Slashdot Mirror
Software Aesthetics
cconnell writes: "Most software design is lousy. Most software is so bad, in fact, that if it were a bridge, no one in his or her right mind would walk across it. If it were a house, we would be afraid to enter. The only reason we (software engineers) get away with this scam is the general public cannot see inside of software systems. If software design were as visible as a bridge or house, we would be hiding our heads in shame. This article is a challenge to engineers, managers, executives and software users (which is everyone) to raise our standards about software. We should expect the same level of quality and performance in software we demand in physical construction. Instead of trying to create software that works in a minimal sense, we should be creating software that has internal beauty." We had a good discussion on a related topic half a year ago.
The bridge analogy you mention is frequently quoted. And I agree, standards in software design & implementation need to improve - particularly in the shrink-wrap world (I happen to think that in-house bespoke systems are generally better). But the standard response to your standard analogy is that any non-trivial application is hugely more complex than a bridge.
The design of a bridge is basically the extrapolation of a few well known engineering principles to the scale you want. It has 2 requirements : (1) It must reach from one side to the other and (2) it must not fall down. You may have noticed that software is not like that
I remember reading a quote from a famous software scientist (I forget who, maybe Turing?) who said (and I paraphrase here) that we shouldn't be teaching our your computer scientists maths, physics, engineering etc, but rather art and biology. Because programming is an art, it's the creation of something from your own imagination, not like engineering which is simply applying rules. And once created, any large application behaves far more like a living organism than a machine, it grows, it evolves and (often) it gets ill. I always liked that idea
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
I don't get paid to create beauty, especially not internal beauty. I need it to work, not look good.
The bottom line is, software isn't a bridge or a house, people don't trust their lives to my software. If I made software for the medical field or something like that, yes, I would have a different view. But the fact remains that you should only make it bullet-proof when you need to, because you never have time to make everything bullet-proof.
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
Personally, I found Donald Knuth's Literate Programming as well as the Practice of Programming to be wonderful resources for writing better, more beautiful code.
This article is very interesting; the idea of code as an art form isn't new, but this article certainly is aggresive in encouraging it.
But what about "Extreme Programming" - doesn't it encourage the same thing, in terms of self-commenting code? Or does its specific nature essentially negate that aspect?
I think that's a pretty good comparison. Organisms are also buggy creatures with security holes, serious design flaws and legacy code (e.g. the appendix). But hey, life is proprietary. You know, if God/Allah/(insert your Creator here) would just release the source code ...
It's because managers seem to think that any computer related degree means you can design and write software. I'm not being mean here, but if you have a degree in maintaining networks or creating circuit boards, that does not mean you can design software.
I would hate to buy a cpu designed by a software engineer. But apparently buying software built by non-software engineers is ok.
I have found that very few software companys hire only CS majors for software jobs, you look on monster and it says, "Computer related degree required". That's bullshit people.
The cited article doesn't say anything profound. (I got particularly worried when he said, "global variables and GOTO statements ... may be exactly what the software needs to marry form with function," and when his example of beautiful software turned out to be a fragment of Visual Basic. "It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration." --said, tongue at most partly in cheek, by Edsger W. Dijkstra, in "How do we tell truths that might hurt?")
... and there are other programs about which we can say, 'wow, who wrote this!'" He suggests how you can recognize software with The Quality: "every part of the code is transparently clear -- there are no sections that are obscure to gain effciency; everything about it seems familiar; I can imagine changing it, adding some functionality; I am not afraid of it, I will remember it." There are even suggestions, not how to make more beautiful software, but how to learn to do so.
Richard P. Gabriel (whose essay on "Mob Programming" was recently discussed on Slashdot) has a far more profound take on the subject. He has a summary of Christopher Alexander's work on architecture and "The Quality Without A Name," and how it relates to software; you can read the PDF version on his Web site, or Google's cached text version.
Excerpts: "there are programs we can look at and about which we say, 'no way I'm maintaining that kluge'
Gabriel helped start the "patterns movement" in the object-oriented community. Aside from the Design Patterns book, patterns (and especially generative pattern languages) have yet to make a significant inpact on software development. Maybe someday, maybe not.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Most software design is lousy. Most software is so bad, in fact, that if it were a bridge, no one in his or her right mind would walk across it. If it were a house, we would be afraid to enter. The only reason we (software engineers) get away with this scam is the general public cannot see inside of software systems. If software design were as visible as a bridge or house, we would be hiding our heads in shame.
You've apparently never seen how a house is built. While the exterior finish looks very nice to the final occupants, the construction process and actual "code" (if you will) of a new home is quite sloppy; easily the equal to typical ugly code.
Tract housing, in particular, are built as quickly and cheaply as possible. Wires are run rapidly, without much care to particular placement. Builders leave lunch trash inside wall interiors. Finishes are half-baked, details are of little concern. The materials used are the cheapest possible.
Just like a program, what the buyer sees is the outside finish, and that's basis for their purchase decision normally. But look at how they are actually built, and you'd be afraid.
People cut corners if they think they get away with it, be it bridges, houses, or programs.
ShoutingMan.com
Most software is so bad, in fact, that if it were a bridge, no one in his or her right mind would walk across it. If it were a house, we would be afraid to enter. The only reason we (software engineers) get away with this scam is the general public cannot see inside of software systems. If software design were as visible as a bridge or house, we would be hiding our heads in shame.
I'm sorry, Michael, but I must disagree. This weekend I had two wonderful counterexamples.
We had our house built, in fine detail. That included making decisions about such seeming trivia as the knobs on the closet doors. It was a pain in the ass. But we got a helluva well-built house out of it.
One part of this detailed process was selecting a builder. We knew from wandering thru unfinished houses that there were some real corner-cutters out there. It wasn't that their houses didn't meet code or fell down, but there's the letter of the rule, the spirit of the rule, and (best) is the urge to do it right. Our builder did it right.
But he's the exception, not the rule. Open up the drywall on any house (or better yet, try to install some paneling) and you'll be surprised how much your house is out of true. We all get it, we all live with it.
Even as well-done as ours is, tho, there are still some things that are hard to do. Like the pain we had this weekend running 10-baseT cable and coax to my teenagers rooms. Too damned many solid things in the way. Yeah, we didn't think of it in advance -- and twenty years ago, who did? Is this a design flaw? Nope, even the best of houses has errors.
The other example from this weekend is building a computer for my sister. She doesn't need much; an older system will do the trick. So I went down into the Eschasi's Basement of Dead Computers and started scrounging stuff together.
You know what? The mechanical design on most legacy PCs is light years ahead of their more `advanced' cousins, the workstation. My SS-10 is much harder to work on than the average PC. And let's not think about some of the other old systems out there...DECStation 3100, anyone?
Why are PCs relatively good? Because they're designed to be cheap to assemble, and because economies of scale have helped made components standardized. So you get simple parts that plug together simply. For a counter-example, look at any automobile. It doesn't use standard components, so parts are custom-designed for ease of assembly.
A modern PC, in spite of idiocy like the BIOS and DOS's legacy, is a thing of technical beauty. And so is some of the software we write.
What distinguishes the good from the bad is (as so many have pointed out here) is (a) what you have to work with, and (b) what you're incented to do. With good tools and good standards and an environment where the software lifecycle is understood, good code is written. I do it damned near every day.
Hmm I fear posting so late nobody might read this, but well I'll post eitherway ahead.
:)
:o) With source comments allied to the bridge example, /* we added this plank here, since if not the bridge will always fall down when poked 3 times in 1 second distances, we don't know why, but with it vanished. */
The fundamental goes about development costs. The article descripes the problem very well in software people can't see inside like in houses or bridges. Okay with OpenSource they can, but still most users won't
The matter is as a project making super stable software is far to expensive to be compatitive. Software for airplanes and for nuclear powerplants is tested with other means than 'normal' software. These software is usually tested with a kind of profiler support, until it is taken sure that -every- branch of the software has at least been taken once, and every loop has at least looped 3 times during the test. This requires high qualified testers, beeing able to read and understand the source, and more important time, time, time, time, which is a lot of money. For high security systems this pays of course of. But again people cannot see how the bridge is constructed, say you will be buying a bridge, and it's a black box for you, you can't see it's fundament, you can't see how it's pillars are constructud, it's just a path from one shore to the other. Now for which of the two will you decide? Okay you'll evaluate both, and ran on both bridges a few times up and down, maybe send or two a cars over both. They're stand you're test, and you can't see the one that's build with super high quality means, build of concentrate and secured with steel cables, and the one that's a chaotic assembly of wood added and added to it until it did no longer break if the builders tried to walk over it. Now the first costs 10 times as much, which one will be bought? (remember you can't see the wood vs. steel)
So for software, everybody wants graphics, GUIs, 3d, easy click and features, and features, and features, nobody wants a plain but constructed very carefully but boring/simply interface. Your costumers will need the features, are at least think they can't live without and leave you for featurefull wood bridge.
OpenSource at least eases a little, since people -can- look how the bridge or the house is constructed, but really take yourself, did you ever looked in example at the sources of xfree, gcc, bash or any of the applications you use each day?
In example when exploring the sources of the linux kernel I've a subjective of course safe feeling, most of the stuff looks nicely constructed, and is not super complicated. On the other hand other (opensource) software I looked at, you shudder, but think, well it runs aster all so I just better wont touch it. I'll not call names for this catagory since this would be just a flame, and maybe only because I didn't understand some stuff. But trust me for a quite some closed applications if you could look at the source (supposing you know C(++)) you would never want to start that application again
In this case the construciton engineer would investigate and proparly discover it's some kind of harmonic vibrations that cause it to fall down, but for the (commercial) software enginner there is no time or money for this, he couldn't explain his chief they used up 6 weeks to find out why a plank more changed the harmonic oscillations, he just adds a plank and the problem vanished, so the problem is finished within the available resources.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
I believe that it cost about $8000 when all is said and done for each line of code placed in the space shuttle software.
That's an expensive "{"
:)
If software were a bridge you'd use it to cross an otherwise unpassable gap between two points, and NOTHING else. There would be 2 or three basic designs which nobody deviated from and nobody would have seen much innovation in decades if not centuries.
Software is in better shape than this dumb article suggests. You can get better software, but you have to pay for it and folks don't want to. Pay in open source terms means have less software around than you need with developers concentrating their efforts on fewer projects.