Slashdot Mirror
Has Software Development Improved?
earnest_deyoung asks: "Twenty-five years ago Frederick Brooks laid out a vision of the future of software engineering in "No Silver Bullet." At the time he thought improvements in the process of software creation were most likely to come from object-oriented programming, of-the-shelf components, rapid prototyping, and cultivation of truly great designers. I've found postings on /. where people tout all sorts of design tools, from languages like Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, and Smalltalk to design aids and processes like UML and eXtreme Programming. I'm in a Computer Science degree program, and I keep wondering what "improvements" over the last quarter century have actually brought progress to the key issue: more quickly and more inexpensively developing software that's more reliable?"
Not too sure if it an improvement, but I know some people use languages in which programs can be proven to work like ML. Of course if you actually want to write a program which *does* something it is probably not for you.
While I'm only in my mid 20's and I'm no veteran by any stretch, it seems like there have been huge leaps in programmer productivity made possible by things like OOP and off-the-shelf components.
However, I think they're equally balanced out by huger demands on programmers. Once it's realized that a programmer can do 2, 3, or 10 times as much work by using more efficient methods management is quick to pile on 2, 3, or 10 times as much work!
This isn't really unique to programming either. I think it's universally applicable to any area where technology permits greater productivity.
For example, look at all those ads from the 50's. Things like the microwave, the vaccuum, and the dishwasher were supposed to usher in a new era of leisure. Do we have more leisure? No, we have less, as those luxuries become necessities and we cram in more activities in out new-found time in order to stay competitive.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Now I'm sure that some people out there will rave about how great XP is, but reading the Mythical Man Month and working on any large, or even medium scale project with a long term life-span will tell you that while some elements of XP are good, these are the ones that existed before.
1) Write your test cases up front... this is ages old. XP isn't as rigourous as others who say "and make sure other people write them".
2) Pair Programming, works for two people of equal ability. The two headed surgical team from the Mythical man month is a much more effective way of using two heads.
Basically things like XP sum up how long computing has to go to become an engineering discipline. In every other engineering subject there are critical elements:
Requirements
Design
Testing and approval of design
implementation
testing of implementation (throughout implementation)
Delivery.
Maintainance
For a construction project all of these elements are mapped out well in advance, which is why the construction industry can work on lower margins.
To become better requires not a "Silver Bullet" as Brookes says, the technology won't make the improvement. Its actually about people applying the rules _rather_ than looking for the Silver Bullet. Some projects succeed, others fail, there are reasons for the failures and the successes. But rarely do we learn from either.
XP is the embodyment of the non-engineering approach to computing that pervades this marketplace. The idea that you can build it wrong and change, don't design "code and check", have a unit test written by a bad coder to check his own bad code.
Brookes is right. At the end of the day computing success is down to a realisation of the soft-skills allied to technical talent.
If you have 10 brilliant people leading 100 average people... fire the 100 and support the 10 to do the delivery effectively. Make sure they follow a process, and make sure that the requirements are defined and change as little as possible. Make sure designs are verified, make sure code is reviewed.
Sure its less exciting that "just coding" but in the end it takes less time, costs less to maintain and delivers what the customer wants.
Engineering is a discipline, XP is just glorified hacking, only by becomming disciplined will software improve.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
You must be kidding.
Of course it is now easier to create software than before.
First of all, source management software wasnt available 25 years ago. Try creating a huge piece of software without any way to rollback changes, share the same source tree with other developpers, etc... (cvs/sourcesafe/starteam/etc)
Second, profiling tools. Hey, you want to know where that memory leak is? Where that CPU bottleneck is? Pretty hard to do when you were coding in cobol many years ago... Doing the same is way easier now with OptimizeIt and stuff like that.
I could go on and on but I must leave for work =)
I've always believed that one day some bright college kid is going to come up with a completely different style of computer language and interface, and when that happens we will all slap our heads and go "D'oh! So that's how we should be doing it! Obvious!"
Like the web and P2P, the most influential ideas are often quite simple, and "obvious".
What I have observed in the course of software development, in various companies, is that the management dictates that "thou shalt follow said process" and there will be the obligatory design reviews, spiffy diagrams, an all the huffing and puffing. But when the smoke clears, it still comes down to 9 months of work compressed into 3 months of actual work time, and everyone shifts into a hack 'n slash mode. The processes in place fail because of a lack or adequate time and inflexibility of deadlines.
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
Brooks, in the "No Silver Bullet" essay referenced above, stated that there is both essential and accidential complexity in software development, and because of that there never would be a "silver bullet" to slay the software "monster". However, there are fundamental practices that increase the likelihood of success and fundamental pitfalls that every project faces. And, in the end, the root causes of most failed IT projects are human factors; in fact, you could just cite the "seven deadly sins"--pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, sloth--and probably hit the nail on the head.
In conjuction with that, far, far too many practitioners in the IT field lack one or more of the following:
To quote George Santayana (who is often misquoted):
Software engineering is hard enough--with all the human issues--without further handicapping ourselves with ignorance of all that has been already discovered and documented. Yet that is exactly what most IT workers do. Until we find a way to solve _that_ problem, the failure rate for IT projects will remain high indeed. ..bruce..
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
We don't know enough to do software engineering yet. If materials in the physical world were as poorly understood, and changed as fast as they do in the software world they couldn't do it there either.
If requirements were as poorly understood and changed as fast in the physical world as they do in the software world construction would cost a fortune and most big buildings would never get finished (or would never be fit for purpose).
People who say things like "Make sure the requirements don't change" are living in a fantasy world where they want to blame their inability to deliver on someone else.
The rules haven't changed, get a high quality small team, get good access to a user who knows what they want and grow a system from small beginnings, checking at each stage that it all works and that quality is high.
Its all there in Brooks.
Its no surprise that the guys pushing the agile methodologies were all very succesful designers and developers anyway.
A top-notch staff and a world-class leader, I'm guessing, is significantly more expensive than your average software development team. Therefore, it ain't exactly cheap.
On the other hand, it's _probably_ as cheap as good and fast is gonna get.
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
Johnson and Rich were also proponents of having Lockheed engineers maintain their aircraft instead of having military personnel do it. Using Lockheed engineers would save a ton of money because they aren't rotated and therefore don't need to be retrained. Sure, Lockheed would get some money out of the deal, but not as much as the gov't would save.
The Skunk Works wasn't perfect, but overall they were pretty good with money under Kelly and Ben.
Now you wouldn't think of developing on UNIX with anything but GCC and the associated build tools.
Actually a lot of people would. The quality of code generated by the SUNpro and MIPSpro compilers on SPARC and MIPS processors respectively leaves GCC in the dust. GCC really only comes into its own on x86, because Linux (or *BSD) on x86 is the platform that it gets used most on. GCC is portable, yes, but it isn't built for compiling high-performance code. So you need to ask yourself whether getting binaries that execute 2x as fast is worth using a slightly less well known compiler for.
This could be a sign that today's programmers use "objects" or some other abstraction instead of "algorithm" as their conceptual building-block of software development. That scary, Arabic word is unpopular with guys who just want to "call methods on object classes" or whatever the new jargon is.
From one point of view, only a tiny minority of today's programmers ever need to create "new algorithms"- so much documented study has gone on in that area, you'd only be reinventing the same wheels.
That can be a sign of maturity, that the field has evolved to the point where specialists can go their thing, and not force everyone else to understand the trickier aspects.
Looking at your examples- data converters particualrly- I don't see much room for new algorithms. From a restrictive, Computer Science standpoint, nearly everything you do will be isomorphic with a known existing algorithm (modulo "trivial", "cosmetic" variations, of course)
Naturally, people who don't understand algorithms will have difficulty selecting the ones they should re-use, and are at risk of using them wrongly. But that's a consequence of newer, user-friendly development tools- with a lower barrier to entry, less competent persons can enter the profession, and still muddle by.