and gas exploration or extraction firms, national defense and many hundreds and thousands of other small

phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
bonfire of fakers ( Score: 2 )

This is the reason I wish programming didn't pay so much....the field is better when it's mostly populated by people who enjoy programming.

Njovich ( 553857 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @05:35AM ( #56522641 )
Learn to code courses ( Score: 5 , Insightful)
They knew that well-paid programming jobs would also soon turn to smoke and ash, as the proliferation of learn-to-code courses around the world lowered the market value of their skills, and as advances in artificial intelligence allowed for computers to take over more of the mundane work of producing software.

Kind of hard to take this article serious after saying gibberish like this. I would say most good programmers know that neither learn-to-code courses nor AI are going to make a dent in their income any time soon.

AndyKron ( 937105 ) writes:
Me? No ( Score: 2 )

As a non-programmer Arduino and libraries are my friends

Escogido ( 884359 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @06:59AM ( #56522777 )
in the silly cone valley ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

There is a huge shortage of decent programmers. I have personally witnessed more than one phone "interview" that went like "have you done this? what about this? do you know what this is? um, can you start Monday?" (120K-ish salary range)

Partly because there are way more people who got their stupid ideas funded than good coders willing to stain their resume with that. partly because if you are funded, and cannot do all the required coding solo, here's your conundrum:

  • top level hackers can afford to be really picky, so on one hand it's hard to get them interested, and if you could get that, they often want some ownership of the project. the plus side is that they are happy to work for lots of equity if they have faith in the idea, but that can be a huge "if".
  • "good but not exceptional" senior engineers aren't usually going to be super happy, as they often have spouses and children and mortgages, so they'd favor job security over exciting ideas and startup lottery.
  • that leaves you with fresh-out-of-college folks, which are really really a mixed bunch. some are actually already senior level of understanding without the experience, some are absolutely useless, with varying degrees in between, and there's no easy way to tell which is which early.

so the not-so-scrupulous folks realized what's going on, and launched multiple coding boot camps programmes, to essentially trick both the students into believing they can become a coder in a month or two, and also the prospective employers that said students are useful. so far it's been working, to a degree, in part because in such companies coding skill evaluation process is broken. but one can only hide their lack of value add for so long, even if they do manage to bluff their way into a job.

quonset ( 4839537 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @07:20AM ( #56522817 )
Duh! ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

All one had to do was look at the lousy state of software and web sites today to see this is true. It's quite obvious little to no thought is given on how to make something work such that one doesn't have to jump through hoops.

I have many times said the most perfect word processing program ever developed was WordPefect 5.1 for DOS. Ones productivity was astonishing. It just worked.

Now we have the bloated behemoth Word which does its utmost to get in the way of you doing your work. The only way to get it to function is to turn large portions of its "features" off, and even then it still insists on doing something other than what you told it to do.

Then we have the abomination of Windows 10, which is nothing but Clippy on 10X steroids. It is patently obvious the people who program this steaming pile have never heard of simplicity. Who in their right mind would think having to "search" for something is more efficient than going directly to it? I would ask the question if these people wander around stores "searching" for what they're looking for, but then I realize that's how their entire life is run. They search for everything online rather than going directly to the source. It's no wonder they complain about not having time to things. They're always searching.

Web sites are another area where these people have no clue what they're doing. Anything that might be useful is hidden behind dropdown menus, flyouts, popup bubbles and intriately designed mazes of clicks needed to get to where you want to go. When someone clicks on a line of products, they shouldn't be harassed about what part of the product line they want to look at. Give them the information and let the user go where they want.

This rant could go on, but this article explains clearly why we have regressed when it comes to software and web design. Instead of making things simple and easy to use, using the one or two brain cells they have, programmers and web designers let the software do what it wants without considering, should it be done like this?

swb ( 14022 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @07:48AM ( #56522857 )
Tech industry churn ( Score: 3 )

The tech industry has a ton of churn -- there's some technological advancement, but there's an awful lot of new products turned out simply to keep customers buying new licenses and paying for upgrades.

This relentless and mostly phony newness means a lot of people have little experience with current products. People fake because they have no choice. The good ones understand the general technologies and problems they're meant to solve and can generally get up to speed quickly, while the bad ones are good at faking it but don't really know what they're doing. Telling the difference from the outside is impossible.

Sales people make it worse, promoting people as "experts" in specific products or implementations because the people have experience with a related product and "they're all the same". This burns out the people with good adaption skills.

DaMattster ( 977781 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @08:39AM ( #56522979 )
Interesting ( Score: 3 )

From the summary, it sounds like a lot of programmers and software engineers are trying to develop the next big thing so that they can literally beg for money from the elite class and one day, hopefully, become a member of the aforementioned. It's sad how the middle class has been utterly decimated in the United States that some of us are willing to beg for scraps from the wealthy. I used to work in IT but I've aged out and am now back in school to learn automotive technology so that I can do something other than being a security guard. Currently, the only work I have been able to find has been in the unglamorous security field.

I am learning some really good new skills in the automotive program that I am in but I hate this one class called "Professionalism in the Shop." I can summarize the entire class in one succinct phrase, "Learn how to appeal to, and communicate with, Mr. Doctor, Mr. Lawyer, or Mr. Wealthy-man." Basically, the class says that we are supposed to kiss their ass so they keep coming back to the Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, or Cadillac dealership. It feels a lot like begging for money on behalf of my employer (of which very little of it I will see) and nothing like professionalism. Professionalism is doing the job right the first time, not jerking the customer off. Professionalism is not begging for a 5 star review for a few measly extra bucks but doing absolute top quality work. I guess the upshot is that this class will be the easiest 4.0 that I've ever seen.

There is something fundamentally wrong when the wealthy elite have basically demanded that we beg them for every little scrap. I can understand the importance of polite and professional interaction but this prevalent expectation that we bend over backwards for them crosses a line with me. I still suck it up because I have to but it chafes my ass to basically validate the wealthy man.

ElitistWhiner ( 79961 ) writes:
Natural talent... ( Score: 2 )

In 70's I worked with two people who had a natural talent for computer science algorithms .vs. coding syntax. In the 90's while at COLUMBIA I worked with only a couple of true computer scientists out of 30 students. I've met 1 genius who programmed, spoke 13 languages, ex-CIA, wrote SWIFT and spoke fluent assembly complete with animated characters.

According to the Bluff Book, everyone else without natural talent fakes it. In the undiluted definition of computer science, genetics roulette and intellectual d

fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) writes:
Other book sells better and is more interesting ( Score: 2 )
New Book Describes 'Bluffing' Programmers in Silicon Valley

It's not as interesting as the one about "fluffing" [urbandictionary.com] programmers.

Anonymous Coward writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 , Funny)

Ah yes, the good old 80:20 rule, except it's recursive for programmers.

80% are shit, so you fire them. Soon you realize that 80% of the remaining 20% are also shit, so you fire them too. Eventually you realize that 80% of the 4% remaining after sacking the 80% of the 20% are also shit, so you fire them!

...

The cycle repeats until there's just one programmer left: the person telling the joke.

---

tl;dr: All programmers suck. Just ask them to review their own code from more than 3 years ago: they'll tell you that

luis_a_espinal ( 1810296 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 )
Who gives a fuck about lines? If someone gave me JavaScript, and someone gave me minified JavaScript, which one would I want to maintain?

I donâ(TM)t care about your line savings, less isnâ(TM)t always better.

Because the world of programming is not centered about JavasScript and reduction of lines is not the same as minification. If the first thing that came to your mind was about minified JavaScript when you saw this conversation, you are certainly not the type of programmer I would want to inherit code from.

See, there's a lot of shit out there that is overtly redundant and unnecessarily complex. This is specially true when copy-n-paste code monkeys are left to their own devices for whom code formatting seems

Anonymous Coward , Sunday April 29, 2018 @01:17AM ( #56522241 )
Re:Most "Professional programmers" are useless. ( Score: 4 , Interesting)

I have a theory that 10% of people are good at what they do. It doesn't really matter what they do, they will still be good at it, because of their nature. These are the people who invent new things, who fix things that others didn't even see as broken and who automate routine tasks or simply question and erase tasks that are not necessary. If you have a software team that contain 5 of these, you can easily beat a team of 100 average people, not only in cost but also in schedule, quality and features. In theory they are worth 20 times more than average employees, but in practise they are usually paid the same amount of money with few exceptions.

80% of people are the average. They can follow instructions and they can get the work done, but they don't see that something is broken and needs fixing if it works the way it has always worked. While it might seem so, these people are not worthless. There are a lot of tasks that these people are happily doing which the 10% don't want to do. E.g. simple maintenance work, implementing simple features, automating test cases etc. But if you let the top 10% lead the project, you most likely won't be needed that much of these people. Most work done by these people is caused by themselves, by writing bad software due to lack of good leader.

10% are just causing damage. I'm not talking about terrorists and criminals. I have seen software developers who have tried (their best?), but still end up causing just damage to the code that someone else needs to fix, costing much more than their own wasted time. You really must use code reviews if you don't know your team members, to find these people early.

Anonymous Coward , Sunday April 29, 2018 @01:40AM ( #56522299 )
Re:Most "Professional programmers" are useless. ( Score: 5 , Funny)
to find these people early

and promote them to management where they belong.

raymorris ( 2726007 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @01:51AM ( #56522329 ) Journal
Seems about right. Constantly learning, studying ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

That seems about right to me.

I have a lot of weaknesses. My people skills suck, I'm scrawny, I'm arrogant. I'm also generally known as a really good programmer and people ask me how/why I'm so much better at my job than everyone else in the room. (There are a lot of things I'm not good at, but I'm good at my job, so say everyone I've worked with.)

I think one major difference is that I'm always studying, intentionally working to improve, every day. I've been doing that for twenty years.

I've worked with people who have "20 years of experience"; they've done the same job, in the same way, for 20 years. Their first month on the job they read the first half of "Databases for Dummies" and that's what they've been doing for 20 years. They never read the second half, and use Oracle database 18.0 exactly the same way they used Oracle Database 2.0 - and it was wrong 20 years ago too. So it's not just experience, it's 20 years of learning, getting better, every day. That's 7,305 days of improvement.

gbjbaanb ( 229885 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

I think I can guarantee that they are a lot better at their jobs than you think, and that you are a lot worse at your job than you think too.

m00sh ( 2538182 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )
That seems about right to me.

I have a lot of weaknesses. My people skills suck, I'm scrawny, I'm arrogant. I'm also generally known as a really good programmer and people ask me how/why I'm so much better at my job than everyone else in the room. (There are a lot of things I'm not good at, but I'm good at my job, so say everyone I've worked with.)

I think one major difference is that I'm always studying, intentionally working to improve, every day. I've been doing that for twenty years.

I've worked with people who have "20 years of experience"; they've done the same job, in the same way, for 20 years. Their first month on the job they read the first half of "Databases for Dummies" and that's what they've been doing for 20 years. They never read the second half, and use Oracle database 18.0 exactly the same way they used Oracle Database 2.0 - and it was wrong 20 years ago too. So it's not just experience, it's 20 years of learning, getting better, every day. That's 7,305 days of improvement.

If you take this attitude towards other people, people will not ask your for help. At the same time, you'll be also be not able to ask for their help.

You're not interviewing your peers. They are already in your team. You should be working together.

I've seen superstar programmers suck the life out of project by over-complicating things and not working together with others.

raymorris ( 2726007 ) writes:
Which part? Learning makes you better? ( Score: 2 )

You quoted a lot. Is there one part exactly do you have in mind? The thesis of my post is of course "constant learning, on purpose, makes you better"

> you take this attitude towards other people, people will not ask your for help. At the same time, you'll be also be not able to ask for their help.

Are you saying that trying to learn means you can't ask for help, or was there something more specific? For me, trying to learn means asking.

Trying to learn, I've had the opportunity to ask for help from peop

phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

The difference between a smart programmer who succeeds and a stupid programmer who drops out is that the smart programmer doesn't give up.

complete loony ( 663508 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

In other words;

What is often mistaken for 20 years' experience, is just 1 year's experience repeated 20 times.
serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

10% are just causing damage. I'm not talking about terrorists and criminals.

Terrorists and criminals have nothing on those guys. I know guy who is one of those. Worse, he's both motivated and enthusiastic. He also likes to offer help and advice to other people who don't know the systems well.

asifyoucare ( 302582 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @08:49AM ( #56522999 )
Re:Most "Professional programmers" are useless. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

Good point. To quote Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord:

"I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief."

gweihir ( 88907 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Oops. Good thing I never did anything military. I am definitely in the "clever and lazy" class.

apoc.famine ( 621563 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

I was just thinking the same thing. One of my passions in life is coming up with clever ways to do less work while getting more accomplished.

Software_Dev_GL ( 5377065 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

It's called the Pareto Distribution [wikipedia.org]. The number of competent people (people doing most of the work) in any given organization goes like the square root of the number of employees.

gweihir ( 88907 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Matches my observations. 10-15% are smart, can think independently, can verify claims by others and can identify and use rules in whatever they do. They are not fooled by things "everybody knows" and see standard-approaches as first approximations that, of course, need to be verified to work. They do not trust anything blindly, but can identify whether something actually work well and build up a toolbox of such things.

The problem is that in coding, you do not have a "(mass) production step", and that is the

geoskd ( 321194 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

In basic concept I agree with your theory, it fits my own anecdotal experience well, but I find that your numbers are off. The top bracket is actually closer to 20%. The reason it seems so low is that a large portion of the highly competent people are running one programmer shows, so they have no co-workers to appreciate their knowledge and skill. The places they work do a very good job of keeping them well paid and happy (assuming they don't own the company outright), so they rarely if ever switch jobs.

The

Tablizer ( 95088 ) , Sunday April 29, 2018 @01:54AM ( #56522331 ) Journal
Re:Most "Professional programmers" are useless. ( Score: 4 , Interesting)
at least 70, probably 80, maybe even 90 percent of professional programmers should just fuck off and do something else as they are useless at programming.

Programming is statistically a dead-end job. Why should anyone hone a dead-end skill that you won't be able to use for long? For whatever reason, the industry doesn't want old programmers.

Otherwise, I'd suggest longer training and education before they enter the industry. But that just narrows an already narrow window of use.

Cesare Ferrari ( 667973 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

Well, it does rather depend on which industry you work in - i've managed to find interesting programming jobs for 25 years, and there's no end in sight for interesting projects and new avenues to explore. However, this isn't for everyone, and if you have good personal skills then moving from programming into some technical management role is a very worthwhile route, and I know plenty of people who have found very interesting work in that direction.

gweihir ( 88907 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 3 , Insightful)

I think that is a misinterpretation of the facts. Old(er) coders that are incompetent are just much more obvious and usually are also limited to technologies that have gotten old as well. Hence the 90% old coders that can actually not hack it and never really could get sacked at some time and cannot find a new job with their limited and outdated skills. The 10% that are good at it do not need to worry though. Who worries there is their employers when these people approach retirement age.

gweihir ( 88907 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

My experience as an IT Security Consultant (I also do some coding, but only at full rates) confirms that. Most are basically helpless and many have negative productivity, because people with a clue need to clean up after them. "Learn to code"? We have far too many coders already.

tomhath ( 637240 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

You can't bluff you way through writing software, but many, many people have bluffed their way into a job and then tried to learn it from the people who are already there. In a marginally functional organization those incompetents are let go pretty quickly, but sometimes they stick around for months or years.

Apparently the author of this book is one of those, probably hired and fired several times before deciding to go back to his liberal arts roots and write a book.

DaMattster ( 977781 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

There are some mechanics that bluff their way through an automotive repair. It's the same damn thing

gweihir ( 88907 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )

I think you can and this is by far not the first piece describing that. Here is a classic: https://blog.codinghorror.com/... [codinghorror.com]
Yet these people somehow manage to actually have "experience" because they worked in a role they are completely unqualified to fill.

phantomfive ( 622387 ) writes:
Re: ( Score: 2 )
Fiddling with JavaScript libraries to get a fancy dancy interface that makes PHB's happy is a sought-after skill, for good or bad. Now that we rely more on half-ass libraries, much of "programming" is fiddling with dark-grey boxes until they work good enough.

This drives me crazy, but I'm consoled somewhat by the fact that it will all be thrown out in five years anyway.

[Mar 27, 2018] JavaScript Rules But Microsoft Programming Languages Are On the Rise

Mar 27, 2018 | developers.slashdot.org

(zdnet.com) JavaScript remains the most popular programming language, but two offerings from Microsoft are steadily gaining , according to developer-focused analyst firm RedMonk's first quarter 2018 ranking. RedMonk's rankings are based on pull requests in GitHub, as well as an approximate count of how many times a language is tagged on developer knowledge-sharing site Stack Overflow. Based on these figures, RedMonk analyst Stephen O'Grady reckons JavaScript is the most popular language today as it was last year. In fact, nothing has changed in RedMonk's top 10 list with the exception of Apple's Swift rising to join its predecessor, Objective C, in 10th place. The top 10 programming languages in descending order are JavaScript, Java, Python, C#, C++, CSS, Ruby, and C, with Swift and Objective-C in tenth.

TIOBE's top programming language index for March consists of many of the same top 10 languages though in a different order, with Java in top spot, followed by C, C++, Python, C#, Visual Basic .NET, PHP, JavaScript, Ruby, and SQL. These and other popularity rankings are meant to help developers see which skills they should be developing. Outside the RedMonk top 10, O'Grady highlights a few notable changes, including an apparent flattening-out in the rapid ascent of Google's back-end system language, Go.

[Nov 29, 2017] Take This GUI and Shove It

Providing a great GUI for complex routers or Linux admin is hard. Of course there has to be a CLI, that's how pros get the job done. But a great GUI is one that teaches a new user to eventually graduate to using CLI.
Notable quotes:
"... Providing a great GUI for complex routers or Linux admin is hard. Of course there has to be a CLI, that's how pros get the job done. But a great GUI is one that teaches a new user to eventually graduate to using CLI. ..."
"... What would be nice is if the GUI could automatically create a shell script doing the change. That way you could (a) learn about how to do it per CLI by looking at the generated shell script, and (b) apply the generated shell script (after proper inspection, of course) to other computers. ..."
"... AIX's SMIT did this, or rather it wrote the commands that it executed to achieve what you asked it to do. This meant that you could learn: look at what it did and find out about which CLI commands to run. You could also take them, build them into a script, copy elsewhere, ... I liked SMIT. ..."
"... Cisco's GUI stuff doesn't really generate any scripts, but the commands it creates are the same things you'd type into a CLI. And the resulting configuration is just as human-readable (barring any weird naming conventions) as one built using the CLI. I've actually learned an awful lot about the Cisco CLI by using their GUI. ..."
"... Microsoft's more recent tools are also doing this. Exchange 2007 and newer, for example, are really completely driven by the PowerShell CLI. The GUI generates commands and just feeds them into PowerShell for you. So you can again issue your commands through the GUI, and learn how you could have done it in PowerShell instead. ..."
"... Moreover, the GUI authors seem to have a penchant to find new names for existing CLI concepts. Even worse, those names are usually inappropriate vagueries quickly cobbled together in an off-the-cuff afterthought, and do not actually tell you where the doodad resides in the menu system. With a CLI, the name of the command or feature set is its location. ..."
"... I have a cheap router with only a web gui. I wrote a two line bash script that simply POSTs the right requests to URL. Simply put, HTTP interfaces, especially if they implement the right response codes, are actually very nice to script. ..."
Slashdot

Deep End's Paul Venezia speaks out against the overemphasis on GUIs in today's admin tools, saying that GUIs are fine and necessary in many cases, but only after a complete CLI is in place, and that they cannot interfere with the use of the CLI, only complement it. Otherwise, the GUI simply makes easy things easy and hard things much harder. He writes, 'If you have to make significant, identical changes to a bunch of Linux servers, is it easier to log into them one-by-one and run through a GUI or text-menu tool, or write a quick shell script that hits each box and either makes the changes or simply pulls down a few new config files and restarts some services? And it's not just about conservation of effort - it's also about accuracy. If you write a script, you're certain that the changes made will be identical on each box. If you're doing them all by hand, you aren't.'"

alain94040 (785132)

Here is a Link to the print version of the article [infoworld.com] (that conveniently fits on 1 page instead of 3).

Providing a great GUI for complex routers or Linux admin is hard. Of course there has to be a CLI, that's how pros get the job done. But a great GUI is one that teaches a new user to eventually graduate to using CLI.

A bad GUI with no CLI is the worst of both worlds, the author of the article got that right. The 80/20 rule applies: 80% of the work is common to everyone, and should be offered with a GUI. And the 20% that is custom to each sysadmin, well use the CLI.

maxwell demon:

What would be nice is if the GUI could automatically create a shell script doing the change. That way you could (a) learn about how to do it per CLI by looking at the generated shell script, and (b) apply the generated shell script (after proper inspection, of course) to other computers.

0123456 (636235) writes:

What would be nice is if the GUI could automatically create a shell script doing the change.

While it's not quite the same thing, our GUI-based home router has an option to download the config as a text file so you can automatically reconfigure it from that file if it has to be reset to defaults. You could presumably use sed to change IP addresses, etc, and copy it to a different router. Of course it runs Linux.

Alain Williams:

AIX's SMIT did this, or rather it wrote the commands that it executed to achieve what you asked it to do. This meant that you could learn: look at what it did and find out about which CLI commands to run. You could also take them, build them into a script, copy elsewhere, ... I liked SMIT.

Ephemeriis:

What would be nice is if the GUI could automatically create a shell script doing the change. That way you could (a) learn about how to do it per CLI by looking at the generated shell script, and (b) apply the generated shell script (after proper inspection, of course) to other computers.

Cisco's GUI stuff doesn't really generate any scripts, but the commands it creates are the same things you'd type into a CLI. And the resulting configuration is just as human-readable (barring any weird naming conventions) as one built using the CLI. I've actually learned an awful lot about the Cisco CLI by using their GUI.

We've just started working with Aruba hardware. Installed a mobility controller last week. They've got a GUI that does something similar. It's all a pretty web-based front-end, but it again generates CLI commands and a human-readable configuration. I'm still very new to the platform, but I'm already learning about their CLI through the GUI. And getting work done that I wouldn't be able to if I had to look up the CLI commands for everything.

Microsoft's more recent tools are also doing this. Exchange 2007 and newer, for example, are really completely driven by the PowerShell CLI. The GUI generates commands and just feeds them into PowerShell for you. So you can again issue your commands through the GUI, and learn how you could have done it in PowerShell instead.

Anpheus:

Just about every Microsoft tool newer than 2007 does this. Virtual machine manager, SQL Server has done it for ages, I think almost all the system center tools do, etc.

It's a huge improvement.

PoV:

All good admins document their work (don't they? DON'T THEY?). With a CLI or a script that's easy: it comes down to "log in as user X, change to directory Y, run script Z with arguments A B and C - the output should look like D". Try that when all you have is a GLUI (like a GUI, but you get stuck): open this window, select that option, drag a slider, check these boxes, click Yes, three times. The output might look a little like this blurry screen shot and the only record of a successful execution is a window that disappears as soon as the application ends.

I suppose the Linux community should be grateful that windows made the fundemental systems design error of making everything graphic. Without that basic failure, Linux might never have even got the toe-hold it has now.

skids:

I think this is a stronger point than the OP: GUIs do not lead to good documentation. In fact, GUIs pretty much are limited to procedural documentation like the example you gave.

The best they can do as far as actual documentation, where the precise effect of all the widgets is explained, is a screenshot with little quote bubbles pointing to each doodad. That's a ridiculous way to document.

This is as opposed to a command reference which can organize, usually in a pretty sensible fashion, exact descriptions of what each command does.

Moreover, the GUI authors seem to have a penchant to find new names for existing CLI concepts. Even worse, those names are usually inappropriate vagueries quickly cobbled together in an off-the-cuff afterthought, and do not actually tell you where the doodad resides in the menu system. With a CLI, the name of the command or feature set is its location.

Not that even good command references are mandatory by today's pathetic standards. Even the big boys like Cisco have shown major degradation in the quality of their documentation during the last decade.

pedantic bore:

I think the author might not fully understand who most admins are. They're people who couldn't write a shell script if their lives depended on it, because they've never had to. GUI-dependent users become GUI-dependent admins.

As a percentage of computer users, people who can actually navigate a CLI are an ever-diminishing group.

arth1: /etc/resolv.conf

/etc/init.d/NetworkManager stop
chkconfig NetworkManager off
chkconfig network on
vi /etc/sysconfig/network
vi /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/eth0

At least they named it NetworkManager, so experienced admins could recognize it as a culprit. Anything named in CamelCase is almost invariably written by new school programmers who don't grok the Unix toolbox concept and write applications instead of tools, and the bloated drivel is usually best avoided.

Darkness404 (1287218) writes: on Monday October 04, @07:21PM (#33789446)

There are more and more small businesses (5, 10 or so employees) realizing that they can get things done easier if they had a server. Because the business can't really afford to hire a sysadmin or a full-time tech person, its generally the employee who "knows computers" (you know, the person who has to help the boss check his e-mail every day, etc.) and since they don't have the knowledge of a skilled *Nix admin, a GUI makes their administration a lot easier.

So with the increasing use of servers among non-admins, it only makes sense for a growth in GUI-based solutions.

Svartalf (2997) writes: Ah... But the thing is... You don't NEED the GUI with recent Linux systems- you do with Windows.

oatworm (969674) writes: on Monday October 04, @07:38PM (#33789624) Homepage

Bingo. Realistically, if you're a company with less than a 100 employees (read: most companies), you're only going to have a handful of servers in house and they're each going to be dedicated to particular roles. You're not going to have 100 clustered fileservers - instead, you're going to have one or maybe two. You're not going to have a dozen e-mail servers - instead, you're going to have one or two. Consequently, the office admin's focus isn't going to be scalability; it just won't matter to the admin if they can script, say, creating a mailbox for 100 new users instead of just one. Instead, said office admin is going to be more focused on finding ways to do semi-unusual things (e.g. "create a VPN between this office and our new branch office", "promote this new server as a domain controller", "install SQL", etc.) that they might do, oh, once a year.

The trouble with Linux, and I'm speaking as someone who's used YaST in precisely this context, is that you have to make a choice - do you let the GUI manage it or do you CLI it? If you try to do both, there will be inconsistencies because the grammar of the config files is too ambiguous; consequently, the GUI config file parser will probably just overwrite whatever manual changes it thinks is "invalid", whether it really is or not. If you let the GUI manage it, you better hope the GUI has the flexibility necessary to meet your needs. If, for example, YaST doesn't understand named Apache virtual hosts, well, good luck figuring out where it's hiding all of the various config files that it was sensibly spreading out in multiple locations for you, and don't you dare use YaST to manage Apache again or it'll delete your Apache-legal but YaST-"invalid" directive.

The only solution I really see is for manual config file support with optional XML (or some other machine-friendly but still human-readable format) linkages. For example, if you want to hand-edit your resolv.conf, that's fine, but if the GUI is going to take over, it'll toss a directive on line 1 that says "#import resolv.conf.xml" and immediately overrides (but does not overwrite) everything following that. Then, if you still want to use the GUI but need to hand-edit something, you can edit the XML file using the appropriate syntax and know that your change will be reflected on the GUI.

That's my take. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

icebraining (1313345) writes: on Monday October 04, @07:24PM (#33789494) Homepage

I have a cheap router with only a web gui. I wrote a two line bash script that simply POSTs the right requests to URL. Simply put, HTTP interfaces, especially if they implement the right response codes, are actually very nice to script.

devent (1627873) writes:

Why Windows servers have a GUI is beyond me anyway. The servers are running 99,99% of the time without a monitor and normally you just login per ssh to a console if you need to administer them. But they are consuming the extra RAM, the extra CPU cycles and the extra security threats. I don't now, but can you de-install the GUI from a Windows server? Or better, do you have an option for no-GUI installation? Just saw the minimum hardware requirements. 512 MB RAM and 32 GB or greater disk space. My server runs

sirsnork (530512) writes: on Monday October 04, @07:43PM (#33789672)

it's called a "core" install in Server 2008 and up, and if you do that, there is no going back, you can't ever add the GUI back.

What this means is you can run a small subset of MS services that don't need GUI interaction. With R2 that subset grew somwhat as they added the ability to install .Net too, which mean't you could run IIS in a useful manner (arguably the strongest reason to want to do this in the first place).

Still it's a one way trip and you better be damn sure what services need to run on that box for the lifetime of that box or you're looking at a reinstall. Most windows admins will still tell you the risk isn't worth it.

Simple things like network configuration without a GUI in windows is tedious, and, at least last time i looked, you lost the ability to trunk network poers because the NIC manufactuers all assumed you had a GUI to configure your NICs

prichardson (603676) writes: on Monday October 04, @07:27PM (#33789520) Journal

This is also a problem with Max OS X Server. Apple builds their services from open source products and adds a GUI for configuration to make it all clickable and easy to set up. However, many options that can be set on the command line can't be set in the GUI. Even worse, making CLI changes to services can break the GUI entirely.

The hardware and software are both super stable and run really smoothly, so once everything gets set up, it's awesome. Still, it's hard for a guy who would rather make changes on the CLI to get used to.

MrEricSir (398214) writes:

Just because you're used to a CLI doesn't make it better. Why would I want to read a bunch of documentation, mess with command line options, then read whole block of text to see what it did? I'd much rather sit back in my chair, click something, and then see if it worked. Don't make me read a bunch of man pages just to do a simple task. In essence, the question here is whether it's okay for the user to be lazy and use a GUI, or whether the programmer should be too lazy to develop a GUI.

ak_hepcat (468765) writes: <leif@MENCKENdenali.net minus author> on Monday October 04, @07:38PM (#33789626) Homepage Journal

Probably because it's also about the ease of troubleshooting issues.

How do you troubleshoot something with a GUI after you've misconfigured? How do you troubleshoot a programming error (bug) in the GUI -> device communication? How do you scale to tens, hundreds, or thousands of devices with a GUI?

CLI makes all this easier and more manageable.

arth1 (260657) writes:

Why would I want to read a bunch of documentation, mess with command line options, then read whole block of text to see what it did? I'd much rather sit back in my chair, click something, and then see if it worked. Don't make me read a bunch of man pages just to do a simple task. Because then you'll be stuck at doing simple tasks, and will never be able to do more advanced tasks. Without hiring a team to write an app for you instead of doing it yourself in two minutes, that is. The time you spend reading man

fandingo (1541045) writes: on Monday October 04, @07:54PM (#33789778)

I don't think you really understand systems administration. 'Users,' or in this case admins, don't typically do stuff once. Furthermore, they need to know what he did and how to do it again (i.e. new server or whatever) or just remember what he did. One-off stuff isn't common and is a sign of poor administration (i.e. tracking changes and following processes).

What I'm trying to get at is that admins shouldn't do anything without reading the manual. As a Windows/Linux admin, I tend to find Linux easier to properly administer because I either already know how to perform an operation or I have to read the manual (manpage) and learn a decent amount about the operation (i.e. more than click here/use this flag).

Don't get me wrong, GUIs can make unknown operations significantly easier, but they often lead to poor process management. To document processes, screenshots are typically needed. They can be done well, but I find that GUI documentation (created by admins, not vendor docs) tend to be of very low quality. They are also vulnerable to 'upgrades' where vendors change the interface design. CLI programs typically have more stable interfaces, but maybe that's just because they have been around longer...

maotx (765127) writes: <maotx@NoSPAM.yahoo.com> on Monday October 04, @07:42PM (#33789666)

That's one thing Microsoft did right with Exchange 2007. They built it entirely around their new powershell CLI and then built a GUI for it. The GUI is limited in compared to what you can do with the CLI, but you can get most things done. The CLI becomes extremely handy for batch jobs and exporting statistics to csv files. I'd say it's really up there with BASH in terms of scripting, data manipulation, and integration (not just Exchange but WMI, SQL, etc.)

They tried to do similar with Windows 2008 and their Core [petri.co.il] feature, but they still have to load a GUI to present a prompt...Reply to This

Charles Dodgeson (248492) writes: <jeffrey@goldmark.org> on Monday October 04, @08:51PM (#33790206) Homepage Journal

Probably Debian would have been OK, but I was finding admin of most Linux distros a pain for exactly these reasons. I couldn't find a layer where I could do everything that I needed to do without worrying about one thing stepping on another. No doubt there are ways that I could manage a Linux system without running into different layers of management tools stepping on each other, but it was a struggle.

There were other reasons as well (although there is a lot that I miss about Linux), but I think that this was one of the leading reasons.

(NB: I realize that this is flamebait (I've got karma to burn), but that isn't my intention here.)

[Nov 28, 2017] Sometimes the Old Ways Are Best by Brian Kernighan

Notable quotes:
"... Sometimes the old ways are best, and they're certainly worth knowing well ..."
Nov 01, 2008 | IEEE Software, pp.18-19

As I write this column, I'm in the middle of two summer projects; with luck, they'll both be finished by the time you read it.

... ... ...

Here has surely been much progress in tools over the 25 years that IEEE Software has been around, and I wouldn't want to go back in time.

But the tools I use today are mostly the same old ones-grep, diff, sort, awk, and friends. This might well mean that I'm a dinosaur stuck in the past.

On the other hand, when it comes to doing simple things quickly, I can often have the job done while experts are still waiting for their IDE to start up. Sometimes the old ways are best, and they're certainly worth knowing well

[Nov 28, 2017] Rees Re OO

Notable quotes:
"... The conventional Simula 67-like pattern of class and instance will get you {1,3,7,9}, and I think many people take this as a definition of OO. ..."
"... Because OO is a moving target, OO zealots will choose some subset of this menu by whim and then use it to try to convince you that you are a loser. ..."
"... In such a pack-programming world, the language is a constitution or set of by-laws, and the interpreter/compiler/QA dept. acts in part as a rule checker/enforcer/police force. Co-programmers want to know: If I work with your code, will this help me or hurt me? Correctness is undecidable (and generally unenforceable), so managers go with whatever rule set (static type system, language restrictions, "lint" program, etc.) shows up at the door when the project starts. ..."
Nov 04, 2017 | www.paulgraham.com

(Jonathan Rees had a really interesting response to Why Arc isn't Especially Object-Oriented , which he has allowed me to reproduce here.)

Here is an a la carte menu of features or properties that are related to these terms; I have heard OO defined to be many different subsets of this list.

  1. Encapsulation - the ability to syntactically hide the implementation of a type. E.g. in C or Pascal you always know whether something is a struct or an array, but in CLU and Java you can hide the difference.
  2. Protection - the inability of the client of a type to detect its implementation. This guarantees that a behavior-preserving change to an implementation will not break its clients, and also makes sure that things like passwords don't leak out.
  3. Ad hoc polymorphism - functions and data structures with parameters that can take on values of many different types.
  4. Parametric polymorphism - functions and data structures that parameterize over arbitrary values (e.g. list of anything). ML and Lisp both have this. Java doesn't quite because of its non-Object types.
  5. Everything is an object - all values are objects. True in Smalltalk (?) but not in Java (because of int and friends).
  6. All you can do is send a message (AYCDISAM) = Actors model - there is no direct manipulation of objects, only communication with (or invocation of) them. The presence of fields in Java violates this.
  7. Specification inheritance = subtyping - there are distinct types known to the language with the property that a value of one type is as good as a value of another for the purposes of type correctness. (E.g. Java interface inheritance.)
  8. Implementation inheritance/reuse - having written one pile of code, a similar pile (e.g. a superset) can be generated in a controlled manner, i.e. the code doesn't have to be copied and edited. A limited and peculiar kind of abstraction. (E.g. Java class inheritance.)
  9. Sum-of-product-of-function pattern - objects are (in effect) restricted to be functions that take as first argument a distinguished method key argument that is drawn from a finite set of simple names.

So OO is not a well defined concept. Some people (eg. Abelson and Sussman?) say Lisp is OO, by which they mean {3,4,5,7} (with the proviso that all types are in the programmers' heads). Java is supposed to be OO because of {1,2,3,7,8,9}. E is supposed to be more OO than Java because it has {1,2,3,4,5,7,9} and almost has 6; 8 (subclassing) is seen as antagonistic to E's goals and not necessary for OO.

The conventional Simula 67-like pattern of class and instance will get you {1,3,7,9}, and I think many people take this as a definition of OO.

Because OO is a moving target, OO zealots will choose some subset of this menu by whim and then use it to try to convince you that you are a loser.

Perhaps part of the confusion - and you say this in a different way in your little memo - is that the C/C++ folks see OO as a liberation from a world that has nothing resembling a first-class functions, while Lisp folks see OO as a prison since it limits their use of functions/objects to the style of (9.). In that case, the only way OO can be defended is in the same manner as any other game or discipline -- by arguing that by giving something up (e.g. the freedom to throw eggs at your neighbor's house) you gain something that you want (assurance that your neighbor won't put you in jail).

This is related to Lisp being oriented to the solitary hacker and discipline-imposing languages being oriented to social packs, another point you mention. In a pack you want to restrict everyone else's freedom as much as possible to reduce their ability to interfere with and take advantage of you, and the only way to do that is by either becoming chief (dangerous and unlikely) or by submitting to the same rules that they do. If you submit to rules, you then want the rules to be liberal so that you have a chance of doing most of what you want to do, but not so liberal that others nail you.

In such a pack-programming world, the language is a constitution or set of by-laws, and the interpreter/compiler/QA dept. acts in part as a rule checker/enforcer/police force. Co-programmers want to know: If I work with your code, will this help me or hurt me? Correctness is undecidable (and generally unenforceable), so managers go with whatever rule set (static type system, language restrictions, "lint" program, etc.) shows up at the door when the project starts.

I recently contributed to a discussion of anti-OO on the e-lang list. My main anti-OO message (actually it only attacks points 5/6) was http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/e-lang/2001-October/005852.html . The followups are interesting but I don't think they're all threaded properly.

(Here are the pet definitions of terms used above:

Complete Exchange

[Nov 28, 2017] Sometimes the Old Ways Are Best by Brian Kernighan

Nov 01, 2008 | IEEE Software, pp.18-19

As I write this column, I'm in the middle of two summer projects; with luck, they'll both be finished by the time you read it.

... ... ...

Here has surely been much progress in tools over the 25 years that IEEE Software has been around, and I wouldn't want to go back in time.

But the tools I use today are mostly the same old ones-grep, diff, sort, awk, and friends. This might well mean that I'm a dinosaur stuck in the past.

On the other hand, when it comes to doing simple things quickly, I can often have the job done while experts are still waiting for their IDE to start up. Sometimes the old ways are best, and they're certainly worth knowing well

[Nov 27, 2017] Stop Writing Classes

Notable quotes:
"... If there's something I've noticed in my career that is that there are always some guys that desperately want to look "smart" and they reflect that in their code. ..."
Nov 27, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Tom coAdjoint , 1 year ago

My god I wish the engineers at my work understood this

kobac , 2 years ago

If there's something I've noticed in my career that is that there are always some guys that desperately want to look "smart" and they reflect that in their code.

If there's something else that I've noticed in my career, it's that their code is the hardest to maintain and for some reason they want the rest of the team to depend on them since they are the only "enough smart" to understand that code and change it. No need to say that these guys are not part of my team. Your code should be direct, simple and readable. End of story.

[Nov 27, 2017] Stop Writing Classes

Notable quotes:
"... If there's something I've noticed in my career that is that there are always some guys that desperately want to look "smart" and they reflect that in their code. ..."
Nov 27, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Tom coAdjoint , 1 year ago

My god I wish the engineers at my work understood this

kobac , 2 years ago

If there's something I've noticed in my career that is that there are always some guys that desperately want to look "smart" and they reflect that in their code.

If there's something else that I've noticed in my career, it's that their code is the hardest to maintain and for some reason they want the rest of the team to depend on them since they are the only "enough smart" to understand that code and change it. No need to say that these guys are not part of my team. Your code should be direct, simple and readable. End of story.

[Nov 01, 2017] Compiling in $HOME by Tom Ryder

Sep 04, 2012 | sanctum.geek.nz

If you don't have root access on a particular GNU/Linux system that you use, or if you don't want to install anything to the system directories and potentially interfere with others' work on the machine, one option is to build your favourite tools in your $HOME directory.

This can be useful if there's some particular piece of software that you really need for whatever reason, particularly on legacy systems that you share with other users or developers. The process can include not just applications, but libraries as well; you can link against a mix of your own libraries and the system's libraries as you need.

Preparation

In most cases this is actually quite a straightforward process, as long as you're allowed to use the system's compiler and any relevant build tools such as autoconf . If the ./configure script for your application allows a --prefix option, this is generally a good sign; you can normally test this with --help :

$ mkdir src
$ cd src
$ wget -q http://fooapp.example.com/fooapp-1.2.3.tar.gz
$ tar -xf fooapp-1.2.3.tar.gz
$ cd fooapp-1.2.3
$ pwd
/home/tom/src/fooapp-1.2.3
$ ./configure --help | grep -- --prefix
  --prefix=PREFIX    install architecture-independent files in PREFIX

Don't do this if the security policy on your shared machine explicitly disallows compiling programs! However, it's generally quite safe as you never need root privileges at any stage of the process.

Naturally, this is not a one-size-fits-all process; the build process will vary for different applications, but it's a workable general approach to the task.

Installing

Configure the application or library with the usual call to ./configure , but use your home directory for the prefix:

$ ./configure --prefix=$HOME

If you want to include headers or link against libraries in your home directory, it may be appropriate to add definitions for CFLAGS and LDFLAGS to refer to those directories:

$ CFLAGS="-I$HOME/include" \
> LDFLAGS="-L$HOME/lib" \
> ./configure --prefix=$HOME

Some configure scripts instead allow you to specify the path to particular libraries. Again, you can generally check this with --help .

$ ./configure --prefix=$HOME --with-foolib=$HOME/lib

You should then be able to install the application with the usual make and make install , needing root privileges for neither:

$ make
$ make install

If successful, this process will insert files into directories like $HOME/bin and $HOME/lib . You can then try to call the application by its full path:

$ $HOME/bin/fooapp -v
fooapp v1.2.3
Environment setup

To make this work smoothly, it's best to add to a couple of environment variables, probably in your .bashrc file, so that you can use the home-built application transparently.

First of all, if you linked the application against libraries also in your home directory, it will be necessary to add the library directory to LD_LIBRARY_PATH , so that the correct libraries are found and loaded at runtime:

$ /home/tom/bin/fooapp -v
/home/tom/bin/fooapp: error while loading shared libraries: libfoo.so: cannot open shared...
Could not load library foolib
$ export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$HOME/lib
$ /home/tom/bin/fooapp -v
fooapp v1.2.3

An obvious one is adding the $HOME/bin directory to your $PATH so that you can call the application without typing its path:

$ fooapp -v
-bash: fooapp: command not found
$ export PATH="$HOME/bin:$PATH"
$ fooapp -v
fooapp v1.2.3

Similarly, defining MANPATH so that calls to man will read the manual for your build of the application first is worthwhile. You may find that $MANPATH is empty by default, so you will need to append other manual locations to it. An easy way to do this is by appending the output of the manpath utility:

$ man -k fooapp
$ manpath
/usr/local/man:/usr/local/share/man:/usr/share/man
$ export MANPATH="$HOME/share/man:$(manpath)"
$ man -k fooapp
fooapp (1) - Fooapp, the programmer's foo apper

This done, you should be able to use your private build of the software comfortably, and all without never needing to reach for root .

Caveats

This tends to work best for userspace tools like editors or other interactive command-line apps; it even works for shells. However this is not a typical use case for most applications which expect to be packaged or compiled into /usr/local , so there are no guarantees it will work exactly as expected. I have found that Vim and Tmux work very well like this, even with Tmux linked against a home-compiled instance of libevent , on which it depends.

In particular, if any part of the install process requires root privileges, such as making a setuid binary, then things are likely not to work as expected.

[Oct 31, 2017] Unix as IDE: Debugging by Tom Ryder

Notable quotes:
"... Thanks to user samwyse for the .SUFFIXES suggestion in the comments. ..."
Feb 14, 2012 | sanctum.geek.nz

When unexpected behaviour is noticed in a program, GNU/Linux provides a wide variety of command-line tools for diagnosing problems. The use of gdb , the GNU debugger, and related tools like the lesser-known Perl debugger, will be familiar to those using IDEs to set breakpoints in their code and to examine program state as it runs. Other tools of interest are available however to observe in more detail how a program is interacting with a system and using its resources.

Debugging with gdb

You can use gdb in a very similar fashion to the built-in debuggers in modern IDEs like Eclipse and Visual Studio.

If you are debugging a program that you've just compiled, it makes sense to compile it with its debugging symbols added to the binary, which you can do with a gcc call containing the -g option. If you're having problems with some code, it helps to also use -Wall to show any errors you may have otherwise missed:

$ gcc -g -Wall example.c -o example

The classic way to use gdb is as the shell for a running program compiled in C or C++, to allow you to inspect the program's state as it proceeds towards its crash.

$ gdb example
...
Reading symbols from /home/tom/example...done.
(gdb)

At the (gdb) prompt, you can type run to start the program, and it may provide you with more detailed information about the causes of errors such as segmentation faults, including the source file and line number at which the problem occurred. If you're able to compile the code with debugging symbols as above and inspect its running state like this, it makes figuring out the cause of a particular bug a lot easier.

(gdb) run
Starting program: /home/tom/gdb/example 

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x000000000040072e in main () at example.c:43
43     printf("%d\n", *segfault);

After an error terminates the program within the (gdb) shell, you can type backtrace to see what the calling function was, which can include the specific parameters passed that may have something to do with what caused the crash.

(gdb) backtrace
#0  0x000000000040072e in main () at example.c:43

You can set breakpoints for gdb using the break to halt the program's run if it reaches a matching line number or function call:

(gdb) break 42
Breakpoint 1 at 0x400722: file example.c, line 42.
(gdb) break malloc
Breakpoint 1 at 0x4004c0
(gdb) run
Starting program: /home/tom/gdb/example 

Breakpoint 1, 0x00007ffff7df2310 in malloc () from /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2

Thereafter it's helpful to step through successive lines of code using step . You can repeat this, like any gdb command, by pressing Enter repeatedly to step through lines one at a time:

(gdb) step
Single stepping until exit from function _start,
which has no line number information.
0x00007ffff7a74db0 in __libc_start_main () from /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6

You can even attach gdb to a process that is already running, by finding the process ID and passing it to gdb :

$ pgrep example
1524
$ gdb -p 1524

This can be useful for redirecting streams of output for a task that is taking an unexpectedly long time to run.

Debugging with valgrind

The much newer valgrind can be used as a debugging tool in a similar way. There are many different checks and debugging methods this program can run, but one of the most useful is its Memcheck tool, which can be used to detect common memory errors like buffer overflow:

$ valgrind --leak-check=yes ./example
==29557== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==29557== Copyright (C) 2002-2011, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==29557== Using Valgrind-3.7.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==29557== Command: ./example
==29557== 
==29557== Invalid read of size 1
==29557==    at 0x40072E: main (example.c:43)
==29557==  Address 0x0 is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd
==29557== 
...

The gdb and valgrind tools can be used together for a very thorough survey of a program's run. Zed Shaw's Learn C the Hard Way includes a really good introduction for elementary use of valgrind with a deliberately broken program.

Tracing system and library calls with ltrace

The strace and ltrace tools are designed to allow watching system calls and library calls respectively for running programs, and logging them to the screen or, more usefully, to files.

You can run ltrace and have it run the program you want to monitor in this way for you by simply providing it as the sole parameter. It will then give you a listing of all the system and library calls it makes until it exits.

$ ltrace ./example
__libc_start_main(0x4006ad, 1, 0x7fff9d7e5838, 0x400770, 0x400760 
srand(4, 0x7fff9d7e5838, 0x7fff9d7e5848, 0, 0x7ff3aebde320) = 0
malloc(24)                                                  = 0x01070010
rand(0, 0x1070020, 0, 0x1070000, 0x7ff3aebdee60)            = 0x754e7ddd
malloc(24)                                                  = 0x01070030
rand(0x7ff3aebdee60, 24, 0, 0x1070020, 0x7ff3aebdeec8)      = 0x11265233
malloc(24)                                                  = 0x01070050
rand(0x7ff3aebdee60, 24, 0, 0x1070040, 0x7ff3aebdeec8)      = 0x18799942
malloc(24)                                                  = 0x01070070
rand(0x7ff3aebdee60, 24, 0, 0x1070060, 0x7ff3aebdeec8)      = 0x214a541e
malloc(24)                                                  = 0x01070090
rand(0x7ff3aebdee60, 24, 0, 0x1070080, 0x7ff3aebdeec8)      = 0x1b6d90f3
malloc(24)                                                  = 0x010700b0
rand(0x7ff3aebdee60, 24, 0, 0x10700a0, 0x7ff3aebdeec8)      = 0x2e19c419
malloc(24)                                                  = 0x010700d0
rand(0x7ff3aebdee60, 24, 0, 0x10700c0, 0x7ff3aebdeec8)      = 0x35bc1a99
malloc(24)                                                  = 0x010700f0
rand(0x7ff3aebdee60, 24, 0, 0x10700e0, 0x7ff3aebdeec8)      = 0x53b8d61b
malloc(24)                                                  = 0x01070110
rand(0x7ff3aebdee60, 24, 0, 0x1070100, 0x7ff3aebdeec8)      = 0x18e0f924
malloc(24)                                                  = 0x01070130
rand(0x7ff3aebdee60, 24, 0, 0x1070120, 0x7ff3aebdeec8)      = 0x27a51979
--- SIGSEGV (Segmentation fault) ---
+++ killed by SIGSEGV +++

You can also attach it to a process that's already running:

$ pgrep example
5138
$ ltrace -p 5138

Generally, there's quite a bit more than a couple of screenfuls of text generated by this, so it's helpful to use the -o option to specify an output file to which to log the calls:

$ ltrace -o example.ltrace ./example

You can then view this trace in a text editor like Vim, which includes syntax highlighting for ltrace output:

Vim session with ltrace output

Vim session with ltrace output

I've found ltrace very useful for debugging problems where I suspect improper linking may be at fault, or the absence of some needed resource in a chroot environment, since among its output it shows you its search for libraries at dynamic linking time and opening configuration files in /etc , and the use of devices like /dev/random or /dev/zero .

Tracking open files with lsof

If you want to view what devices, files, or streams a running process has open, you can do that with lsof :

$ pgrep example
5051
$ lsof -p 5051

For example, the first few lines of the apache2 process running on my home server are:

# lsof -p 30779
COMMAND   PID USER   FD   TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFF    NODE NAME
apache2 30779 root  cwd    DIR    8,1     4096       2 /
apache2 30779 root  rtd    DIR    8,1     4096       2 /
apache2 30779 root  txt    REG    8,1   485384  990111 /usr/lib/apache2/mpm-prefork/apache2
apache2 30779 root  DEL    REG    8,1          1087891 /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1
apache2 30779 root  mem    REG    8,1    35216 1079715 /usr/lib/php5/20090626/pdo_mysql.so
...

Interestingly, another way to list the open files for a process is to check the corresponding entry for the process in the dynamic /proc directory:

# ls -l /proc/30779/fd

This can be very useful in confusing situations with file locks, or identifying whether a process is holding open files that it needn't.

Viewing memory allocation with pmap

As a final debugging tip, you can view the memory allocations for a particular process with pmap :

# pmap 30779 
30779:   /usr/sbin/apache2 -k start
00007fdb3883e000     84K r-x--  /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1 (deleted)
00007fdb38853000   2048K -----  /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1 (deleted)
00007fdb38a53000      4K rw---  /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1 (deleted)
00007fdb38a54000      4K -----    [ anon ]
00007fdb38a55000   8192K rw---    [ anon ]
00007fdb392e5000     28K r-x--  /usr/lib/php5/20090626/pdo_mysql.so
00007fdb392ec000   2048K -----  /usr/lib/php5/20090626/pdo_mysql.so
00007fdb394ec000      4K r----  /usr/lib/php5/20090626/pdo_mysql.so
00007fdb394ed000      4K rw---  /usr/lib/php5/20090626/pdo_mysql.so
...
total           152520K

This will show you what libraries a running process is using, including those in shared memory. The total given at the bottom is a little misleading as for loaded shared libraries, the running process is not necessarily the only one using the memory; determining "actual" memory usage for a given process is a little more in-depth than it might seem with shared libraries added to the picture. Posted in GNU/Linux Tagged backtrace , breakpoint , debugging , file , file handle , gdb , ltrace , memory , process , strace , trace , unix Unix as IDE: Building Posted on February 13, 2012 by Tom Ryder Because compiling projects can be such a complicated and repetitive process, a good IDE provides a means to abstract, simplify, and even automate software builds. Unix and its descendents accomplish this process with a Makefile , a prescribed recipe in a standard format for generating executable files from source and object files, taking account of changes to only rebuild what's necessary to prevent costly recompilation.

One interesting thing to note about make is that while it's generally used for compiled software build automation and has many shortcuts to that effect, it can actually effectively be used for any situation in which it's required to generate one set of files from another. One possible use is to generate web-friendly optimised graphics from source files for deployment for a website; another use is for generating static HTML pages from code, rather than generating pages on the fly. It's on the basis of this more flexible understanding of software "building" that modern takes on the tool like Ruby's rake have become popular, automating the general tasks for producing and installing code and files of all kinds.

Anatomy of a Makefile

The general pattern of a Makefile is a list of variables and a list of targets , and the sources and/or objects used to provide them. Targets may not necessarily be linked binaries; they could also constitute actions to perform using the generated files, such as install to instate built files into the system, and clean to remove built files from the source tree.

It's this flexibility of targets that enables make to automate any sort of task relevant to assembling a production build of software; not just the typical parsing, preprocessing, compiling proper and linking steps performed by the compiler, but also running tests ( make test ), compiling documentation source files into one or more appropriate formats, or automating deployment of code into production systems, for example, uploading to a website via a git push or similar content-tracking method.

An example Makefile for a simple software project might look something like the below:

all: example

example: main.o example.o library.o
    gcc main.o example.o library.o -o example

main.o: main.c
    gcc -c main.c -o main.o

example.o: example.c
    gcc -c example.c -o example.o

library.o: library.c
    gcc -c library.c -o library.o

clean:
    rm *.o example

install: example
    cp example /usr/bin

The above isn't the most optimal Makefile possible for this project, but it provides a means to build and install a linked binary simply by typing make . Each target definition contains a list of the dependencies required for the command that follows; this means that the definitions can appear in any order, and the call to make will call the relevant commands in the appropriate order.

Much of the above is needlessly verbose or repetitive; for example, if an object file is built directly from a single C file of the same name, then we don't need to include the target at all, and make will sort things out for us. Similarly, it would make sense to put some of the more repeated calls into variables so that we would not have to change them individually if our choice of compiler or flags changed. A more concise version might look like the following:

CC = gcc
OBJECTS = main.o example.o library.o
BINARY = example

all: example

example: $(OBJECTS)
    $(CC) $(OBJECTS) -o $(BINARY)

clean:
    rm -f $(BINARY) $(OBJECTS)

install: example
    cp $(BINARY) /usr/bin
More general uses of make

In the interests of automation, however, it's instructive to think of this a bit more generally than just code compilation and linking. An example could be for a simple web project involving deploying PHP to a live webserver. This is not normally a task people associate with the use of make , but the principles are the same; with the source in place and ready to go, we have certain targets to meet for the build.

PHP files don't require compilation, of course, but web assets often do. An example that will be familiar to web developers is the generation of scaled and optimised raster images from vector source files, for deployment to the web. You keep and version your original source file, and when it comes time to deploy, you generate a web-friendly version of it.

Let's assume for this particular project that there's a set of four icons used throughout the site, sized to 64 by 64 pixels. We have the source files to hand in SVG vector format, safely tucked away in version control, and now need to generate the smaller bitmaps for the site, ready for deployment. We could therefore define a target icons , set the dependencies, and type out the commands to perform. This is where command line tools in Unix really begin to shine in use with Makefile syntax:

icons: create.png read.png update.png delete.png

create.png: create.svg
    convert create.svg create.raw.png && \
    pngcrush create.raw.png create.png

read.png: read.svg
    convert read.svg read.raw.png && \
    pngcrush read.raw.png read.png

update.png: update.svg
    convert update.svg update.raw.png && \
    pngcrush update.raw.png update.png

delete.png: delete.svg
    convert delete.svg delete.raw.png && \
    pngcrush delete.raw.png delete.png

With the above done, typing make icons will go through each of the source icons files in a Bash loop, convert them from SVG to PNG using ImageMagick's convert , and optimise them with pngcrush , to produce images ready for upload.

A similar approach can be used for generating help files in various forms, for example, generating HTML files from Markdown source:

docs: README.html credits.html

README.html: README.md
    markdown README.md > README.html

credits.html: credits.md
    markdown credits.md > credits.html

And perhaps finally deploying a website with git push web , but only after the icons are rasterized and the documents converted:

deploy: icons docs
    git push web

For a more compact and abstract formula for turning a file of one suffix into another, you can use the .SUFFIXES pragma to define these using special symbols. The code for converting icons could look like this; in this case, $< refers to the source file, $* to the filename with no extension, and $@ to the target.

icons: create.png read.png update.png delete.png

.SUFFIXES: .svg .png

.svg.png:
    convert $< $*.raw.png && \
    pngcrush $*.raw.png $@
Tools for building a Makefile

A variety of tools exist in the GNU Autotools toolchain for the construction of configure scripts and make files for larger software projects at a higher level, in particular autoconf and automake . The use of these tools allows generating configure scripts and make files covering very large source bases, reducing the necessity of building otherwise extensive makefiles manually, and automating steps taken to ensure the source remains compatible and compilable on a variety of operating systems.

Covering this complex process would be a series of posts in its own right, and is out of scope of this survey.

Thanks to user samwyse for the .SUFFIXES suggestion in the comments. Posted in GNU/Linux Tagged build , clean , dependency , generate , install , make , makefile , target , unix Unix as IDE: Compiling Posted on February 12, 2012 by Tom Ryder There are a lot of tools available for compiling and interpreting code on the Unix platform, and they tend to be used in different ways. However, conceptually many of the steps are the same. Here I'll discuss compiling C code with gcc from the GNU Compiler Collection, and briefly the use of perl as an example of an interpreter. GCC

GCC is a very mature GPL-licensed collection of compilers, perhaps best-known for working with C and C++ programs. Its free software license and near ubiquity on free Unix-like systems like GNU/Linux and BSD has made it enduringly popular for these purposes, though more modern alternatives are available in compilers using the LLVM infrastructure, such as Clang .

The frontend binaries for GNU Compiler Collection are best thought of less as a set of complete compilers in their own right, and more as drivers for a set of discrete programming tools, performing parsing, compiling, and linking, among other steps. This means that while you can use GCC with a relatively simple command line to compile straight from C sources to a working binary, you can also inspect in more detail the steps it takes along the way and tweak it accordingly.

I won't be discussing the use of make files here, though you'll almost certainly be wanting them for any C project of more than one file; that will be discussed in the next article on build automation tools.

Compiling and assembling object code

You can compile object code from a C source file like so:

$ gcc -c example.c -o example.o

Assuming it's a valid C program, this will generate an unlinked binary object file called example.o in the current directory, or tell you the reasons it can't. You can inspect its assembler contents with the objdump tool:

$ objdump -D example.o

Alternatively, you can get gcc to output the appropriate assembly code for the object directly with the -S parameter:

$ gcc -c -S example.c -o example.s

This kind of assembly output can be particularly instructive, or at least interesting, when printed inline with the source code itself, which you can do with:

$ gcc -c -g -Wa,-a,-ad example.c > example.lst
Preprocessor

The C preprocessor cpp is generally used to include header files and define macros, among other things. It's a normal part of gcc compilation, but you can view the C code it generates by invoking cpp directly:

$ cpp example.c

This will print out the complete code as it would be compiled, with includes and relevant macros applied.

Linking objects

One or more objects can be linked into appropriate binaries like so:

$ gcc example.o -o example

In this example, GCC is not doing much more than abstracting a call to ld , the GNU linker. The command produces an executable binary called example .

Compiling, assembling, and linking

All of the above can be done in one step with:

$ gcc example.c -o example

This is a little simpler, but compiling objects independently turns out to have some practical performance benefits in not recompiling code unnecessarily, which I'll discuss in the next article.

Including and linking

C files and headers can be explicitly included in a compilation call with the -I parameter:

$ gcc -I/usr/include/somelib.h example.c -o example

Similarly, if the code needs to be dynamically linked against a compiled system library available in common locations like /lib or /usr/lib , such as ncurses , that can be included with the -l parameter:

$ gcc -lncurses example.c -o example

If you have a lot of necessary inclusions and links in your compilation process, it makes sense to put this into environment variables:

$ export CFLAGS=-I/usr/include/somelib.h
$ export CLIBS=-lncurses
$ gcc $CFLAGS $CLIBS example.c -o example

This very common step is another thing that a Makefile is designed to abstract away for you.

Compilation plan

To inspect in more detail what gcc is doing with any call, you can add the -v switch to prompt it to print its compilation plan on the standard error stream:

$ gcc -v -c example.c -o example.o

If you don't want it to actually generate object files or linked binaries, it's sometimes tidier to use -### instead:

$ gcc -### -c example.c -o example.o

This is mostly instructive to see what steps the gcc binary is abstracting away for you, but in specific cases it can be useful to identify steps the compiler is taking that you may not necessarily want it to.

More verbose error checking

You can add the -Wall and/or -pedantic options to the gcc call to prompt it to warn you about things that may not necessarily be errors, but could be:

$ gcc -Wall -pedantic -c example.c -o example.o

This is good for including in your Makefile or in your makeprg definition in Vim, as it works well with the quickfix window discussed in the previous article and will enable you to write more readable, compatible, and less error-prone code as it warns you more extensively about errors.

Profiling compilation time

You can pass the flag -time to gcc to generate output showing how long each step is taking:

$ gcc -time -c example.c -o example.o
Optimisation

You can pass generic optimisation options to gcc to make it attempt to build more efficient object files and linked binaries, at the expense of compilation time. I find -O2 is usually a happy medium for code going into production:

Like any other Bash command, all of this can be called from within Vim by:

:!gcc % -o example
Interpreters

The approach to interpreted code on Unix-like systems is very different. In these examples I'll use Perl, but most of these principles will be applicable to interpreted Python or Ruby code, for example.

Inline

You can run a string of Perl code directly into the interpreter in any one of the following ways, in this case printing the single line "Hello, world." to the screen, with a linebreak following. The first one is perhaps the tidiest and most standard way to work with Perl; the second uses a heredoc string, and the third a classic Unix shell pipe.

$ perl -e 'print "Hello world.\n";'
$ perl <<<'print "Hello world.\n";'
$ echo 'print "Hello world.\n";' | perl

Of course, it's more typical to keep the code in a file, which can be run directly:

$ perl hello.pl

In either case, you can check the syntax of the code without actually running it with the -c switch:

$ perl -c hello.pl

But to use the script as a logical binary , so you can invoke it directly without knowing or caring what the script is, you can add a special first line to the file called the "shebang" that does some magic to specify the interpreter through which the file should be run.

#!/usr/bin/env perl
print "Hello, world.\n";

The script then needs to be made executable with a chmod call. It's also good practice to rename it to remove the extension, since it is now taking the shape of a logic binary:

$ mv hello{.pl,}
$ chmod +x hello

And can thereafter be invoked directly, as if it were a compiled binary:

$ ./hello

This works so transparently that many of the common utilities on modern GNU/Linux systems, such as the adduser frontend to useradd , are actually Perl or even Python scripts.

In the next post, I'll describe the use of make for defining and automating building projects in a manner comparable to IDEs, with a nod to newer takes on the same idea with Ruby's rake . Posted in GNU/Linux Tagged assembler , compiler , gcc , interpreter , linker , perl , python , ruby , unix Unix as IDE: Editing Posted on February 11, 2012 by Tom Ryder The text editor is the core tool for any programmer, which is why choice of editor evokes such tongue-in-cheek zealotry in debate among programmers. Unix is the operating system most strongly linked with two enduring favourites, Emacs and Vi, and their modern versions in GNU Emacs and Vim, two editors with very different editing philosophies but comparable power.

Being a Vim heretic myself, here I'll discuss the indispensable features of Vim for programming, and in particular the use of shell tools called from within Vim to complement the editor's built-in functionality. Some of the principles discussed here will be applicable to those using Emacs as well, but probably not for underpowered editors like Nano.

This will be a very general survey, as Vim's toolset for programmers is enormous , and it'll still end up being quite long. I'll focus on the essentials and the things I feel are most helpful, and try to provide links to articles with a more comprehensive treatment of the topic. Don't forget that Vim's :help has surprised many people new to the editor with its high quality and usefulness.

Filetype detection

Vim has built-in settings to adjust its behaviour, in particular its syntax highlighting, based on the filetype being loaded, which it happily detects and generally does a good job at doing so. In particular, this allows you to set an indenting style conformant with the way a particular language is usually written. This should be one of the first things in your .vimrc file.

if has("autocmd")
  filetype on
  filetype indent on
  filetype plugin on
endif
Syntax highlighting

Even if you're just working with a 16-color terminal, just include the following in your .vimrc if you're not already:

syntax on

The colorschemes with a default 16-color terminal are not pretty largely by necessity, but they do the job, and for most languages syntax definition files are available that work very well. There's a tremendous array of colorschemes available, and it's not hard to tweak them to suit or even to write your own. Using a 256-color terminal or gVim will give you more options. Good syntax highlighting files will show you definite syntax errors with a glaring red background.

Line numbering

To turn line numbers on if you use them a lot in your traditional IDE:

set number

You might like to try this as well, if you have at least Vim 7.3 and are keen to try numbering lines relative to the current line rather than absolutely:

set relativenumber
Tags files

Vim works very well with the output from the ctags utility. This allows you to search quickly for all uses of a particular identifier throughout the project, or to navigate straight to the declaration of a variable from one of its uses, regardless of whether it's in the same file. For large C projects in multiple files this can save huge amounts of otherwise wasted time, and is probably Vim's best answer to similar features in mainstream IDEs.

You can run :!ctags -R on the root directory of projects in many popular languages to generate a tags file filled with definitions and locations for identifiers throughout your project. Once a tags file for your project is available, you can search for uses of an appropriate tag throughout the project like so:

:tag someClass

The commands :tn and :tp will allow you to iterate through successive uses of the tag elsewhere in the project. The built-in tags functionality for this already covers most of the bases you'll probably need, but for features such as a tag list window, you could try installing the very popular Taglist plugin . Tim Pope's Unimpaired plugin also contains a couple of useful relevant mappings.

Calling external programs

Until 2017, there were three major methods of calling external programs during a Vim session:

Since 2017, Vim 8.x now includes a :terminal command to bring up a terminal emulator buffer in a window. This seems to work better than previous plugin-based attempts at doing this, such as Conque . For the moment I still strongly recommend using one of the older methods, all of which also work in other vi -type editors.

Lint programs and syntax checkers

Checking syntax or compiling with an external program call (e.g. perl -c , gcc ) is one of the calls that's good to make from within the editor using :! commands. If you were editing a Perl file, you could run this like so:

:!perl -c %

/home/tom/project/test.pl syntax OK

Press Enter or type command to continue

The % symbol is shorthand for the file loaded in the current buffer. Running this prints the output of the command, if any, below the command line. If you wanted to call this check often, you could perhaps map it as a command, or even a key combination in your .vimrc file. In this case, we define a command :PerlLint which can be called from normal mode with \l :

command PerlLint !perl -c %
nnoremap <leader>l :PerlLint<CR>

For a lot of languages there's an even better way to do this, though, which allows us to capitalise on Vim's built-in quickfix window. We can do this by setting an appropriate makeprg for the filetype, in this case including a module that provides us with output that Vim can use for its quicklist, and a definition for its two formats:

:set makeprg=perl\ -c\ -MVi::QuickFix\ %
:set errorformat+=%m\ at\ %f\ line\ %l\.
:set errorformat+=%m\ at\ %f\ line\ %l

You may need to install this module first via CPAN, or the Debian package libvi-quickfix-perl . This done, you can type :make after saving the file to check its syntax, and if errors are found, you can open the quicklist window with :copen to inspect the errors, and :cn and :cp to jump to them within the buffer.

Vim quickfix working on a Perl file

Vim quickfix working on a Perl file

This also works for output from gcc , and pretty much any other compiler syntax checker that you might want to use that includes filenames, line numbers, and error strings in its error output. It's even possible to do this with web-focused languages like PHP , and for tools like JSLint for JavaScript . There's also an excellent plugin named Syntastic that does something similar.

Reading output from other commands

You can use :r! to call commands and paste their output directly into the buffer with which you're working. For example, to pull a quick directory listing for the current folder into the buffer, you could type:

:r!ls

This doesn't just work for commands, of course; you can simply read in other files this way with just :r , like public keys or your own custom boilerplate:

:r ~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub
:r ~/dev/perl/boilerplate/copyright.pl
Filtering output through other commands

You can extend this to actually filter text in the buffer through external commands, perhaps selected by a range or visual mode, and replace it with the command's output. While Vim's visual block mode is great for working with columnar data, it's very often helpful to bust out tools like column , cut , sort , or awk .

For example, you could sort the entire file in reverse by the second column by typing:

:%!sort -k2,2r

You could print only the third column of some selected text where the line matches the pattern /vim/ with:

:'<,'>!awk '/vim/ {print $3}'

You could arrange keywords from lines 1 to 10 in nicely formatted columns like:

:1,10!column -t

Really any kind of text filter or command can be manipulated like this in Vim, a simple interoperability feature that expands what the editor can do by an order of magnitude. It effectively makes the Vim buffer into a text stream, which is a language that all of these classic tools speak.

There is a lot more detail on this in my "Shell from Vi" post.

Built-in alternatives

It's worth noting that for really common operations like sorting and searching, Vim has built-in methods in :sort and :grep , which can be helpful if you're stuck using Vim on Windows, but don't have nearly the adaptability of shell calls.

Diffing

Vim has a diffing mode, vimdiff , which allows you to not only view the differences between different versions of a file, but also to resolve conflicts via a three-way merge and to replace differences to and fro with commands like :diffput and :diffget for ranges of text. You can call vimdiff from the command line directly with at least two files to compare like so:

$ vimdiff file-v1.c file-v2.c
Vim diffing a .vimrc file

Vim diffing a .vimrc file Version control

You can call version control methods directly from within Vim, which is probably all you need most of the time. It's useful to remember here that % is always a shortcut for the buffer's current file:

:!svn status
:!svn add %
:!git commit -a

Recently a clear winner for Git functionality with Vim has come up with Tim Pope's Fugitive , which I highly recommend to anyone doing Git development with Vim. There'll be a more comprehensive treatment of version control's basis and history in Unix in Part 7 of this series.

The difference

Part of the reason Vim is thought of as a toy or relic by a lot of programmers used to GUI-based IDEs is its being seen as just a tool for editing files on servers, rather than a very capable editing component for the shell in its own right. Its own built-in features being so composable with external tools on Unix-friendly systems makes it into a text editing powerhouse that sometimes surprises even experienced users.

[Oct 31, 2017] Understanding Shared Libraries in Linux by Aaron Kili

Oct 30, 2017 | sanctum.geek.nz
In programming, a library is an assortment of pre-compiled pieces of code that can be reused in a program. Libraries simplify life for programmers, in that they provide reusable functions, routines, classes, data structures and so on (written by a another programmer), which they can use in their programs.

For instance, if you are building an application that needs to perform math operations, you don't have to create a new math function for that, you can simply use existing functions in libraries for that programming language.

Examples of libraries in Linux include libc (the standard C library) or glibc (GNU version of the standard C library), libcurl (multiprotocol file transfer library), libcrypt (library used for encryption, hashing, and encoding in C) and many more.

Linux supports two classes of libraries, namely:

Dynamic or shared libraries can further be categorized into:

Shared Library Naming Conventions

Shared libraries are named in two ways: the library name (a.k.a soname ) and a "filename" (absolute path to file which stores library code).

For example, the soname for libc is libc.so.6 : where lib is the prefix, is a descriptive name, so means shared object, and is the version. And its filename is: /lib64/libc.so.6 . Note that the soname is actually a symbolic link to the filename.

Locating Shared Libraries in Linux

Shared libraries are loaded by ld.so (or ld.so.x ) and ld-linux.so (or ld-linux.so.x ) programs, where is the version. In Linux, /lib/ld-linux.so.x searches and loads all shared libraries used by a program.

A program can call a library using its library name or filename, and a library path stores directories where libraries can be found in the filesystem. By default, libraries are located in /usr/local/lib /usr/local/lib64 /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 ; system startup libraries are in /lib and /lib64 . Programmers can, however, install libraries in custom locations.

The library path can be defined in /etc/ld.so.conf file which you can edit with a command line editor.

# vi /etc/ld.so.conf

The line(s) in this file instruct the kernel to load file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d . This way, package maintainers or programmers can add their custom library directories to the search list.

If you look into the /etc/ld.so.conf.d directory, you'll see .conf files for some common packages (kernel, mysql and postgresql in this case):

# ls /etc/ld.so.conf.d
kernel-2.6.32-358.18.1.el6.x86_64.conf  kernel-2.6.32-696.1.1.el6.x86_64.conf  mariadb-x86_64.conf
kernel-2.6.32-642.6.2.el6.x86_64.conf   kernel-2.6.32-696.6.3.el6.x86_64.conf  postgresql-pgdg-libs.conf

If you take a look at the mariadb-x86_64.conf, you will see an absolute path to package's libraries.

# cat mariadb-x86_64.conf
/usr/lib64/mysql

The method above sets the library path permanently. To set it temporarily, use the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable on the command line. If you want to keep the changes permanent, then add this line in the shell initialization file /etc/profile (global) or ~/.profile (user specific).

# export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/path/to/library/file
Managing Shared Libraries in Linux

Let us now look at how to deal with shared libraries. To get a list of all shared library dependencies for a binary file, you can use the ldd utility . The output of ldd is in the form:

library name =>  filename (some hexadecimal value)
OR
filename (some hexadecimal value)  #this is shown when library name can't be read

This command shows all shared library dependencies for the ls command .

# ldd /usr/bin/ls
OR
# ldd /bin/ls
Sample Output
Oct 31, 2017 | www.tecmint.com
   linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007ffebf9c2000)
libselinux.so.1 => /lib64/libselinux.so.1 (0x0000003b71e00000)
librt.so.1 => /lib64/librt.so.1 (0x0000003b71600000)
libcap.so.2 => /lib64/libcap.so.2 (0x0000003b76a00000)
libacl.so.1 => /lib64/libacl.so.1 (0x0000003b75e00000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x0000003b70600000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x0000003b70a00000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0000561abfc09000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x0000003b70e00000)
libattr.so.1 => /lib64/libattr.so.1 (0x0000003b75600000)

Because shared libraries can exist in many different directories, searching through all of these directories when a program is launched would be greatly inefficient: which is one of the likely disadvantages of dynamic libraries. Therefore a mechanism of caching employed, performed by a the program ldconfig

By default, ldconfig reads the content of /etc/ld.so.conf , creates the appropriate symbolic links in the dynamic link directories, and then writes a cache to /etc/ld.so.cache which is then easily used by other programs.

This is very important especially when you have just installed new shared libraries or created your own, or created new library directories. You need to run ldconfig command to effect the changes.

# ldconfig
OR
# ldconfig -V   #shows files and directories it works with

After creating your shared library, you need to install it. You can either move it into any of the standard directories mentioned above, and run the ldconfig command.

Alternatively, run the following command to create symbolic links from the soname to the filename:

# ldconfig -n /path/to/your/shared/libraries

To get started with creating your own libraries, check out this guide from The Linux Documentation Project(TLDP) .

Thats all for now! In this article, we gave you an introduction to libraries, explained shared libraries and how to manage them in Linux. If you have any queries or additional ideas to share, use the comment form below.

[Oct 28, 2017] Shared libraries with GCC on Linux

Oct 28, 2017 | www.cprogramming.com
Most larger software projects will contain several components, some of which you may find use for later on in some other project, or that you just want to separate out for organizational purposes. When you have a reusable or logically distinct set of functions, it is helpful to build a library from it so that you don’t have to copy the source code into your current project and recompile it all the timeâ€"and so you can keep different modules of your program disjoint and change one without affecting others. Once it’s been written and tested, you can safely reuse it over and over again, saving the time and hassle of building it into your project every time.

Building static libraries is fairly simple, and since we rarely get questions on them, I won’t cover them. I’ll stick with shared libraries, which seem to be more confusing for most people.

Before we get started, it might help to get a quick rundown of everything that happens from source code to running program:

  1. C Preprocessor: This stage processes all the preprocessor directives . Basically, any line that starts with a #, such as #define and #include.
  2. Compilation Proper: Once the source file has been preprocessed, the result is then compiled. Since many people refer to the entire build process as compilation, this stage is often referred to as “compilation proper.†This stage turns a .c file into an .o (object) file.
  3. Linking: Here is where all of the object files and any libraries are linked together to make your final program. Note that for static libraries, the actual library is placed in your final program, while for shared libraries, only a reference to the library is placed inside. Now you have a complete program that is ready to run. You launch it from the shell, and the program is handed off to the loader.
  4. Loading: This stage happens when your program starts up. Your program is scanned for references to shared libraries. Any references found are resolved and the libraries are mapped into your program.

Steps 3 and 4 are where the magic (and confusion) happens with shared libraries.

[Oct 26, 2017] Amazon.com Customer reviews Extreme Programming Explained Embrace Change

Oct 26, 2017 | www.amazon.com
2.0 out of 5 stars

By Mohammad B. Abdulfatah on February 10, 2003

Programming Malpractice Explained: Justifying Chaos

To fairly review this book, one must distinguish between the methodology it presents and the actual presentation. As to the presentation, the author attempts to win the reader over with emotional persuasion and pep talk rather than with facts and hard evidence. Stories of childhood and comradeship don't classify as convincing facts to me. A single case study-the C3 project-is often referred to, but with no specific information (do note that the project was cancelled by the client after staying in development for far too long).
As to the method itself, it basically boils down to four core practices:
1. Always have a customer available on site.
2. Unit test before you code.
3. Program in pairs.
4. Forfeit detailed design in favor of incremental, daily releases and refactoring.
If you do the above, and you have excellent staff on your hands, then the book promises that you'll reap the benefits of faster development, less overtime, and happier customers. Of course, the book fails to point out that if your staff is all highly qualified people, then the project is likely to succeed no matter what methodology you use. I'm sure that anyone who has worked in the software industry for sometime has noticed the sad state that most computer professionals are in nowadays.
However, assuming that you have all the topnotch developers that you desire, the outlined methodology is almost impossible to apply in real world scenarios. Having a customer always available on site would mean that the customer in question is probably a small, expendable fish in his organization and is unlikely to have any useful knowledge of its business practices. Unit testing code before it is written means that one would have to have a mental picture of what one is going to write before writing it, which is difficult without upfront design. And maintaining such tests as the code changes would be a nightmare. Programming in pairs all the time would assume that your topnotch developers are also sociable creatures, which is rarely the case, and even if they were, no one would be able to justify the practice in terms of productivity. I won't discuss why I think that abandoning upfront design is a bad practice; the whole idea is too ridiculous to debate.
Both book and methodology will attract fledgling developers with its promise of hacking as an acceptable software practice and a development universe revolving around the programmer. It's a cult, not a methodology, were the followers shall find salvation and 40-hour working weeks. Experience is a great teacher, but only a fool would learn from it alone. Listen to what the opponents have to say before embracing change, and don't forget to take the proverbial grain of salt.
Two stars out of five for the presentation for being courageous and attempting to defy the standard practices of the industry. Two stars for the methodology itself, because it underlines several common sense practices that are very useful once practiced without the extremity.

By wiredweird HALL OF FAME TOP 1000 REVIEWER on May 24, 2004
eXtreme buzzwording

Maybe it's an interesting idea, but it's just not ready for prime time.
Parts of Kent's recommended practice - including aggressive testing and short integration cycle - make a lot of sense. I've shared the same beliefs for years, but it was good to see them clarified and codified. I really have changed some of my practice after reading this and books like this.
I have two broad kinds of problem with this dogma, though. First is the near-abolition of documentation. I can't defend 2000 page specs for typical kinds of development. On the other hand, declaring that the test suite is the spec doesn't do it for me either. The test suite is code, written for machine interpretation. Much too often, it is not written for human interpretation. Based on the way I see most code written, it would be a nightmare to reverse engineer the human meaning out of any non-trivial test code. Some systematic way of ensuring human intelligibility in the code, traceable to specific "stories" (because "requirements" are part of the bad old way), would give me a lot more confidence in the approach.
The second is the dictatorial social engineering that eXtremity mandates. I've actually tried the pair programming - what a disaster. The less said the better, except that my experience did not actually destroy any professional relationships. I've also worked with people who felt that their slightest whim was adequate reason to interfere with my work. That's what Beck institutionalizes by saying that any request made of me by anyone on the team must be granted. It puts me completely at the mercy of anyone walking by. The requisite bullpen physical environment doesn't work for me either. I find that the visual and auditory distraction make intense concentration impossible.
I find revival tent spirit of the eXtremists very off-putting. If something works, it works for reasons, not as a matter of faith. I find much too much eXhortation to believe, to go ahead and leap in, so that I will eXperience the wonderfulness for myself. Isn't that what the evangelist on the subway platform keeps saying? Beck does acknowledge unbelievers like me, but requires their exile in order to maintain the group-think of the X-cult.
Beck's last chapters note a number of exceptions and special cases where eXtremism may not work - actually, most of the projects I've ever encountered.
There certainly is good in the eXtreme practice. I look to future authors to tease that good out from the positively destructive threads that I see interwoven.

By A customer on May 2, 2004
A work of fiction

The book presents extreme programming. It is divided into three parts:
(1) The problem
(2) The solution
(3) Implementing XP.
The problem, as presented by the author, is that requirements change but current methodologies are not agile enough to cope with this. This results in customer being unhappy. The solution is to embrace change and to allow the requirements to be changed. This is done by choosing the simplest solution, releasing frequently, refactoring with the security of unit tests.
The basic assumption which underscores the approach is that the cost of change is not exponential but reaches a flat asymptote. If this is not the case, allowing change late in the project would be disastrous. The author does not provide data to back his point of view. On the other hand there is a lot of data against a constant cost of change (see for example discussion of cost in Code Complete). The lack of reasonable argumentation is an irremediable flaw in the book. Without some supportive data it is impossible to believe the basic assumption, nor the rest of the book. This is all the more important since the only project that the author refers to was cancelled before full completion.
Many other parts of the book are unconvincing. The author presents several XP practices. Some of them are very useful. For example unit tests are a good practice. They are however better treated elsewhere (e.g., Code Complete chapter on unit test). On the other hand some practices seem overkill. Pair programming is one of them. I have tried it and found it useful to generate ideas while prototyping. For writing production code, I find that a quiet environment is by far the best (see Peopleware for supportive data). Again the author does not provide any data to support his point.
This book suggests an approach aiming at changing software engineering practices. However the lack of supportive data makes it a work of fiction.
I would suggest reading Code Complete for code level advice or Rapid Development for management level advice.

By A customer on November 14, 2002
Not Software Engineering.

Any Engineering discipline is based on solid reasoning and logic not on blind faith. Unfortunately, most of this book attempts to convince you that Extreme programming is better based on the author's experiences. A lot of the principles are counter - intutive and the author exhorts you just try it out and get enlightened. I'm sorry but these kind of things belong in infomercials not in s/w engineering.
The part about "code is the documentation" is the scariest part. It's true that keeping the documentation up to date is tough on any software project, but to do away with dcoumentation is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. It's like telling people to cut of their noses to avoid colds.
Yes we are always in search of a better software process. Let me tell you that this book won't lead you there.

By Philip K. Ronzone on November 24, 2000
The "gossip magazine diet plans" style of programming.

This book reminds me of the "gossip magazine diet plans", you know, the vinegar and honey diet, or the fat-burner 2000 pill diet etc. Occasionally, people actually lose weight on those diets, but, only because they've managed to eat less or exercise more. The diet plans themselves are worthless. XP is the same - it may sometimes help people program better, but only because they are (unintentionally) doing something different. People look at things like XP because, like dieters, they see a need for change. Overall, the book is a decently written "fad diet", with ideas that are just as worthless.

By A customer on August 11, 2003
Hackers! Salvation is nigh!!

It's interesting to see the phenomenon of Extreme Programming happening in the dawn of the 21st century. I suppose historians can explain such a reaction as a truly conservative movement. Of course, serious software engineering practice is hard. Heck, documentation is a pain in the neck. And what programmer wouldn't love to have divine inspiration just before starting to write the latest web application and so enlightened by the Almighty, write the whole thing in one go, as if by magic? No design, no documentation, you and me as a pair, and the customer too. Sounds like a hacker's dream with "Imagine" as the soundtrack (sorry, John).
The Software Engineering struggle is over 50 years old and it's only logical to expect some resistance, from time to time. In the XP case, the resistance comes in one of its worst forms: evangelism. A fundamentalist cult, with very little substance, no proof of any kind, but then again if you don't have faith you won't be granted the gift of the mystic revelation. It's Gnosticism for Geeks.
Take it with a pinch of salt.. well, maybe a sack of salt. If you can see through the B.S. that sells millions of dollars in books, consultancy fees, lectures, etc, you will recognise some common-sense ideas that are better explained, explored and detailed elsewhere.

By Ian K. VINE VOICE on February 27, 2015
Long have I hated this book

Kent is an excellent writer. He does an excellent job of presenting an approach to software development that is misguided for anything but user interface code. The argument that user interface code must be gotten into the hands of users to get feedback is used to suggest that complex system code should not be "designed up front". This is simply wrong. For example, if you are going to deply an application in the Amazon Cloud that you want to scale, you better have some idea of how this is going to happen. Simply waiting until you application falls over and fails is not an acceptable approach.

One of the things I despise the most about the software development culture is the mindless adoption of fads. Extreme programming has been adopted by some organizations like a religious dogma.

Engineering large software systems is one of the most difficult things that humans do. There are no silver bullets and there are no dogmatic solutions that will make the difficult simple.

By Anil Philip on March 24, 2005
not found - the silver bullet

Maybe I'm too cynical because I never got to work for the successful, whiz-kid companies; Maybe this book wasn't written for me!

This book reminds me of Jacobsen's "Use Cases" book of the 1990s. 'Use Cases' was all the rage but after several years, we slowly learned the truth: Uses Cases does not deal with the architecture - a necessary and good foundation for any piece of software.

Similarly, this book seems to be spotlighting Testing and taking it to extremes.

'the test plan is the design doc'

Not True. The design doc encapsulates wisdom and insight

a picture that accurately describes the interactions of the lower level software components is worth a thousand lines of code-reading.

Also present is an evangelistic fervor that reminds me of the rah-rah eighties' bestseller, "In Search Of Excellence" by Peters and Waterman. (Many people have since noted that most of the spotlighted companies of that book are bankrupt twenty five years later).

- in a room full of people with a bully supervisor (as I experienced in my last job at a major telco) innovation or good work is largely absent.

- deploy daily - are you kidding?

to run through the hundreds of test cases in a large application takes several hours if not days. Not all testing can be automated.

- I have found the principle of "baby steps", one of the principles in the book, most useful in my career - it is the basis for prototyping iteratively. However I heard it described in 1997 at a pep talk at MCI that the VP of our department gave to us. So I dont know who stole it from whom!

Lastly, I noted that the term 'XP' was used throughout the book, and the back cover has a blurb from an M$ architect. Was it simply coincidence that Windows shares the same name for its XP release? I wondered if M$ had sponsored part of the book as good advertising for Windows XP! :)

[Oct 13, 2017] 1.3. Compatibility of Red Hat Developer Toolset 6.1

Oct 13, 2017 | access.redhat.com

Compatibility Figure 1.1, "Red Hat Developer Toolset 6.1 Compatibility Matrix" illustrates the support for binaries built with Red Hat Developer Toolset on a certain version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux when those binaries are run on various other versions of this system. For ABI compatibility information, see Section 2.2.4, "C++ Compatibility" .

Figure 1.1. Red Hat Developer Toolset 6.1 Compatibility Matrix

[Oct 13, 2017] What gcc versions are available in Red Hat Enterprise Linux

Red Hat Developer Toolset
Notable quotes:
"... The scl ("Software Collections") tool is provided to make use of the tool versions from the Developer Toolset easy while minimizing the potential for confusion with the regular RHEL tools. ..."
"... Red Hat provides support to Red Hat Developer Tool Set for all Red Hat customers with an active Red Hat Enterprise Linux Developer subscription. ..."
"... You will need an active Red Hat Enterprise Linux Developer subscription to gain access to Red Hat Developer Tool set. ..."
Oct 13, 2017 | access.redhat.com

Red Hat provides another option via the Red Hat Developer Toolset.

With the developer toolset, developers can choose to take advantage of the latest versions of the GNU developer tool chain, packaged for easy installation on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This version of the GNU development tool chain is an alternative to the toolchain offered as part of each Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. Of course, developers can continue to use the version of the toolchain provided in Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

The developer toolset gives software developers the ability to develop and compile an application once to run on multiple versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and 6). Compatible with all supported versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the developer toolset is available for users who develop applications for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and 6. Please see the release notes for support of specific minor releases.

Unlike the compatibility and preview gcc packages provided with RHEL itself, the developer toolset packages put their content under a /opt/rh path. The scl ("Software Collections") tool is provided to make use of the tool versions from the Developer Toolset easy while minimizing the potential for confusion with the regular RHEL tools.

Red Hat provides support to Red Hat Developer Tool Set for all Red Hat customers with an active Red Hat Enterprise Linux Developer subscription.

You will need an active Red Hat Enterprise Linux Developer subscription to gain access to Red Hat Developer Tool set.

For further information on Red Hat Developer Toolset, refer to the relevant release documentation:

https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Developer_Toolset/ .

For further information on Red Hat Enterprise Linux Developer subscription, you may reference the following links:
* Red Hat Discussion
* Red Hat Developer Toolset Support Policy

[Oct 13, 2017] Building GCC from source

Oct 13, 2017 | unix.stackexchange.com

xxx

I've built newer gcc versions for rhel6 for several versions now (since 4.7.x to 5.3.1).

The process is fairly easy thanks to Redhat's Jakub Jelinek fedora gcc builds found on koji

Simply grab the latest src rpm for whichever version you require (e.g. 5.3.1 ).

Basically you would start by determining the build requirements by issuing rpm -qpR src.rpm looking for any version requirements:

rpm -qpR gcc-5.3.1-4.fc23.src.rpm | grep -E '= [[:digit:]]'
binutils >= 2.24
doxygen >= 1.7.1
elfutils-devel >= 0.147
elfutils-libelf-devel >= 0.147
gcc-gnat >= 3.1
glibc-devel >= 2.4.90-13
gmp-devel >= 4.1.2-8
isl = 0.14
isl-devel = 0.14
libgnat >= 3.1
libmpc-devel >= 0.8.1
mpfr-devel >= 2.2.1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
systemtap-sdt-devel >= 1.3

Now comes the tedious part - any package which has a version higher than provided by yum fro your distro needs to be downloaded from koji , and recursively repeat the process until all dependency requirements are met.

I cheat, btw.

I usually repackage the rpm to contain a correct build tree using the gnu facility to use correctly placed and named requirements, so gmp/mpc/mpfr/isl (cloog is no longer required) are downloaded and untard into the correct path, and the new (bloated) tar is rebuilt into a new src rpm (with minor changes to spec file) with no dependency on their packaged (rpm) versions. Since I know of no one using ADA, I simply remove the portions pertaining to gnat from the specfile, further simplifying the build process, leaving me with just binutils to worry about.
Gcc can actually build with older binutils, so if you're in a hurry, further edit the specfile to require the binutils version already present on your system. This will result in a slightly crippled gcc, but mostly it will perform well enough.
This works quite well mostly.

UPDATE 1

The simplest method for opening a src rpm is probably yum install the rpm and access everything under ~/rpmbuild, but I prefer

mkdir gcc-5.3.1-4.fc23
cd gcc-5.3.1-4.fc23
rpm2cpio ../gcc-5.3.1-4.fc23.src.rpm | cpio -id
tar xf gcc-5.3.1-20160212.tar.bz2
cd gcc-5.3.1-20160212
contrib/download_prerequisites
cd ..
tar caf gcc-5.3.1-20160212.tar.bz2 gcc-5.3.1-20160212
rm -rf gcc-5.3.1-20160212
# remove gnat
sed -i '/%global build_ada 1/ s/1/0/' gcc.spec
sed -i '/%if !%{build_ada}/,/%endif/ s/^/#/' gcc.spec
# remove gmp/mpfr/mpc dependencies
sed -i '/BuildRequires: gmp-devel >= 4.1.2-8, mpfr-devel >= 2.2.1, libmpc-devel >= 0.8.1/ s/.*//' gcc.spec
# remove isl dependency
sed -i '/BuildRequires: isl = %{isl_version}/,/Requires: isl-devel = %{isl_version}/ s/^/#/' gcc.spec
# Either build binutils as I do, or lower requirements
sed -i '/Requires: binutils/ s/2.24/2.20/' gcc.spec
# Make sure you don't break on gcc-java
sed -i '/gcc-java/ s/^/#/' gcc.spec

You also have the choice to set prefix so this rpm will install side-by-side without breaking distro rpm (but requires changing name, and some modifications to internal package names). I usually add an environment-module so I can load and unload this gcc as required (similar to how collections work) as part of the rpm (so I add a new dependency).

Finally create the rpmbuild tree and place the files where hey should go and build:

yum install rpmdevtools rpm-build
rpmdev-setuptree
cp * ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/
mv ~/rpmbuild/{SOURCES,SPECS}/gcc.spec
rpmbuild -ba ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/gcc.spec

UPDATE 2

Normally one should not use a "server" os for development - that's why you have fedora which already comes with latest gcc. I have some particular requirements, but you should really consider using the right tool for the task - rhel/centos to run production apps, fedora to develop those apps etc.

[Oct 13, 2017] devtoolset-3-gcc-4.9.1-10.el6.x86_64.rpm

This is a supported by RHEL package similar to one available from academic Linux
Oct 13, 2017 | access.redhat.com

View more details Hide details

Build Host
x86-027.build.eng.bos.redhat.com
Build Date
2014-09-22 12:43:02 UTC
Group
Development/Languages
License
GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ with exceptions and LGPLv2+ and BSD
Available From
Product (Variant, Version, Architecture) Repo Label
Red Hat Software Collections (for RHEL Server) 1 for RHEL 6.7 x86_64 rhel-server-rhscl-6-eus-rpms
Red Hat Software Collections (for RHEL Server) 1 for RHEL 6.6 x86_64 rhel-server-rhscl-6-eus-rpms
Red Hat Software Collections (for RHEL Server) 1 for RHEL 6.5 x86_64 rhel-server-rhscl-6-eus-rpms
Red Hat Software Collections (for RHEL Server) 1 for RHEL 6.4 x86_64 rhel-server-rhscl-6-eus-rpms
Red Hat Software Collections (for RHEL Server) 1 for RHEL 6 x86_64 rhel-server-rhscl-6-rpms
Red Hat Software Collections (for RHEL Workstation) 1 for RHEL 6 x86_64 rhel-workstation-rhscl-6-rpms
Red Hat Software Collections (for RHEL Server) from RHUI 1 for RHEL 6 x86_64 rhel-server-rhscl-6-rhui-rpms
Download

[Oct 13, 2017] Installing GCC 4.8.2 on Red Hat Enterprise linux 6.5

Oct 13, 2017 | stackoverflow.com

suny6 , answered Jan 29 '16 at 21:53

The official way to have gcc 4.8.2 on RHEL 6 is via installing Red Hat Developer Toolset (yum install devtoolset-2), and in order to have it you need to have one of the below subscriptions:

You can check whether you have any of these subscriptions by running:

subscription-manager list --available

and

subscription-manager list --consumed .

If you don't have any of these subscriptions, you won't succeed in "yum install devtoolset-2". However, luckily cern provide a "back door" for their SLC6 which can also be used in RHEL 6. Run below three lines via root, and you should be able to have it:

wget -O /etc/yum.repos.d/slc6-devtoolset.repo http://linuxsoft.cern.ch/cern/devtoolset/slc6-devtoolset.repo

wget -O /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-cern http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5x/x86_64/RPM-GPG-KEYs/RPM-GPG-KEY-cern

yum install devtoolset-2

Once it's done completely, you should have the new development package in /opt/rh/devtoolset-2/root/.

answered Oct 29 '14 at 21:53

For some reason the mpc/mpfr/gmp packages aren't being downloaded. Just look in your gcc source directory, it should have created symlinks to those packages:
gcc/4.9.1/install$ ls -ad gmp mpc mpfr
gmp  mpc  mpfr

If those don't show up then simply download them from the gcc site: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/

Then untar and symlink/rename them so you have the directories like above.

Then when you ./configure and make, gcc's makefile will automatically build them for you.

[Oct 08, 2017] Disbelieving the 'many eyes' myth

Notable quotes:
"... This article originally appeared on Alice, Eve, and Bob – a security blog and is republished with permission. ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | opensource.com

Review by many eyes does not always prevent buggy code There is a view that because open source software is subject to review by many eyes, all the bugs will be ironed out of it. This is a myth.

06 Oct 2017 Mike Bursell (Red Hat) Feed 8 up Image credits : Internet Archive Book Images . CC BY-SA 4.0 Writing code is hard. Writing secure code is harder -- much harder. And before you get there, you need to think about design and architecture. When you're writing code to implement security functionality, it's often based on architectures and designs that have been pored over and examined in detail. They may even reflect standards that have gone through worldwide review processes and are generally considered perfect and unbreakable. *

However good those designs and architectures are, though, there's something about putting things into actual software that's, well, special. With the exception of software proven to be mathematically correct, ** being able to write software that accurately implements the functionality you're trying to realize is somewhere between a science and an art. This is no surprise to anyone who's actually written any software, tried to debug software, or divine software's correctness by stepping through it; however, it's not the key point of this article.

Nobody *** actually believes that the software that comes out of this process is going to be perfect, but everybody agrees that software should be made as close to perfect and bug-free as possible. This is why code review is a core principle of software development. And luckily -- in my view, at least -- much of the code that we use in our day-to-day lives is open source, which means that anybody can look at it, and it's available for tens or hundreds of thousands of eyes to review.

And herein lies the problem: There is a view that because open source software is subject to review by many eyes, all the bugs will be ironed out of it. This is a myth. A dangerous myth. The problems with this view are at least twofold. The first is the "if you build it, they will come" fallacy. I remember when there was a list of all the websites in the world, and if you added your website to that list, people would visit it. **** In the same way, the number of open source projects was (maybe) once so small that there was a good chance that people might look at and review your code. Those days are past -- long past. Second, for many areas of security functionality -- crypto primitives implementation is a good example -- the number of suitably qualified eyes is low.

Don't think that I am in any way suggesting that the problem is any less in proprietary code: quite the opposite. Not only are the designs and architectures in proprietary software often hidden from review, but you have fewer eyes available to look at the code, and the dangers of hierarchical pressure and groupthink are dramatically increased. "Proprietary code is more secure" is less myth, more fake news. I completely understand why companies like to keep their security software secret, and I'm afraid that the "it's to protect our intellectual property" line is too often a platitude they tell themselves when really, it's just unsafe to release it. So for me, it's open source all the way when we're looking at security software.

So, what can we do? Well, companies and other organizations that care about security functionality can -- and have, I believe a responsibility to -- expend resources on checking and reviewing the code that implements that functionality. Alongside that, the open source community, can -- and is -- finding ways to support critical projects and improve the amount of review that goes into that code. ***** And we should encourage academic organizations to train students in the black art of security software writing and review, not to mention highlighting the importance of open source software.

We can do better -- and we are doing better. Because what we need to realize is that the reason the "many eyes hypothesis" is a myth is not that many eyes won't improve code -- they will -- but that we don't have enough expert eyes looking. Yet.


* Yeah, really: "perfect and unbreakable." Let's just pretend that's true for the purposes of this discussion.

** and that still relies on the design and architecture to actually do what you want -- or think you want -- of course, so good luck.

*** Nobody who's actually written more than about five lines of code (or more than six characters of Perl).

**** I added one. They came. It was like some sort of magic.

***** See, for instance, the Linux Foundation 's Core Infrastructure Initiative .

This article originally appeared on Alice, Eve, and Bob – a security blog and is republished with permission.

[Oct 03, 2017] Silicon Valley companies have placed lowering wages and flooding the labor market with cheaper labor near the top of their goals and as a business model.

Notable quotes:
"... That's Silicon Valley's dirty secret. Most tech workers in Palo Alto make about as much as the high school teachers who teach their kids. And these are the top coders in the country! ..."
"... I don't see why more Americans would want to be coders. These companies want to drive down wages for workers here and then also ship jobs offshore... ..."
"... Silicon Valley companies have placed lowering wages and flooding the labor market with cheaper labor near the top of their goals and as a business model. ..."
"... There are quite a few highly qualified American software engineers who lose their jobs to foreign engineers who will work for much lower salaries and benefits. This is a major ingredient of the libertarian virus that has engulfed and contaminating the Valley, going hand to hand with assembling products in China by slave labor ..."
"... If you want a high tech executive to suffer a stroke, mention the words "labor unions". ..."
"... India isn't being hired for the quality, they're being hired for cheap labor. ..."
"... Enough people have had their hands burnt by now with shit companies like TCS (Tata) that they are starting to look closer to home again... ..."
"... Globalisation is the reason, and trying to force wages up in one country simply moves the jobs elsewhere. The only way I can think of to limit this happening is to keep the company and coders working at the cutting edge of technology. ..."
"... I'd be much more impressed if I saw that the hordes of young male engineers here in SF expressing a semblance of basic common sense, basic self awareness and basic life skills. I'd say 91.3% are oblivious, idiotic children. ..."
"... Not maybe. Too late. American corporations objective is to low ball wages here in US. In India they spoon feed these pupils with affordable cutting edge IT training for next to nothing ruppees. These pupils then exaggerate their CVs and ship them out en mass to the western world to dominate the IT industry. I've seen it with my own eyes in action. Those in charge will anything/everything to maintain their grip on power. No brag. Just fact. ..."
Oct 02, 2017 | profile.theguardian.com
Terryl Dorian , 21 Sep 2017 13:26
That's Silicon Valley's dirty secret. Most tech workers in Palo Alto make about as much as the high school teachers who teach their kids. And these are the top coders in the country!
Ray D Wright -> RogTheDodge , , 21 Sep 2017 14:52
I don't see why more Americans would want to be coders. These companies want to drive down wages for workers here and then also ship jobs offshore...
Richard Livingstone -> KatieL , , 21 Sep 2017 14:50
+++1 to all of that.

Automated coding just pushes the level of coding further up the development food chain, rather than gets rid of it. It is the wrong approach for current tech. AI that is smart enough to model new problems and create their own descriptive and runnable language - hopefully after my lifetime but coming sometime.

Arne Babenhauserheide -> Evelita , , 21 Sep 2017 14:48
What coding does not teach is how to improve our non-code infrastructure and how to keep it running (that's the stuff which actually moves things). Code can optimize stuff, but it needs actual actuators to affect reality.

Sometimes these actuators are actual people walking on top of a roof while fixing it.

WyntonK , 21 Sep 2017 14:47
Silicon Valley companies have placed lowering wages and flooding the labor market with cheaper labor near the top of their goals and as a business model.

There are quite a few highly qualified American software engineers who lose their jobs to foreign engineers who will work for much lower salaries and benefits. This is a major ingredient of the libertarian virus that has engulfed and contaminating the Valley, going hand to hand with assembling products in China by slave labor .

If you want a high tech executive to suffer a stroke, mention the words "labor unions".

TheEgg -> UncommonTruthiness , , 21 Sep 2017 14:43

The ship has sailed on this activity as a career.

Nope. Married to a highly-technical skillset, you can still make big bucks. I say this as someone involved in this kind of thing academically and our Masters grads have to beat the banks and fintech companies away with dog shits on sticks. You're right that you can teach anyone to potter around and throw up a webpage but at the prohibitively difficult maths-y end of the scale, someone suitably qualified will never want for a job.

Mike_Dexter -> Evelita , , 21 Sep 2017 14:43
In a similar vein, if you accept the argument that it does drive down wages, wouldn't the culprit actually be the multitudes of online and offline courses and tutorials available to an existing workforce?
Terryl Dorian -> CountDooku , , 21 Sep 2017 14:42
Funny you should pick medicine, law, engineering... 3 fields that are *not* taught in high school. The writer is simply adding "coding" to your list. So it seems you agree with his "garbage" argument after all.
anticapitalist -> RogTheDodge , , 21 Sep 2017 14:42
Key word is "good". Teaching everyone is just going to increase the pool of programmers code I need to fix. India isn't being hired for the quality, they're being hired for cheap labor. As for women sure I wouldn't mind more women around but why does no one say their needs to be more equality in garbage collection or plumbing? (And yes plumbers are a high paid professional).

In the end I don't care what the person is, I just want to hire and work with the best and not someone I have to correct their work because they were hired by quota. If women only graduate at 15% why should IT contain more than that? And let's be a bit honest with the facts, of those 15% how many spend their high school years staying up all night hacking? Very few. Now the few that did are some of the better developers I work with but that pool isn't going to increase by forcing every child to program... just like sports aren't better by making everyone take gym class.

WithoutPurpose , 21 Sep 2017 14:42
I ran a development team for 10 years and I never had any trouble hiring programmers - we just had to pay them enough. Every job would have at least 10 good applicants.

Two years ago I decided to scale back a bit and go into programming (I can code real-time low latency financial apps in 4 languages) and I had four interviews in six months with stupidly low salaries. I'm lucky in that I can bounce between tech and the business side so I got a decent job out of tech.

My entirely anecdotal conclusion is that there is no shortage of good programmers just a shortage of companies willing to pay them.

oddbubble -> Tori Turner , , 21 Sep 2017 14:41
I've worn many hats so far, I started out as a started out as a sysadmin, then I moved on to web development, then back end and now I'm doing test automation because I am on almost the same money for half the effort.
peter nelson -> raffine , , 21 Sep 2017 14:38
But the concepts won't. Good programming requires the ability to break down a task, organise the steps in performing it, identify parts of the process that are common or repetitive so they can be bundled together, handed-off or delegated, etc.

These concepts can be applied to any programming language, and indeed to many non-software activities.

Oliver Jones -> Trumbledon , , 21 Sep 2017 14:37
In the city maybe with a financial background, the exception.
anticapitalist -> Ethan Hawkins , 21 Sep 2017 14:32
Well to his point sort of... either everything will go php or all those entry level php developers will be on the street. A good Java or C developer is hard to come by. And to the others, being a being a developer, especially a good one, is nothing like reading and writing. The industry is already saturated with poor coders just doing it for a paycheck.
peter nelson -> Tori Turner , 21 Sep 2017 14:31
I'm just going to say this once: not everyone with a computer science degree is a coder.

And vice versa. I'm retiring from a 40-year career as a software engineer. Some of the best software engineers I ever met did not have CS degrees.

KatieL -> Mishal Almohaimeed , 21 Sep 2017 14:30
"already developing automated coding scripts. "

Pretty much the entire history of the software industry since FORAST was developed for the ORDVAC has been about desperately trying to make software development in some way possible without driving everyone bonkers.

The gulf between FORAST and today's IDE-written, type-inferring high level languages, compilers, abstracted run-time environments, hypervisors, multi-computer architectures and general tech-world flavour-of-2017-ness is truly immense[1].

And yet software is still fucking hard to write. There's no sign it's getting easier despite all that work.

Automated coding was promised as the solution in the 1980s as well. In fact, somewhere in my archives, I've got paper journals which include adverts for automated systems that would programmers completely redundant by writing all your database code for you. These days, we'd think of those tools as automated ORM generators and they don't fix the problem; they just make a new one -- ORM impedance mismatch -- which needs more engineering on top to fix...

The tools don't change the need for the humans, they just change what's possible for the humans to do.

[1] FORAST executed in about 20,000 bytes of memory without even an OS. The compile artifacts for the map-reduce system I built today are an astonishing hundred million bytes... and don't include the necessary mapreduce environment, management interface, node operating system and distributed filesystem...

raffine , 21 Sep 2017 14:29
Whatever they are taught today will be obsolete tomorrow.
yannick95 -> savingUK , , 21 Sep 2017 14:27
"There are already top quality coders in China and India"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *rolls on the floor laughting* Yes........ 1%... and 99% of incredibly bad, incompetent, untalented one that produce cost 50% of a good developer but produce only 5% in comparison. And I'm talking with a LOT of practical experience through more than a dozen corporations all over the world which have been outsourcing to India... all have been disasters for the companies (but good for the execs who pocketed big bonuses and left the company before the disaster blows up in their face)

Wiretrip -> mcharts , , 21 Sep 2017 14:25
Enough people have had their hands burnt by now with shit companies like TCS (Tata) that they are starting to look closer to home again...
TomRoche , 21 Sep 2017 14:11

Tech executives have pursued [the goal of suppressing workers' compensation] in a variety of ways. One is collusion – companies conspiring to prevent their employees from earning more by switching jobs. The prevalence of this practice in Silicon Valley triggered a justice department antitrust complaint in 2010, along with a class action suit that culminated in a $415m settlement.

Folks interested in the story of the Techtopus (less drily presented than in the links in this article) should check out Mark Ames' reporting, esp this overview article and this focus on the egregious Steve Jobs (whose canonization by the US corporate-funded media is just one more impeachment of their moral bankruptcy).

Another, more sophisticated method is importing large numbers of skilled guest workers from other countries through the H1-B visa program. These workers earn less than their American counterparts, and possess little bargaining power because they must remain employed to keep their status.

Folks interested in H-1B and US technical visas more generally should head to Norm Matloff 's summary page , and then to his blog on the subject .

Olympus68 , 21 Sep 2017 13:49

I have watched as schools run by trade unions have done the opposite for the 5 decades. By limiting the number of graduates, they were able to help maintain living wages and benefits. This has been stopped in my area due to the pressure of owners run "trade associations".

During that same time period I have witnessed trade associations controlled by company owners, while publicising their support of the average employee, invest enormous amounts of membership fees in creating alliances with public institutions. Their goal has been that of flooding the labor market and thus keeping wages low. A double hit for the average worker because membership fees were paid by employees as well as those in control.

And so it goes....

savingUK , 21 Sep 2017 13:38
Coding jobs are just as susceptible to being moved to lower cost areas of the world as hardware jobs already have. It's already happening. There are already top quality coders in China and India. There is a much larger pool to chose from and they are just as good as their western counterparts and work harder for much less money.

Globalisation is the reason, and trying to force wages up in one country simply moves the jobs elsewhere. The only way I can think of to limit this happening is to keep the company and coders working at the cutting edge of technology.

whitehawk66 , 21 Sep 2017 15:18

I'd be much more impressed if I saw that the hordes of young male engineers here in SF expressing a semblance of basic common sense, basic self awareness and basic life skills. I'd say 91.3% are oblivious, idiotic children.

They would definitely not survive the zombie apocalypse.

P.S. not every kid wants or needs to have their soul sucked out of them sitting in front of a screen full of code for some idiotic service that some other douchbro thinks is the next iteration of sliced bread.

UncommonTruthiness , 21 Sep 2017 14:10
The demonization of Silicon Valley is clearly the next place to put all blame. Look what "they" did to us: computers, smart phones, HD television, world-wide internet, on and on. Get a rope!

I moved there in 1978 and watched the orchards and trailer parks on North 1st St. of San Jose transform into a concrete jungle. There used to be quite a bit of semiconductor equipment and device manufacturing in SV during the 80s and 90s. Now quite a few buildings have the same name : AVAILABLE. Most equipment and device manufacturing has moved to Asia.

Programming started with binary, then machine code (hexadecimal or octal) and moved to assembler as a compiled and linked structure. More compiled languages like FORTRAN, BASIC, PL-1, COBOL, PASCAL, C (and all its "+'s") followed making programming easier for the less talented. Now the script based languages (HTML, JAVA, etc.) are even higher level and accessible to nearly all. Programming has become a commodity and will be priced like milk, wheat, corn, non-unionized workers and the like. The ship has sailed on this activity as a career.

William Fitch III , 21 Sep 2017 13:52
Hi: As I have said many times before, there is no shortage of people who fully understand the problem and can see all the connections.

However, they all fall on their faces when it comes to the solution. To cut to the chase, Concentrated Wealth needs to go, permanently. Of course the challenge is how to best accomplish this.....

.....Bill

MostlyHarmlessD , , 21 Sep 2017 13:16

Damn engineers and their black and white world view, if they weren't so inept they would've unionized instead of being trampled again and again in the name of capitalism.
mcharts -> Aldous0rwell , , 21 Sep 2017 13:07
Not maybe. Too late. American corporations objective is to low ball wages here in US. In India they spoon feed these pupils with affordable cutting edge IT training for next to nothing ruppees. These pupils then exaggerate their CVs and ship them out en mass to the western world to dominate the IT industry. I've seen it with my own eyes in action. Those in charge will anything/everything to maintain their grip on power. No brag. Just fact.

Woe to our children and grandchildren.

Where's Bernie Sanders when we need him.

[Oct 03, 2017] The dream of coding automation remain illusive... Very illusive...

Oct 03, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

Richard Livingstone -> Mishal Almohaimeed , 21 Sep 2017 14:46

Wrong again, that approach has been tried since the 80s and will keep failing only because software development is still more akin to a technical craft than an engineering discipline. The number of elements required to assemble a working non trivial system is way beyond scriptable.
freeandfair -> Taylor Dotson , 21 Sep 2017 14:26
> That's some crystal ball you have there. English teachers will need to know how to code? Same with plumbers? Same with janitors, CEOs, and anyone working in the service industry?

You don't believe there will be robots to do plumbing and cleaning? The cleaner's job will be to program robots to do what they need.
CEOs? Absolutely.

English teachers? Both of my kids have school laptops and everything is being done on the computers. The teachers use software and create websites and what not. Yes, even English teachers.

Not knowing / understanding how to code will be the same as not knowing how to use Word/ Excel. I am assuming there are people who don't, but I don't know any above the age of 6.

Wiretrip -> Mishal Almohaimeed , 21 Sep 2017 14:20
We've had 'automated coding scripts' for years for small tasks. However, anyone who says they're going to obviate programmers, analysts and designers doesn't understand the software development process.
Ethan Hawkins -> David McCaul , 21 Sep 2017 13:22
Even if expert systems (an 80's concept, BTW) could code, we'd still have a huge need for managers. The hard part of software isn't even the coding. It's determining the requirements and working with clients. It will require general intelligence to do 90% of what we do right now. The 10% we could automate right now, mostly gets in the way. I agree it will change, but it's going to take another 20-30 years to really happen.
Mishal Almohaimeed -> PolydentateBrigand , , 21 Sep 2017 13:17
wrong, software companies are already developing automated coding scripts. You'll get a bunch of door to door knives salespeople once the dust settles that's what you'll get.
freeandfair -> rgilyead , , 21 Sep 2017 14:22
> In 20 years time AI will be doing the coding

Possible, but your still have to understand how AI operates and what it can and cannot do.

[Oct 03, 2017] Coding and carpentry are not so distant, are they ?

Thw user "imipak" views are pretty common misconceptions. They are all wrong.
Notable quotes:
"... I was about to take offence on behalf of programmers, but then I realized that would be snobbish and insulting to carpenters too. Many people can code, but only a few can code well, and fewer still become the masters of the profession. Many people can learn carpentry, but few become joiners, and fewer still become cabinetmakers. ..."
"... Many people can write, but few become journalists, and fewer still become real authors. ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

imipak, 21 Sep 2017 15:13

Coding has little or nothing to do with Silicon Valley. They may or may not have ulterior motives, but ultimately they are nothing in the scheme of things.

I disagree with teaching coding as a discrete subject. I think it should be combined with home economics and woodworking because 90% of these subjects consist of transferable skills that exist in all of them. Only a tiny residual is actually topic-specific.

In the case of coding, the residual consists of drawing skills and typing skills. Programming language skills? Irrelevant. You should choose the tools to fit the problem. Neither of these needs a computer. You should only ever approach the computer at the very end, after you've designed and written the program.

Is cooking so very different? Do you decide on the ingredients before or after you start? Do you go shopping half-way through cooking an omelette?

With woodwork, do you measure first or cut first? Do you have a plan or do you randomly assemble bits until it does something useful?

Real coding, taught correctly, is barely taught at all. You teach the transferable skills. ONCE. You then apply those skills in each area in which they apply.

What other transferable skills apply? Top-down design, bottom-up implementation. The correct methodology in all forms of engineering. Proper testing strategies, also common across all forms of engineering. However, since these tests are against logic, they're a test of reasoning. A good thing to have in the sciences and philosophy.

Technical writing is the art of explaining things to idiots. Whether you're designing a board game, explaining what you like about a house, writing a travelogue or just seeing if your wild ideas hold water, you need to be able to put those ideas down on paper in a way that exposes all the inconsistencies and errors. It doesn't take much to clean it up to be readable by humans. But once it is cleaned up, it'll remain free of errors.

So I would teach a foundation course that teaches top-down reasoning, bottom-up design, flowcharts, critical path analysis and symbolic logic. Probably aimed at age 7. But I'd not do so wholly in the abstract. I'd have it thoroughly mixed in with one field, probably cooking as most kids do that and it lacks stigma at that age.

I'd then build courses on various crafts and engineering subjects on top of that, building further hierarchies where possible. Eliminate duplication and severely reduce the fictions we call disciplines.

oldzealand, 21 Sep 2017 14:58
I used to employ 200 computer scientists in my business and now teach children so I'm apparently as guilty as hell. To be compared with a carpenter is, however, a true compliment, if you mean those that create elegant, aesthetically-pleasing, functional, adaptable and long-lasting bespoke furniture, because our crafts of problem-solving using limited resources in confined environments to create working, life-improving artifacts both exemplify great human ingenuity in action. Capitalism or no.
peter nelson, 21 Sep 2017 14:29
"But coding is not magic. It is a technical skill, akin to carpentry."

But some people do it much better than others. Just like journalism. This article is complete nonsense, as I discuss in another comment. The author might want to consider a career in carpentry.

Fanastril, 21 Sep 2017 14:13
"But coding is not magic. It is a technical skill, akin to carpentry."

It is a way of thinking. Perhaps carpentry is too, but the arrogance of the above statement shows a soul who is done thinking.

NDReader, 21 Sep 2017 14:12
"But coding is not magic. It is a technical skill, akin to carpentry."

I was about to take offence on behalf of programmers, but then I realized that would be snobbish and insulting to carpenters too. Many people can code, but only a few can code well, and fewer still become the masters of the profession. Many people can learn carpentry, but few become joiners, and fewer still become cabinetmakers.

Many people can write, but few become journalists, and fewer still become real authors.

MostlyHarmlessD, 21 Sep 2017 13:08
A carpenter!? Good to know that engineers are still thought of as jumped up tradesmen.

[Oct 02, 2017] Techs push to teach coding isnt about kids success – its about cutting wages by Ben Tarnoff

Highly recommended!
IT is probably one of the most "neoliberalized" industry (even in comparison with finance). So atomization of labor and "plantation economy" is a norm in IT. It occurs on rather high level of wages, but with influx of foreign programmers and IT specialists (in the past) and mass outsourcing (now) this is changing. Completion for good job positions is fierce. Dog eats dog competition, the dream of neoliberals. Entry level jobs are already paying $15 an hour, if not less.
Programming is a relatively rare talent, much like ability to play violin. Even amateur level is challenging. On high level (developing large complex programs in a team and still preserving your individuality and productivity ) it is extremely rare. Most of "commercial" programmers are able to produce only a mediocre code (which might be adequate). Only a few programmers can excel if complex software projects. Sometimes even performing solo. There is also a pathological breed of "programmer junkie" ( graphomania happens in programming too ) who are able sometimes to destroy something large projects singlehandedly. That often happens with open source projects after the main developer lost interest and abandoned the project.
It's good to allow children the chance to try their hand at coding when they otherwise may not had that opportunity, But in no way that means that all of them can became professional programmers. No way. Again the top level of programmers required position of a unique talent, much like top musical performer talent.
Also to get a decent entry position you iether need to be extremely talented or graduate from Ivy League university. When applicants are abundant, resume from less prestigious universities are not even considered. this is just easier for HR to filter applications this way.
Also under neoliberalism cheap labor via H1B visas flood the market and depresses wages. Many Silicon companies were so to say "Russian speaking in late 90th after the collapse of the USSR. Not offshoring is the dominant way to offload the development to cheaper labor.
Notable quotes:
"... As software mediates more of our lives, and the power of Silicon Valley grows, it's tempting to imagine that demand for developers is soaring. The media contributes to this impression by spotlighting the genuinely inspiring stories of those who have ascended the class ladder through code. You may have heard of Bit Source, a company in eastern Kentucky that retrains coalminers as coders. They've been featured by Wired , Forbes , FastCompany , The Guardian , NPR and NBC News , among others. ..."
"... A former coalminer who becomes a successful developer deserves our respect and admiration. But the data suggests that relatively few will be able to follow their example. Our educational system has long been producing more programmers than the labor market can absorb. ..."
"... More tellingly, wage levels in the tech industry have remained flat since the late 1990s. Adjusting for inflation, the average programmer earns about as much today as in 1998. If demand were soaring, you'd expect wages to rise sharply in response. Instead, salaries have stagnated. ..."
"... Tech executives have pursued this goal in a variety of ways. One is collusion – companies conspiring to prevent their employees from earning more by switching jobs. The prevalence of this practice in Silicon Valley triggered a justice department antitrust complaint in 2010, along with a class action suit that culminated in a $415m settlement . Another, more sophisticated method is importing large numbers of skilled guest workers from other countries through the H1-B visa program. These workers earn less than their American counterparts, and possess little bargaining power because they must remain employed to keep their status. ..."
"... Guest workers and wage-fixing are useful tools for restraining labor costs. But nothing would make programming cheaper than making millions more programmers. ..."
"... Silicon Valley has been unusually successful in persuading our political class and much of the general public that its interests coincide with the interests of humanity as a whole. But tech is an industry like any other. It prioritizes its bottom line, and invests heavily in making public policy serve it. The five largest tech firms now spend twice as much as Wall Street on lobbying Washington – nearly $50m in 2016. The biggest spender, Google, also goes to considerable lengths to cultivate policy wonks favorable to its interests – and to discipline the ones who aren't. ..."
"... Silicon Valley is not a uniquely benevolent force, nor a uniquely malevolent one. Rather, it's something more ordinary: a collection of capitalist firms committed to the pursuit of profit. And as every capitalist knows, markets are figments of politics. They are not naturally occurring phenomena, but elaborately crafted contraptions, sustained and structured by the state – which is why shaping public policy is so important. If tech works tirelessly to tilt markets in its favor, it's hardly alone. What distinguishes it is the amount of money it has at its disposal to do so. ..."
"... The problem isn't training. The problem is there aren't enough good jobs to be trained for ..."
"... Everyone should have the opportunity to learn how to code. Coding can be a rewarding, even pleasurable, experience, and it's useful for performing all sorts of tasks. More broadly, an understanding of how code works is critical for basic digital literacy – something that is swiftly becoming a requirement for informed citizenship in an increasingly technologized world. ..."
"... But coding is not magic. It is a technical skill, akin to carpentry. Learning to build software does not make you any more immune to the forces of American capitalism than learning to build a house. Whether a coder or a carpenter, capital will do what it can to lower your wages, and enlist public institutions towards that end. ..."
"... Exposing large portions of the school population to coding is not going to magically turn them into coders. It may increase their basic understanding but that is a long way from being a software engineer. ..."
"... All schools teach drama and most kids don't end up becoming actors. You need to give all kids access to coding in order for some can go on to make a career out of it. ..."
"... it's ridiculous because even out of a pool of computer science B.Sc. or M.Sc. grads - companies are only interested in the top 10%. Even the most mundane company with crappy IT jobs swears that they only hire "the best and the brightest." ..."
"... It's basically a con-job by the big Silicon Valley companies offshoring as many US jobs as they can, or "inshoring" via exploitation of the H1B visa ..."
"... Masters is the new Bachelors. ..."
"... I taught CS. Out of around 100 graduates I'd say maybe 5 were reasonable software engineers. The rest would be fine in tech support or other associated trades, but not writing software. Its not just a set of trainable skills, its a set of attitudes and ways of perceiving and understanding that just aren't that common. ..."
"... Yup, rings true. I've been in hi tech for over 40 years and seen the changes. I was in Silicon Valley for 10 years on a startup. India is taking over, my current US company now has a majority Indian executive and is moving work to India. US politicians push coding to drive down wages to Indian levels. ..."
Oct 02, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

This month, millions of children returned to school. This year, an unprecedented number of them will learn to code.

Computer science courses for children have proliferated rapidly in the past few years. A 2016 Gallup report found that 40% of American schools now offer coding classes – up from only 25% a few years ago. New York, with the largest public school system in the country, has pledged to offer computer science to all 1.1 million students by 2025. Los Angeles, with the second largest, plans to do the same by 2020. And Chicago, the fourth largest, has gone further, promising to make computer science a high school graduation requirement by 2018.

The rationale for this rapid curricular renovation is economic. Teaching kids how to code will help them land good jobs, the argument goes. In an era of flat and falling incomes, programming provides a new path to the middle class – a skill so widely demanded that anyone who acquires it can command a livable, even lucrative, wage.

This narrative pervades policymaking at every level, from school boards to the government. Yet it rests on a fundamentally flawed premise. Contrary to public perception, the economy doesn't actually need that many more programmers. As a result, teaching millions of kids to code won't make them all middle-class. Rather, it will proletarianize the profession by flooding the market and forcing wages down – and that's precisely the point.

At its root, the campaign for code education isn't about giving the next generation a shot at earning the salary of a Facebook engineer. It's about ensuring those salaries no longer exist, by creating a source of cheap labor for the tech industry.

As software mediates more of our lives, and the power of Silicon Valley grows, it's tempting to imagine that demand for developers is soaring. The media contributes to this impression by spotlighting the genuinely inspiring stories of those who have ascended the class ladder through code. You may have heard of Bit Source, a company in eastern Kentucky that retrains coalminers as coders. They've been featured by Wired , Forbes , FastCompany , The Guardian , NPR and NBC News , among others.

A former coalminer who becomes a successful developer deserves our respect and admiration. But the data suggests that relatively few will be able to follow their example. Our educational system has long been producing more programmers than the labor market can absorb. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the supply of American college graduates with computer science degrees is 50% greater than the number hired into the tech industry each year. For all the talk of a tech worker shortage, many qualified graduates simply can't find jobs.

More tellingly, wage levels in the tech industry have remained flat since the late 1990s. Adjusting for inflation, the average programmer earns about as much today as in 1998. If demand were soaring, you'd expect wages to rise sharply in response. Instead, salaries have stagnated.

Still, those salaries are stagnating at a fairly high level. The Department of Labor estimates that the median annual wage for computer and information technology occupations is $82,860 – more than twice the national average. And from the perspective of the people who own the tech industry, this presents a problem. High wages threaten profits. To maximize profitability, one must always be finding ways to pay workers less.

Tech executives have pursued this goal in a variety of ways. One is collusion – companies conspiring to prevent their employees from earning more by switching jobs. The prevalence of this practice in Silicon Valley triggered a justice department antitrust complaint in 2010, along with a class action suit that culminated in a $415m settlement . Another, more sophisticated method is importing large numbers of skilled guest workers from other countries through the H1-B visa program. These workers earn less than their American counterparts, and possess little bargaining power because they must remain employed to keep their status.

Guest workers and wage-fixing are useful tools for restraining labor costs. But nothing would make programming cheaper than making millions more programmers. And where better to develop this workforce than America's schools? It's no coincidence, then, that the campaign for code education is being orchestrated by the tech industry itself. Its primary instrument is Code.org, a nonprofit funded by Facebook, Microsoft, Google and others . In 2016, the organization spent nearly $20m on training teachers, developing curricula, and lobbying policymakers.

Silicon Valley has been unusually successful in persuading our political class and much of the general public that its interests coincide with the interests of humanity as a whole. But tech is an industry like any other. It prioritizes its bottom line, and invests heavily in making public policy serve it. The five largest tech firms now spend twice as much as Wall Street on lobbying Washington – nearly $50m in 2016. The biggest spender, Google, also goes to considerable lengths to cultivate policy wonks favorable to its interests – and to discipline the ones who aren't.

Silicon Valley is not a uniquely benevolent force, nor a uniquely malevolent one. Rather, it's something more ordinary: a collection of capitalist firms committed to the pursuit of profit. And as every capitalist knows, markets are figments of politics. They are not naturally occurring phenomena, but elaborately crafted contraptions, sustained and structured by the state – which is why shaping public policy is so important. If tech works tirelessly to tilt markets in its favor, it's hardly alone. What distinguishes it is the amount of money it has at its disposal to do so.

Money isn't Silicon Valley's only advantage in its crusade to remake American education, however. It also enjoys a favorable ideological climate. Its basic message – that schools alone can fix big social problems – is one that politicians of both parties have been repeating for years. The far-fetched premise of neoliberal school reform is that education can mend our disintegrating social fabric. That if we teach students the right skills, we can solve poverty, inequality and stagnation. The school becomes an engine of economic transformation, catapulting young people from challenging circumstances into dignified, comfortable lives.

This argument is immensely pleasing to the technocratic mind. It suggests that our core economic malfunction is technical – a simple asymmetry. You have workers on one side and good jobs on the other, and all it takes is training to match them up. Indeed, every president since Bill Clinton has talked about training American workers to fill the "skills gap". But gradually, one mainstream economist after another has come to realize what most workers have known for years: the gap doesn't exist. Even Larry Summers has concluded it's a myth.

The problem isn't training. The problem is there aren't enough good jobs to be trained for . The solution is to make bad jobs better, by raising the minimum wage and making it easier for workers to form a union, and to create more good jobs by investing for growth. This involves forcing business to put money into things that actually grow the productive economy rather than shoveling profits out to shareholders. It also means increasing public investment, so that people can make a decent living doing socially necessary work like decarbonizing our energy system and restoring our decaying infrastructure.

Everyone should have the opportunity to learn how to code. Coding can be a rewarding, even pleasurable, experience, and it's useful for performing all sorts of tasks. More broadly, an understanding of how code works is critical for basic digital literacy – something that is swiftly becoming a requirement for informed citizenship in an increasingly technologized world.

But coding is not magic. It is a technical skill, akin to carpentry. Learning to build software does not make you any more immune to the forces of American capitalism than learning to build a house. Whether a coder or a carpenter, capital will do what it can to lower your wages, and enlist public institutions towards that end.

Silicon Valley has been extraordinarily adept at converting previously uncommodified portions of our common life into sources of profit. Our schools may prove an easy conquest by comparison.

See also:

willyjack, 21 Sep 2017 16:56

"Everyone should have the opportunity to learn how to code. " OK, and that's what's being done. And that's what the article is bemoaning. What would be better: teach them how to change tires or groom pets? Or pick fruit? Amazingly condescending article.

MrFumoFumo , 21 Sep 2017 14:54
However, training lots of people to be coders won't automatically result in lots of people who can actually write good code. Nor will it give managers/recruiters the necessary skills to recognize which programmers are any good.

congenialAnimal -> alfredooo , 24 Sep 2017 09:57

A valid rebuttal but could I offer another observation? Exposing large portions of the school population to coding is not going to magically turn them into coders. It may increase their basic understanding but that is a long way from being a software engineer.

Just as children join art, drama or biology classes so they do not automatically become artists, actors or doctors. I would agree entirely that just being able to code is not going to guarantee the sort of income that might be aspired to. As with all things, it takes commitment, perseverance and dogged determination. I suppose ultimately it becomes the Gattaca argument.

alfredooo -> racole , 24 Sep 2017 06:51
Fair enough, but, his central argument, that an overabundance of coders will drive wages in that sector down, is generally true, so in the future if you want your kids to go into a profession that will earn them 80k+ then being a "coder" is not the route to take. When coding is - like reading, writing, and arithmetic - just a basic skill, there's no guarantee having it will automatically translate into getting a "good" job.
Wiretrip , 21 Sep 2017 14:14
This article lumps everyone in computing into the 'coder' bin, without actually defining what 'coding' is. Yes there is a glut of people who can knock together a bit of HTML and JavaScript, but that is not really programming as such.

There are huge shortages of skilled developers however; people who can apply computer science and engineering in terms of analysis and design of software. These are the real skills for which relatively few people have a true aptitude.

The lack of really good skills is starting to show in some terrible software implementation decisions, such as Slack for example; written as a web app running in Electron (so that JavaScript code monkeys could knock it out quickly), but resulting in awful performance. We will see more of this in the coming years...

Taylor Dotson -> youngsteveo , 21 Sep 2017 13:53
My brother is a programmer, and in his experience these coding exams don't test anything but whether or not you took (and remember) a very narrow range of problems introduce in the first years of a computer science degree. The entire hiring process seems premised on a range of ill-founded ideas about what skills are necessary for the job and how to assess them in people. They haven't yet grasped that those kinds of exams mostly test test-taking ability, rather than intelligence, creativity, diligence, communication ability, or anything else that a job requires beside coughing up the right answer in a stressful, timed environment without outside resources.

The_Raven , 23 Sep 2017 15:45

I'm an embedded software/firmware engineer. Every similar engineer I've ever met has had the same background - starting in electronics and drifting into embedded software writing in C and assembler. It's virtually impossible to do such software without an understanding of electronics. When it goes wrong you may need to get the test equipment out to scope the hardware to see if it's a hardware or software problem. Coming from a pure computing background just isn't going to get you a job in this type of work.
waltdangerfield , 23 Sep 2017 14:42
All schools teach drama and most kids don't end up becoming actors. You need to give all kids access to coding in order for some can go on to make a career out of it.
TwoSugarsPlease , 23 Sep 2017 06:13
Coding salaries will inevitably fall over time, but such skills give workers the option, once they discover that their income is no longer sustainable in the UK, of moving somewhere more affordable and working remotely.
DiGiT81 -> nixnixnix , 23 Sep 2017 03:29
Completely agree. Coding is a necessary life skill for 21st century but there are levels to every skill. From basic needs for an office job to advanced and specialised.
nixnixnix , 23 Sep 2017 00:46
Lots of people can code but very few of us ever get to the point of creating something new that has a loyal and enthusiastic user-base. Everyone should be able to code because it is or will be the basis of being able to create almost anything in the future. If you want to make a game in Unity, knowing how to code is really useful. If you want to work with large data-sets, you can't rely on Excel and so you need to be able to code (in R?). The use of code is becoming so pervasive that it is going to be like reading and writing.

All the science and engineering graduates I know can code but none of them have ever sold a stand-alone software. The argument made above is like saying that teaching everyone to write will drive down the wages of writers. Writing is useful for anyone and everyone but only a tiny fraction of people who can write, actually write novels or even newspaper columns.

DolyGarcia -> Carl Christensen , 22 Sep 2017 19:24
Immigrants have always a big advantage over locals, for any company, including tech companies: the government makes sure that they will stay in their place and never complain about low salaries or bad working conditions because, you know what? If the company sacks you, an immigrant may be forced to leave the country where they live because their visa expires, which is never going to happen with a local. Companies always have more leverage over immigrants. Given a choice between more and less exploitable workers, companies will choose the most exploitable ones.

Which is something that Marx figured more than a century ago, and why he insisted that socialism had to be international, which led to the founding of the First International Socialist. If worker's fights didn't go across country boundaries, companies would just play people from one country against the other. Unfortunately, at some point in time socialists forgot this very important fact.

xxxFred -> Tomix Da Vomix , 22 Sep 2017 18:52
SO what's wrong with having lots of people able to code? The only argument you seem to have is that it'll lower wages. So do you think that we should stop teaching writing skills so that journalists can be paid more? And no one os going to "force" kids into high-level abstract coding practices in kindergarten, fgs. But there is ample empirical proof that young children can learn basic principles. In fact the younger that children are exposed to anything, the better they can enhance their skills adn knowlege of it later in life, and computing concepts are no different.
Tomix Da Vomix -> xxxFred , 22 Sep 2017 18:40
You're completely missing the point. Kids are forced into the programming field (even STEM as a more general term), before they evolve their abstract reasoning. For that matter, you're not producing highly skilled people, but functional imbeciles and a decent labor that will eventually lower the wages.
Conspiracy theory? So Google, FB and others paying hundreds of millions of dollars for forming a cartel to lower the wages is not true? It sounds me that you're sounding more like a 1969 denier that Guardian is. Tech companies are not financing those incentives because they have a good soul. Their primary drive has always been money, otherwise they wouldn't sell your personal data to earn money.

But hey, you can always sleep peacefully when your kid becomes a coder. When he is 50, everyone will want to have a Cobol, Ada programmer with 25 years of experience when you can get 16 year old kid from a high school for 1/10 of a price. Go back to sleep...

Carl Christensen -> xxxFred , 22 Sep 2017 16:49
it's ridiculous because even out of a pool of computer science B.Sc. or M.Sc. grads - companies are only interested in the top 10%. Even the most mundane company with crappy IT jobs swears that they only hire "the best and the brightest."
Carl Christensen , 22 Sep 2017 16:47
It's basically a con-job by the big Silicon Valley companies offshoring as many US jobs as they can, or "inshoring" via exploitation of the H1B visa - so they can say "see, we don't have 'qualified' people in the US - maybe when these kids learn to program in a generation." As if American students haven't been coding for decades -- and saw their salaries plummet as the H1B visa and Indian offshore firms exploded......
Declawed -> KDHughes , 22 Sep 2017 16:40
Dude, stow the attitude. I've tested code from various entities, and seen every kind of crap peddled as gold.

But I've also seen a little 5-foot giggly lady with two kids, grumble a bit and save a $100,000 product by rewriting another coder's man-month of work in a few days, without any flaws or cracks. Almost nobody will ever know she did that. She's so far beyond my level it hurts.

And yes, the author knows nothing. He's genuinely crying wolf while knee-deep in amused wolves. The last time I was in San Jose, years ago , the room was already full of people with Indian surnames. If the problem was REALLY serious, a programmer from POLAND was called in.

If you think fighting for a violinist spot is hard, try fighting for it with every spare violinist in the world . I am training my Indian replacement to do my job right now . At least the public can appreciate a good violin. Can you appreciate Duff's device ?

So by all means, don't teach local kids how to think in a straight line, just in case they make a dent in the price of wages IN INDIA.... *sheesh*

Declawed -> IanMcLzzz , 22 Sep 2017 15:35
That's the best possible summarisation of this extremely dumb article. Bravo.

For those who don't know how to think of coding, like the article author, here's a few analogies :

A computer is a box that replays frozen thoughts, quickly. That is all.

Coding is just the art of explaining. Anyone who can explain something patiently and clearly, can code. Anyone who can't, can't.

Making hardware is very much like growing produce while blind. Making software is very much like cooking that produce while blind.

Imagine looking after a room full of young eager obedient children who only do exactly, *exactly*, what you told them to do, but move around at the speed of light. Imagine having to try to keep them from smashing into each other or decapitating themselves on the corners of tables, tripping over toys and crashing into walls, etc, while you get them all to play games together.

The difference between a good coder and a bad coder is almost life and death. Imagine a broth prepared with ingredients from a dozen co-ordinating geniuses and one idiot, that you'll mass produce. The soup is always far worse for the idiot's additions. The more cooks you involve, the more chance your mass produced broth will taste bad.

People who hire coders, typically can't tell a good coder from a bad coder.

Zach Dyer -> Mystik Al , 22 Sep 2017 15:18
Tech jobs will probably always be available long after your gone or until another mass extinction.
edmundberk -> AmyInNH , 22 Sep 2017 14:59
No you do it in your own time. If you're not prepared to put in long days IT is not for you in any case. It was ever thus, but more so now due to offshoring - rather than the rather obscure forces you seem to believe are important.
WithoutPurpose -> freeandfair , 22 Sep 2017 13:21
Bit more rhan that.
peter nelson -> offworldguy , 22 Sep 2017 12:44
Sorry, offworldguy, but you're losing this one really badly. I'm a professional software engineer in my 60's and I know lots of non-professionals in my age range who write little programs, scripts and apps for fun. I know this because they often contact me for help or advice.

So you've now been told by several people in this thread that ordinary people do code for fun or recreation. The fact that you don't know any probably says more about your network of friends and acquaintances than about the general population.

xxxFred , 22 Sep 2017 12:18
This is one of the daftest articles I've come across in a long while.
If it's possible that so many kids can be taught to code well enough so that wages come down, then that proves that the only reason we've been paying so much for development costs is the scarcity of people able to do it, not that it's intrinsically so hard that only a select few could anyway. In which case, there is no ethical argument for keeping the pools of skilled workers to some select group. Anyone able to do it should have an equal opportunity to do it.
What is the argument for not teaching coding (other than to artificially keep wages high)? Why not stop teaching the three R's, in order to boost white-collar wages in general?
Computing is an ever-increasingly intrinsic part of life, and people need to understand it at all levels. It is not just unfair, but tantamount to neglect, to fail to teach children all the skills they may require to cope as adults.
Having said that, I suspect that in another generation or two a good many lower-level coding jobs will be redundant anyway, with such code being automatically generated, and "coders" at this level will be little more than technicians setting various parameters. Even so, understanding the basics behind computing is a part of understanding the world they live in, and every child needs that.
Suggesting that teaching coding is some kind of conspiracy to force wages down is well, it makes the moon-landing conspiracy looks sensible by comparison.
timrichardson -> offworldguy , 22 Sep 2017 12:16
I think it is important to demystify advanced technology, I think that has importance in its own right.Plus, schools should expose kids to things which may spark their interest. Not everyone who does a science project goes on years later to get a PhD, but you'd think that it makes it more likely. Same as giving a kid some music lessons. There is a big difference between serious coding and the basic steps needed to automate a customer service team or a marketing program, but the people who have some mastery over automation will have an advantage in many jobs. Advanced machines are clearly going to be a huge part of our future. What should we do about it, if not teach kids how to understand these tools?
rogerfederere -> William Payne , 22 Sep 2017 12:13
tl;dr.
Mystik Al , 22 Sep 2017 12:08
As automation is about to put 40% of the workforce permanently out of work getting into to tech seems like a good idea!
timrichardson , 22 Sep 2017 12:04
This is like arguing that teaching kids to write is nothing more than a plot to flood the market for journalists. Teaching first aid and CPR does not make everyone a doctor.
Coding is an essential skill for many jobs already: 50 years ago, who would have thought you needed coders to make movies? Being a software engineer, a serious coder, is hard. IN fact, it takes more than technical coding to be a software engineer: you can learn to code in a week. Software Engineering is a four year degree, and even then you've just started a career. But depriving kids of some basic insights may mean they won't have the basic skills needed in the future, even for controlling their car and house. By all means, send you kids to a school that doesn't teach coding. I won't.
James Jones -> vimyvixen , 22 Sep 2017 11:41
Did you learn SNOBOL, or is Snowball a language I'm not familiar with? (Entirely possible, as an American I never would have known Extended Mercury Autocode existed we're it not for a random book acquisition at my home town library when I was a kid.)
William Payne , 22 Sep 2017 11:17
The tide that is transforming technology jobs from "white collar professional" into "blue collar industrial" is part of a larger global economic cycle.

Successful "growth" assets inevitably transmogrify into "value" and "income" assets as they progress through the economic cycle. The nature of their work transforms also. No longer focused on innovation; on disrupting old markets or forging new ones; their fundamental nature changes as they mature into optimising, cost reducing, process oriented and most importantly of all -- dividend paying -- organisations.

First, the market invests. And then, .... it squeezes.

Immature companies must invest in their team; must inspire them to be innovative so that they can take the creative risks required to create new things. This translates into high skills, high wages and "white collar" social status.

Mature, optimising companies on the other hand must necessarily avoid risks and seek variance-minimising predictability. They seek to control their human resources; to eliminate creativity; to to make the work procedural, impersonal and soulless. This translates into low skills, low wages and "blue collar" social status.

This is a fundamental part of the economic cycle; but it has been playing out on the global stage which has had the effect of hiding some of its' effects.

Over the past decades, technology knowledge and skills have flooded away from "high cost" countries and towards "best cost" countries at a historically significant rate. Possibly at the maximum rate that global infrastructure and regional skills pools can support. Much of this necessarily inhumane and brutal cost cutting and deskilling has therefore been hidden by the tide of outsourcing and offshoring. It is hard to see the nature of the jobs change when the jobs themselves are changing hands at the same time.

The ever tighter ratchet of dehumanising industrialisation; productivity and efficiency continues apace, however, and as our global system matures and evens out, we see the seeds of what we have sown sail home from over the sea.

Technology jobs in developed nations have been skewed towards "growth" activities since for the past several decades most "value" and "income" activities have been carried out in developing nations. Now, we may be seeing the early preparations for the diffusion of that skewed, uneven and unsustainable imbalance.

The good news is that "Growth" activities are not going to disappear from the world. They just may not be so geographically concentrated as they are today. Also, there is a significant and attention-worthy argument that the re-balancing of skills will result in a more flexible and performant global economy as organisations will better be able to shift a wider variety of work around the world to regions where local conditions (regulation, subsidy, union activity etc...) are supportive.

For the individuals concerned it isn't going to be pretty. And of course it is just another example of the race to the bottom that pits states and public sector purse-holders against one another to win the grace and favour of globally mobile employers.

As a power play move it has a sort of inhumanly psychotic inevitability to it which is quite awesome to observe.

I also find it ironic that the only way to tame the leviathan that is the global free-market industrial system might actually be effective global governance and international cooperation within a rules-based system.

Both "globalist" but not even slightly both the same thing.

Vereto -> Wiretrip , 22 Sep 2017 11:17
not just coders, it put even IT Ops guys into this bin. Basically good old - so you are working with computers sentence I used to hear a lot 10-15 years ago.
Sangmin , 22 Sep 2017 11:15
You can teach everyone how to code but it doesn't necessarily mean everyone will be able to work as one. We all learn math but that doesn't mean we're all mathematicians. We all know how to write but we're not all professional writers.

I have a graduate degree in CS and been to a coding bootcamp. Not everyone's brain is wired to become a successful coder. There is a particular way how coders think. Quality of a product will stand out based on these differences.

Vereto -> Jared Hall , 22 Sep 2017 11:12
Very hyperbolic is to assume that the profit in those companies is done by decreasing wages. In my company the profit is driven by ability to deliver products to the market. And that is limited by number of top people (not just any coder) you can have.
KDHughes -> kcrane , 22 Sep 2017 11:06
You realise that the arts are massively oversupplied and that most artists earn very little, if anything? Which is sort of like the situation the author is warning about. But hey, he knows nothing. Congratulations, though, on writing one of the most pretentious posts I've ever read on CIF.
offworldguy -> Melissa Boone , 22 Sep 2017 10:21
So you know kids, college age people and software developers who enjoy doing it in their leisure time? Do you know any middle aged mothers, fathers, grandparents who enjoy it and are not software developers?

Sorry, I don't see coding as a leisure pursuit that is going to take off beyond a very narrow demographic and if it becomes apparent (as I believe it will) that there is not going to be a huge increase in coding job opportunities then it will likely wither in schools too, perhaps replaced by music lessons.

Bread Eater , 22 Sep 2017 10:02
From their perspective yes. But there are a lot of opportunities in tech so it does benefit students looking for jobs.
Melissa Boone -> jamesbro , 22 Sep 2017 10:00
No, because software developer probably fail more often than they succeed. Building anything worthwhile is an iterative process. And it's not just the compiler but the other devs, oyur designer, your PM, all looking at your work.
Melissa Boone -> peterainbow , 22 Sep 2017 09:57
It's not shallow or lazy. I also work at a tech company and it's pretty common to do that across job fields. Even in HR marketing jobs, we hire students who can't point to an internship or other kind of experience in college, not simply grades.
Vereto -> savingUK , 22 Sep 2017 09:50
It will take ages, the issue of Indian programmers is in the education system and in "Yes boss" culture.

But on the other hand most of Americans are just as bad as Indians

Melissa Boone -> offworldguy , 22 Sep 2017 09:50
A lot of people do find it fun. I know many kids - high school and young college age - who code in the leisure time because they find it pleasurable to make small apps and video games. I myself enjoy it too. Your argument is like saying since you don't like to read books in your leisure time, nobody else must.

The point is your analogy isn't a good one - people who learn to code can not only enjoy it in their spare time just like music, but they can also use it to accomplish all kinds of basic things. I have a friend who's a software developer who has used code to program his Roomba to vacuum in a specific pattern and to play Candy Land with his daughter when they lost the spinner.

Owlyrics -> CapTec , 22 Sep 2017 09:44
Creativity could be added to your list. Anyone can push a button but only a few can invent a new one.
One company in the US (after it was taken over by a new owner) decided it was more profitable to import button pushers from off-shore, they lost 7 million customers (gamers) and had to employ more of the original American developers to maintain their high standard and profits.
Owlyrics -> Maclon , 22 Sep 2017 09:40
Masters is the new Bachelors.
Maclon , 22 Sep 2017 09:22
So similar to 500k a year people going to university ( UK) now when it used to be 60k people a year( 1980). There was never enough graduate jobs in 1980 so can't see where the sudden increase in need for graduates has come from.
PaulDavisTheFirst -> Ethan Hawkins , 22 Sep 2017 09:17

They aren't really crucial pieces of technology except for their popularity

It's early in the day for me, but this is the most ridiculous thing I've read so far, and I suspect it will be high up on the list by the end of the day.

There's no technology that is "crucial" unless it's involved in food, shelter or warmth. The rest has its "crucialness" decided by how widespread its use is, and in the case of those 3 languages, the answer is "very".

You (or I) might not like that very much, but that's how it is.

Julian Williams -> peter nelson , 22 Sep 2017 09:12
My benchmark would be if the average new graduate in the discipline earns more or less than one of the "professions", Law, medicine, Economics etc. The short answer is that they don't. Indeed, in my experience of professions, many good senior SW developers, say in finance, are paid markedly less than the marketing manager, CTO etc. who are often non-technical.

My benchmark is not "has a car, house etc." but what does 10, 15 20 years of experience in the area generate as a relative income to another profession, like being a GP or a corporate solicitor or a civil servant (which is usually the benchmark academics use for pay scaling). It is not to denigrate, just to say that markets don't always clear to a point where the most skilled are the highest paid.

I was also suggesting that even if you are not intending to work in the SW area, being able to translate your imagination into a program that reflects your ideas is a nice life skill.

AmyInNH -> freeandfair , 22 Sep 2017 09:05
Your assumption has no basis in reality. In my experience, as soon as Clinton ramped up H1Bs, my employer would invite 6 same college/degree/curriculum in for interviews, 5 citizen, 1 foreign student and default offer to foreign student without asking interviewers a single question about the interview. Eventually, the skipped the farce of interviewing citizens all together. That was in 1997, and it's only gotten worse. Wall St's been pretty blunt lately. Openly admits replacing US workers for import labor, as it's the "easiest" way to "grow" the economy, even though they know they are ousting citizens from their jobs to do so.
AmyInNH -> peter nelson , 22 Sep 2017 08:59
"People who get Masters and PhD's in computer science" Feed western universities money, for degree programs that would otherwise not exist, due to lack of market demand. "someone has a Bachelor's in CS" As citizens, having the same college/same curriculum/same grades, as foreign grad. But as citizens, they have job market mobility, and therefore are shunned. "you can make something real and significant on your own" If someone else is paying your rent, food and student loans while you do so.
Ethan Hawkins -> farabundovive , 22 Sep 2017 07:40
While true, it's not the coders' fault. The managers and execs above them have intentionally created an environment where these things are secondary. What's primary is getting the stupid piece of garbage out the door for Q profit outlook. Ship it amd patch it.
offworldguy -> millartant , 22 Sep 2017 07:38
Do most people find it fun? I can code. I don't find it 'fun'. Thirty years ago as a young graduate I might have found it slightly fun but the 'fun' wears off pretty quick.
Ethan Hawkins -> anticapitalist , 22 Sep 2017 07:35
In my estimation PHP is an utter abomination. Python is just a little better but still very bad. Ruby is a little better but still not at all good.

Languages like PHP, Python and JS are popular for banging out prototypes and disposable junk, but you greatly overestimate their importance. They aren't really crucial pieces of technology except for their popularity and while they won't disappear they won't age well at all. Basically they are big long-lived fads. Java is now over 20 years old and while Java 8 is not crucial, the JVM itself actually is crucial. It might last another 20 years or more. Look for more projects like Ceylon, Scala and Kotlin. We haven't found the next step forward yet, but it's getting more interesting, especially around type systems.

A strong developer will be able to code well in a half dozen languages and have fairly decent knowledge of a dozen others. For me it's been many years of: Z80, x86, C, C++, Java. Also know some Perl, LISP, ANTLR, Scala, JS, SQL, Pascal, others...

millartant -> Islingtonista , 22 Sep 2017 07:26
You need a decent IDE
millartant -> offworldguy , 22 Sep 2017 07:24

One is hardly likely to 'do a bit of coding' in ones leisure time

Why not? The right problem is a fun and rewarding puzzle to solve. I spend a lot of my leisure time "doing a bit of coding"

Ethan Hawkins -> Wiretrip , 22 Sep 2017 07:12
The worst of all are the academics (on average).
Ethan Hawkins -> KatieL , 22 Sep 2017 07:09
This makes people like me with 35 years of experience shipping products on deadlines up and down every stack (from device drivers and operating systems to programming languages, platforms and frameworks to web, distributed computing, clusters, big data and ML) so much more valuable. Been there, done that.
Ethan Hawkins -> Taylor Dotson , 22 Sep 2017 07:01
It's just not true. In SV there's this giant vacuum created by Apple, Google, FB, etc. Other good companies struggle to fill positions. I know from being on the hiring side at times.
TheBananaBender -> peter nelson , 22 Sep 2017 07:00
You don't work for a major outsourcer then like Serco, Atos, Agilisys
offworldguy -> LabMonkey , 22 Sep 2017 06:59
Plenty of people? I don't know of a single person outside of my work which is teaming with programmers. Not a single friend, not my neighbours, not my wife or her extended family, not my parents. Plenty of people might do it but most people don't.
Ethan Hawkins -> finalcentury , 22 Sep 2017 06:56
Your ignorance of coding is showing. Coding IS creative.
Ricardo111 -> peter nelson , 22 Sep 2017 06:56
Agreed: by gifted I did not meant innate. It's more of a mix of having the interest, the persistence, the time, the opportunity and actually enjoying that kind of challenge.

While some of those things are to a large extent innate personality traits, others are not and you don't need max of all of them, you just need enough to drive you to explore that domain.

That said, somebody that goes into coding purelly for the money and does it for the money alone is extremely unlikelly to become an exceptional coder.

Ricardo111 -> eirsatz , 22 Sep 2017 06:50
I'm as senior as they get and have interviewed quite a lot of programmers for several positions, including for Technical Lead (in fact, to replace me) and so far my experience leads me to believe that people who don't have a knack for coding are much less likely to expose themselves to many different languages and techniques, and also are less experimentalist, thus being far less likely to have those moments of transcending merely being aware of the visible and obvious to discover the concerns and concepts behind what one does. Without those moments that open the door to the next Universe of concerns and implications, one cannot do state transitions such as Coder to Technical Designer or Technical Designer to Technical Architect.

Sure, you can get the title and do the things from the books, but you will not get WHY are those things supposed to work (and when they will not work) and thus cannot adjust to new conditions effectively and will be like a sailor that can't sail away from sight of the coast since he can't navigate.

All this gets reflected in many things that enhance productivity, from the early ability to quickly piece together solutions for a new problem out of past solutions for different problems to, later, conceiving software architecture designs fittted to the typical usage pattern in the industry for which the software is going to be made.

LabMonkey , 22 Sep 2017 06:50
From the way our IT department is going, needing millions of coders is not the future. It'll be a minority of developers at the top, and an army of low wage monkeys at the bottom who can troubleshoot from a script - until AI comes along that can code faster and more accurately.
LabMonkey -> offworldguy , 22 Sep 2017 06:46

One is hardly likely to 'do a bit of coding' in ones leisure time

Really? I've programmed a few simple videogames in my spare time. Plenty of people do.

CapTec , 22 Sep 2017 06:29
Interesting piece that's fundamentally flawed. I'm a software engineer myself. There is a reason a University education of a minimum of three years is the base line for a junior developer or 'coder'.

Software engineering isn't just writing code. I would say 80% of my time is spent designing and structuring software before I even touch the code.

Explaining software engineering as a discipline at a high level to people who don't understand it is simple.

Most of us who learn to drive learn a few basics about the mechanics of a car. We know that brake pads need to be replaced, we know that fuel is pumped into an engine when we press the gas pedal. Most of us know how to change a bulb if it blows.

The vast majority of us wouldn't be able to replace a head gasket or clutch though. Just knowing the basics isn't enough to make you a mechanic.

Studying in school isn't enough to produce software engineers. Software engineering isn't just writing code, it's cross discipline. We also need to understand the science behind the computer, we need too understand logic, data structures, timings, how to manage memory, security, how databases work etc.

A few years of learning at school isn't nearly enough, a degree isn't enough on its own due to the dynamic and ever evolving nature of software engineering. Schools teach technology that is out of date and typically don't explain the science very well.

This is why most companies don't want new developers, they want people with experience and multiple skills.

Programming is becoming cool and people think that because of that it's easy to become a skilled developer. It isn't. It takes time and effort and most kids give up.

French was on the national curriculum when I was at school. Most people including me can't hold a conversation in French though.

Ultimately there is a SKILL shortage. And that's because skill takes a long time, successes and failures to acquire. Most people just give up.

This article is akin to saying 'schools are teaching basic health to reduce the wages of Doctors'. It didn't happen.

offworldguy -> thecurio , 22 Sep 2017 06:19
There is a difference. When you teach people music you teach a skill that can be used for a lifetimes enjoyment. One might sit at a piano in later years and play. One is hardly likely to 'do a bit of coding' in ones leisure time.

The other thing is how good are people going to get at coding and how long will they retain the skill if not used? I tend to think maths is similar to coding and most adults have pretty terrible maths skills not venturing far beyond arithmetic. Not many remember how to solve a quadratic equation or even how to rearrange some algebra.

One more thing is we know that if we teach people music they will find a use for it, if only in their leisure time. We don't know that coding will be in any way useful because we don't know if there will be coding jobs in the future. AI might take over coding but we know that AI won't take over playing piano for pleasure.

If we want to teach logical thinking then I think maths has always done this and we should make sure people are better at maths.

Alex Mackaness , 22 Sep 2017 06:08
Am I missing something here? Being able to code is a skill that is a useful addition to the skill armoury of a youngster entering the work place. Much like reading, writing, maths... Not only is it directly applicable and pervasive in our modern world, it is built upon logic.

The important point is that American schools are not ONLY teaching youngsters to code, and producing one dimensional robots... instead coding makes up one part of their overall skill set. Those who wish to develop their coding skills further certainly can choose to do so. Those who specialise elsewhere are more than likely to have found the skills they learnt whilst coding useful anyway.

I struggle to see how there is a hidden capitalist agenda here. I would argue learning the basics of coding is simply becoming seen as an integral part of the school curriculum.

thecurio , 22 Sep 2017 05:56
The word "coding" is shorthand for "computer programming" or "software development" and it masks the depth and range of skills that might be required, depending on the application.

This subtlety is lost, I think, on politicians and perhaps the general public. Asserting that teaching lots of people to code is a sneaky way to commodotise an industry might have some truth to it, but remember that commodotisation (or "sharing and re-use" as developers might call it) is nothing new. The creation of freely available and re-usable software components and APIs has driven innovation, and has put much power in the hands of developers who would not otherwise have the skill or time to tackle such projects.

There's nothing to fear from teaching more people to "code", just as there's nothing to fear from teaching more people to "play music". These skills simply represent points on a continuum.

There's room for everyone, from the kid on a kazoo all the way to Coltrane at the Village Vanguard.

sbw7 -> ragingbull , 22 Sep 2017 05:44
I taught CS. Out of around 100 graduates I'd say maybe 5 were reasonable software engineers. The rest would be fine in tech support or other associated trades, but not writing software. Its not just a set of trainable skills, its a set of attitudes and ways of perceiving and understanding that just aren't that common.
offworldguy , 22 Sep 2017 05:02
I can't understand the rush to teach coding in schools. First of all I don't think we are going to be a country of millions of coders and secondly if most people have the skills then coding is hardly going to be a well paid job. Thirdly you can learn coding from scratch after school like people of my generation did. You could argue that it is part of a well rounded education but then it is as important for your career as learning Shakespeare, knowing what an oxbow lake is or being able to do calculus: most jobs just won't need you to know.
savingUK -> yannick95 , 22 Sep 2017 04:35
While you roll on the floor laughing, these countries will slowly but surely get their act together. That is how they work. There are top quality coders over there and they will soon promoted into a position to organise the others.

You are probably too young to remember when people laughed at electronic products when they were made in Japan then Taiwan. History will repeat it's self.

zii000 -> JohnFreidburg , 22 Sep 2017 04:04
Yes it's ironic and no different here in the UK. Traditionally Labour was the party focused on dividing the economic pie more fairly, Tories on growing it for the benefit of all. It's now completely upside down with Tories paying lip service to the idea of pay rises but in reality supporting this deflationary race to the bottom, hammering down salaries and so shrinking discretionary spending power which forces price reductions to match and so more pressure on employers to cut costs ... ad infinitum.
Labour now favour policies which would cause an expansion across the entire economy through pay rises and dramatically increased investment with perhaps more tolerance of inflation to achieve it.
ID0193985 -> jamesbro , 22 Sep 2017 03:46
Not surprising if they're working for a company that is cold-calling people - which should be banned in my opinion. Call centres providing customer support are probably less abuse-heavy since the customer is trying to get something done.
vimyvixen , 22 Sep 2017 02:04
I taught myself to code in 1974. Fortran, COBOL were first. Over the years as a aerospace engineer I coded in numerous languages ranging from PLM, Snowball, Basic, and more assembly languages than I can recall, not to mention deep down in machine code on more architectures than most know even existed. Bottom line is that coding is easy. It doesn't take a genius to code, just another way of thinking. Consider all the bugs in the software available now. These "coders", not sufficiently trained need adult supervision by engineers who know what they are doing for computer systems that are important such as the electrical grid, nuclear weapons, and safety critical systems. If you want to program toy apps then code away, if you want to do something important learn engineering AND coding.
Dwight Spencer , 22 Sep 2017 01:44
Laughable. It takes only an above-average IQ to code. Today's coders are akin to the auto mechanics of the 1950s where practically every high school had auto shop instruction . . . nothing but a source of cheap labor for doing routine implementations of software systems using powerful code libraries built by REAL software engineers.
sieteocho -> Islingtonista , 22 Sep 2017 01:19
That's a bit like saying that calculus is more valuable than arithmetic, so why teach children arithmetic at all?

Because without the arithmetic, you're not going to get up to the calculus.

JohnFreidburg -> Tommyward , 22 Sep 2017 01:15
I disagree. Technology firms are just like other firms. Why then the collusion not to pay more to workers coming from other companies? To believe that they are anything else is naive. The author is correct. We need policies that actually grow the economy and not leaders who cave to what the CEOs want like Bill Clinton did. He brought NAFTA at the behest of CEOs and all it ended up doing was ripping apart the rust belt and ushering in Trump.
Tommyward , 22 Sep 2017 00:53
So the media always needs some bad guys to write about, and this month they seem to have it in for the tech industry. The article is BS. I interview a lot of people to join a large tech company, and I can guarantee you that we aren't trying to find cheaper labor, we're looking for the best talent.

I know that lots of different jobs have been outsourced to low cost areas, but these days the top companies are instead looking for the top talent globally.

I see this article as a hit piece against Silicon Valley, and it doesn't fly in the face of the evidence.

finalcentury , 22 Sep 2017 00:46
This has got to be the most cynical and idiotic social interest piece I have ever read in the Guardian. Once upon a time it was very helpful to learn carpentry and machining, but now, even if you are learning those, you will get a big and indispensable headstart if you have some logic and programming skills. The fact is, almost no matter what you do, you can apply logic and programming skills to give you an edge. Even journalists.
hoplites99 , 22 Sep 2017 00:02
Yup, rings true. I've been in hi tech for over 40 years and seen the changes. I was in Silicon Valley for 10 years on a startup. India is taking over, my current US company now has a majority Indian executive and is moving work to India. US politicians push coding to drive down wages to Indian levels.

On the bright side I am old enough and established enough to quit tomorrow, its someone else's problem, but I still despise those who have sold us out, like the Clintons, the Bushes, the Googoids, the Zuckerboids.

liberalquilt -> yannick95 , 21 Sep 2017 23:45
Sure markets existed before governments, but capitalism didn't, can't in fact. It needs the organs of state, the banking system, an education system, and an infrastructure.
thegarlicfarmer -> canprof , 21 Sep 2017 23:36
Then teach them other things but not coding! Here in Australia every child of school age has to learn coding. Now tell me that everyone of them will need it? Look beyond computers as coding will soon be automated just like every other job.
Islingtonista , 21 Sep 2017 22:25
If you have never coded then you will not appreciate how labour intensive it is. Coders effectively use line editors to type in, line by line, the instructions. And syntax is critical; add a comma when you meant a semicolon and the code doesn't work properly. Yeah, we use frameworks and libraries of already written subroutines, but, in the end, it is all about manually typing in the code.

Which is an expensive way of doing things (hence the attractions of 'off-shoring' the coding task to low cost economies in Asia).

And this is why teaching kids to code is a waste of time.

Already, AI based systems are addressing the task of interpreting high level design models and simply generating the required application.

One of the first uses templates and a smart chatbot to enable non-tech business people to build their websites. By describe in non-coding terms what they want, the chatbot is able to assemble the necessary components and make the requisite template amendments to build a working website.

Much cheaper than hiring expensive coders to type it all in manually.

It's early days yet, but coding may well be one of the big losers to AI automation along with all those back office clerical jobs.

Teaching kids how to think about design rather than how to code would be much more valuable.

jamesbro -> peter nelson , 21 Sep 2017 21:31
Thick-skinned? Just because you might get a few error messages from the compiler? Call centre workers have to put up with people telling them to fuck off eight hours a day.
Joshua Ian Lee , 21 Sep 2017 21:03
Spot on. Society will never need more than 1% of its people to code. We will need far more garbage men. There are only so many (relatively) good jobs to go around and its about competing to get them.
canprof , 21 Sep 2017 20:53
I'm a professor (not of computer science) and yet, I try to give my students a basic understanding of algorithms and logic, to spark an interest and encourage them towards programming. I have no skin in the game, except that I've seen unemployment first-hand, and want them to avoid it. The best chance most of them have is to learn to code.
Evelita , 21 Sep 2017 14:35
Educating youth does not drive wages down. It drives our economy up. China, India, and other countries are training youth in programming skills. Educating our youth means that they will be able to compete globally. This is the standard GOP stand that we don't need to educate our youth, but instead fantasize about high-paying manufacturing jobs miraculously coming back.

Many jobs, including new manufacturing jobs have an element of coding because they are automated. Other industries require coding skills to maintain web sites and keep computer systems running. Learning coding skills opens these doors.

Coding teaches logic, an essential thought process. Learning to code, like learning anything, increases the brains ability to adapt to new environments which is essential to our survival as a species. We must invest in educating our youth.

cwblackwell , 21 Sep 2017 13:38
"Contrary to public perception, the economy doesn't actually need that many more programmers." This really looks like a straw man introducing a red herring. A skill can be extremely valuable for those who do not pursue it as a full time profession.

The economy doesn't actually need that many more typists, pianists, mathematicians, athletes, dietitians. So, clearly, teaching typing, the piano, mathematics, physical education, and nutrition is a nefarious plot to drive down salaries in those professions. None of those skills could possibly enrich the lives or enhance the productivity of builders, lawyers, public officials, teachers, parents, or store managers.

DJJJJJC , 21 Sep 2017 14:23

A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the supply of American college graduates with computer science degrees is 50% greater than the number hired into the tech industry each year.

You're assuming that all those people are qualified to work in software because they have a piece of paper that says so, but that's not a valid assumption. The quality of computer science degree courses is generally poor, and most people aren't willing or able to teach themselves. Universities are motivated to award degrees anyway because if they only awarded degrees to students who are actually qualified then that would reflect very poorly on their quality of teaching.

A skills shortage doesn't mean that everyone who claims to have a skill gets hired and there are still some jobs left over that aren't being done. It means that employers are forced to hire people who are incompetent in order to fill all their positions. Many people who get jobs in programming can't really do it and do nothing but create work for everyone else. That's why most of the software you use every day doesn't work properly. That's why competent programmers' salaries are still high in spite of the apparently large number of "qualified" people who aren't employed as programmers.