Slashdot Mirror
Intuitive Bug-less Software?
Starlover writes "In the latest java.sun.com feature at Sun's Java site, Victoria Livschitz takes on some ideas of Jaron Lanier on how to make software less buggy. She makes a couple of interesting points. First, making software more 'intuitive' for developers will reduce bugs. Second, software should more closely simulate the real world, so we should be expanding the pure object-oriented paradigm to allow for a richer set of basic abstractions -- like processes and conditions. The simple division of structures into hierarchies and collections in software too simple for our needs according to Livschitz. She offers a set of ideas explaining how to get 'there' from here. Comments?"
I would love to use a C/C++/Java-like language that utilizes pure objects, versus the mish-mashy hybrid typing that exists in most languages that I've used. To me, Livschitz's observation about how programmers work in metaphors, while mathematicians work in pure syntax, is very true: I breeze through all my programming and software engineering classes, but struggle mightily with math courses (save boolean algebra, but I digress).
I, for one, would like software writing to resemble (really resemble) building structures with Legos.
"software should more closely simulate the real world"
Because the real world doesn't have bugs, right? Our company doesn't have project management software yet - but we're working on it. Personally, I don't think it's worth it until we fix the real world project management issues that this software is supposed to help with. Maybe that's not quite the point, but it raised my eyebrows. (Which I'm thinking about shaving off.)
It might be me, but I've seen more bugs created because of assumptions made about abstractions, or because someone was used to a pre-made abstraction and didn't learn how things actually worked.
Want to make better software? How about actually scheduling enough QA time to test it? When development time runs over schedule, push the damned ship date back!
I find it enlightening that this article does not include the word "test" once. Rather than spending a lot of time hoping that the purest use of OO technology or some other fancy boondoggle is going to make software better actually writing tests that describe the expected behaviour of the program is a damn fine way to make sure that it actually works.
:-)
Picking just one program from my experience, POPFile: intially we had no test suite, it quickly became apparent that the entire project was unmanageable without one and I stopped all development to write from scratch a test suite for 100% of the code (currently stands around 98% code coverage). It's particularly apparent when you don't have all day to spend fixing bugs because the project is "in your spare time" that it's vital to have fully automatic testing. You simply don't have time to waste fixing bugs (of course if you are being paid for it then you do
If you want to be really extreme then write the tests first and then write the program that stops the tests from breaking.
John.
Well, the trick to "anticipating everything a person will do that will inadvertantly blow up your application" is to keep it as simple as possible, specifically by restricting how the user interacts with the app. If the user can only press one of 3 buttons or put a fixed number of characters into a text box, it's not impossible to code for every possibility. In theory, you could build a complex application from lots of very simple (and easy to test and write) parts interacting in a well-defined manner.
In practice, this almost never happens. Most developers are willing to trade perfect code that'll take four months for mostly-perfect code that will be ready for the deadline.
To sum it all up, a properly designed and written program should never choke on user input. If it doesn't, that means you cut corners somewhere. Don't blame it on the user.
Karma: Contrapositive
Man I hate this.
How many times do we have to have fundamental truths reiterated?
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil"
I'd submit that nearly every bit of non-intuitive code is written because it "should be faster" than the intuitive of equivalent function. Just stop. Write the code the way it needs to be written. Decide if it's fast enough (Not "as fast as it could be" but "Fast enough") and then optimize if necessary.
A lot of the article is common sense. But I have been perturbed by the ease with which a lot of people seen to claim that OO is the end all and be all of everything.
:)
Even on simple project I have sometimes found myself designing to fit into Java's OO and not to fit the problem. Its really a language issue when it comes down to it. I am most comfortable in C, so I start writing a Java app and can feel myself being pulled into squeezing round objects into square holes. You have to then step back and realize whats happening before you go to far. I think this is the main source of "design bugs' from myself either ignoring the strengths of a system (not taking advantage of Java's OO) or trying to squeezing a design that is comfortable without billions of objects into some vast OO system, in effect falling into the weakest parts of a language.
Its probably very similar to the ways people screw up a second spoken language, mis-conjugating verbs and whatnot -using the style they are already most familiar with.
So with that its such ridiculusly common sense to say we need an all incompasing uber-language that is completely intuitive, I jsut would like to see someone do it rather than go on about it.
Why not experiment with added every feature to Java that you feel it lacks to see if you can achieve that? because then you end up with perl
Seriously programming languages aren't that way by and large because they have to be designed to fight whatever problems exist that they are created to take care of. It a bit foolish to say we need a language that is perfect for everything, instead you look at what your problems are and develope a language to fight those. Invariably you end up with failings in other areas and the incremental process continues.
I like to compare it to civil engineering.
:) This certainly has been proved by products like Mozilla that were probably crap when first released but definitely has matured into a solid product (imho).
Civil engineering is superior for 2 reasons. 1) Time of QA and 2) Dependability of materials.
In short, look at the time it takes to QA a bridge that is built. Not only is there QA done from design to finish, but real load testing is done. Although software does have serious QA, the time spent QAing civil engineering products is far more as a ratio to time spent actually building.
Dependability. The thing with building things is that you can always take it for granted that the nuts, bolts and wires you use have a certain amount of pressure and force they can handle. Why? Because of the distinct same-ness behind every nut, bolt and wire ever built. One nut is the same as the other nut. All nuts are the same.
In software, not all "nuts" are the same. One persons implementation of a string search can widely vary. Yes, we do have libraries that handle this issue, but there is a higher chance of error in software construction because of the ratio of libraries (third-party) used that are not as robust.
Lastly, one reason why software hasn't been addressed with the same urgency is because of the consequences (or lack of). When a bridge is poorly built, people die. Laws go into affect, companies go out of business, and many people pay the price. When software starts failing, a patch is applied until the next piece of it starts failing when another patch is applied. In the end the software becomes a big piece of patched-up piece of crap.
One advantage, though, of software is that a new version can be released with all the patches in mind and redesigned.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Well.. some interesting ideas in there mainly flawed.
.Net ae eliminating may of those issues.
1) The concept that software should 'feel' right to the developer. First of all this cannot be formalized in any sense of the word. Secondly even if it could be it is focused on the wrong target, it should feel right to the end user/problem domain experts. More about this in point 2.
2) Software tools should model the real world. Well.. duh. Any time you build software you are modeling a small part of the real world. THe next question is: what part of the real world. The reason that OOP has not progressed farther is that the real world is so complex that you can only build some generic general purpose tools and then have a programmer use those tools to solve a particular subset. So the programmer must first know what the problem domain is and what the tool set is capable of.
3) Programmers should be average. Absolutely not. In order to model the real world a good programmer must be able to retrain in an entire new problem domain in a few months. This is what is missing in may cases, most people do not have that level of flexibility, motivation or intelligence and it is difficult to measure or train this skill.
4) Programmers shouldn't have to know math. Wrong again. Programming IS math. And with out a basic understanding of math a programmer really does not understand what is going on. This is like saying engineers shouldn't need to know physics.
5) The term 'bug' is used very loosely. There are at least 3 levels of bugs out there:
a) Requirements/conceptual bugs. If the requirements are wrong based on misunderstanding you can write great software that is still crap because it does not solve the correct problem. This can only be solved by being a problem domain expert, or relying heavily on experts (a good programmer is humble and realize that this reliance must exist).
b) Design flaws. Such as using the wrong search, bad interface, poor secuirty models. This is where education and experience come in.
c) Implementation bugs, such as fence post errors and referencing null pointer. THis can be largely automated. Jave, Perl and
In short, a bad simplistic article which will probably cause more harm than good.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Having watched many people struggle with physics, chemistry, and biology courses, I'm not sure that the real world is all that inituitive. Even in the non-scientific informal world, many people have incorrect intuitive models for how things work. For example, many people think that increasing the setting on the thermostat will make the room warm up faster (vs. warming at a constant rate, but reaching a higher temperature eventually). And my wife still thinks that turning off the TV will disrupt the functioning of the VCR.
Another problem is that the real world is both analog and approximate, while the digital world calls for hard-edged distinctions. In the real world, close-enough is good enough for many physical activities (driving inside the white lines, parking near a destination, cooking food long enough). In contrast, if I am moving or removing files from a file system, I need an algorithm that clearly distinguishes between those in the selection set and those outside it.
I like the idea of intuitive programming, but suspect that computers are grounded in logic and that logic is not an intuitive concept.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
- I accept that humans are fallible, and as long as software is produced by humans, or by anything humans create to produce software for them, the software will have bugs.
:)
- I accept that there is no magic bullet to programming, no simple, easy way to create bug-free software.
- I will not add unrelated features to programs that do something else. A program should concentrate on one thing and one thing only. If I want a program to do something unrelated, I will write a different program.
- I will design the structure of the program, and freeze its feature set, before I begin coding. Once coding has begun, new features will not be added to the design. Only when the program is finished will I think about adding new features to the next version. Anyone who demands new features be added after coding has begun will be savagely beaten.
- A program is only finished when the time and effort it would take to squash the remaining obscure bugs exceeds the value of adding new features... by a factor of at least two.
- If I find that the design of my program creates significant problems down the line, I will not kludge something into place. I will redesign the program.
- I will document everything thoroughly, including the function and intent of all data structures.
- I will wish for a pony, as that will be about as useful as wishing that people would follow the above rules.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I have tried to learn Perl, and I simply do not like it as a programmer. (I do not like it, which is why I choose not to use it, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work others... if you like it, then great. I don't want to start a flame war)
As a programmer, I prefer C/C++ because things are pretty explicit, ie. you need to define your variables explicitly before you use them, and there is no guessing involved.
However, with Perl, there are so many things that if they aren't present, they are assumed. It is very "hacky" and makes it very hard to read. When things are assumed, to me as a programmer, it just means it creates uncertainty, and this inevitably leads to bugs.
The same goes with most scripting languages, like PHP. I use PHP because it is very easy to use, but it also suffers from similar bugs (ie. being able to use variables before explicitly declaring them, etc).
Like I said, if you love Perl, that's great, and a good Perl programmer will know all this, and will probably make very few bugs, just like a good C programmer will make very few bugs in their code. My point is that for the lesser Perl programmers, it is very easy to write code that is simply horrible.
The zero-th reason software is buggy is the state of requirements. I've seen so many requirements documents that lack any form of internal consistency.
These issues don't seem to be addressed until the rubber hits the road - when code starts compiling and demos are given. The pressure to market builds, as these issues are being resolved. Unfortunately, that's when The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes, scrapping much of the existing codebase.
How can a programmer make "their own code solid" when the work it is supposed to perform is not clearly defined?
Cheers,
Slak
What bothers me about statements like this, is that no one is suggesting that perhaps our estimation and budgeting methods are off.
What if someone scheduled one week and allocate $100 for design and construction of a skyscraper, and when the engineers failed to deliver, who should be blamed? The engineers?!
...richie - It is a good day to code.
The first two hits in the article point out that java was architected with security in mind. This is simply true, and hardly a shameless plug.
The next hit is in the question "How well do you think modern programming languages, particularly the Java language, have been able to help developers hide complexity?"
The answer starts with the word "Unfortunately" and goes on to explain that not even OO languages reduce complexity enough when an app gets big enough. The word "Java" isn't used once in the answer. That certainly isn't a plug.
The final hit is in the question "Do you have any concrete advice for Java developers? And are you optimistic about the direction software is headed?"
Note some good general purpose advice is given in the answer, and the term "Java" isn't used once in the answer.
Because of human nature and because of the extreme complexity of the ideas we attempt to encapsulate in non-trivial software, buglessness is not an achievable goal, regardless of the methodology of the day. The interviewee seems to think that there is some magic bullet waiting (in new tools or methodologies I guess). This shows a fundamental rift between her and reality, and makes her opinions fundamentally suspect.
The goal in any real software project is to meet customer's (and I use that in the broadest sense) expectations adequately. What is adequate? That depends on the software. A user of a word processor for instance is likely to not mind a handful of UI bugs or an occasional crash. A sales organization is going to expect 24/7 performance from their Sales Automation Software.
The canny programmer (or programming group) should aim herself to produce software that is "good enough" for the target audience, with, perhaps, a little extra for safety's sake (and programmer pride).
Of course their are real differences among the tools and methodologies used in getting the most "enough" per programmer hour. Among the one's I've come to believe are:
1. Use the most obvious implementation of any module unless performance requirements prohibit.
2. Have regular code-reviews, preferably before every check-in. I've been amazed at how this simple policy reduces the initial bug load of code. Having to explain one's code to another programmer has a very salutary effect on code quality.
3. Hire a small number of first class programmers rather than a larger number of lesser programmers. In my experience 10% of the programmers tend to do 90% of the useful work in large software projects.
4. Try to get the technical staff doing as much programming as possible. Don't bog them down with micromanagement, frequent meetings, complex coding conventions, arbitrary documentation rules, and anything else that slows them down.
5. Test, test, test!
I fear your comment is going to get lost in the crowd of people who don't understand Perl. The people who don't see that Perl maps exceptionally well to many problem spaces.
Groking Perl seems to be like groking pointers in C. Some people seem to be simply born without the part of the brain that understands them.
Perl is context-aware/intuitive. It understands the need to be able to easily take data from any source, chop it up, mangle it, and then easily spit it back out. There isn't much to learning Perl syntax, but it will insist that you memorize some traditional things, like operator precidence, syntax, and the basic perl functions. Not hard at all when you get down to it.
Perl is inclusive. There is definitely more than one way to do it. This is a "good thing", because one way that works, might not be best way. Similiar problems, sometimes require a slightly different solution. Perl has online documentation out the wahzoo. perldoc rocks, and you have a list of up to date books that rival O'Reilly's (many times by the same authors). Perl modules have built in unit testing. Perl is a language and a culture that values and facilitates "testing".
Pattern recognition, is something Perl excels at. Especially the type of pattern recognition and logic handling that is required for most applications. Need something fancier? Like fuzzy? Neural Net? Look to CPAN. Using regular expressions in Perl takes one line of code, no need to worry about making a regex struct or object, then compiling the syntax, and then running the match, and then deallocating the regex struct.
You're right, the same people who pan Perl for being opaque are typically the same that use method overloading, polymorphism, and other abstraction and obfuscation techniques and then claim their code is more readable, and easier to understand. They also tend to be the same people who believe Perl is only good for one off scripts and hacks. To which I say that is only the beginning of what Perl is great at.
No.
The syntax of all mainstream programming languages is rather esoteric. Mathematicians, who feel comfortable with purely abstract syntax, spend years of intense study mastering certain skills. But unlike mathematicians, programmers are taught to think not in terms of absolute proof, but in terms of working metaphors. To understand how a system works, a programmer doesn't build a system of mathematical equations, but comes up with real-life metaphor correctness which she or he can "feel" as a human being. Programmers are "average" folks; they have to be, since programming is a profession of millions of people, many without college degrees. Esoteric software doesn't scale to millions, not in people, and not in lines of code.
In the article, her solution to error is to increase the tolerance for error, making direct mistakes unlikely or impossible because there is plenty of 'slop' in the system and you can't get a wrong answer. Theoretically, this lowers precision and increases overhead of the system. Her solution to the difficulty in understanding programming is making it so any idiot can understand it.
To make an analogy, a programmer is like a bucket. Her solution to filling a bucket (writing code) is to submerge it inside a larger pool. In that situation, any old bucket will do, the bucket will always be full when placed in a pool; but you will then have to carry the entire pool if you want it to move. The question then becomes how much you can carry, not the performance of the bucket.
She may well be right about intuitive programming, being easier to use, and that making programming more like regular language with intuitive syntax could be beneficial (more like programming a Star Trek AI computer than what we have now). But this would also shift the nature of the problem from design and architecture to performance and underlying stability issues. Any fool could write code without knowing how it worked. Some shortcuts may be appropriate in certain cases, but to rely on these kinds of methodologies in critical situations could lead to disaster and has a built in unreliability factor. If some company thinks they can buy this system and then expect bullet proof security, reliability and high performance, they are probably in for a rude awakening. They should expect 'good enough' performance, which is what they are getting already.
The only way to do exceptionally good work in a complex situation is to have the knowledge and experience for what you are doing at all levels and the ability to execute. Allowing programmers to be ignorant of how a computer works doesn't seem like a solution to me. The real problem with crappy software is companies that don't care and consumers who don't know any better.
As with many (all?) other skills, I think two things probably dominate developer ability:
Please note the key distinction there: one of these factors relates to a developer's potential, the other to what he can actually achieve in reality.
To determine a good strategy for building a team of developers, you then have to consider the relative work rates of developers of different abilities, and the nature of the work. For example, most code is developed from relatively straightforward design and programming tasks, but often you have small areas that require much more skill to design and implement effectively. These areas require a more able developer/team, but OTOH we also know that such people can be anything up to 10x as productive as a "typical" developer on the more mundane work. Of course, employing such people also costs rather more.
So what does this suggest about our choice of programming language? Well, if your development task is going to require any complex design or implementation work, you're going to need a sufficient number of top end people to do it, and you're going to need suitably powerful and flexible tools to help them.
For the remainder of the work, highly skilled developers will still be happy using those powerful, flexible tools, but they may be in short supply, and chances are most of your team will be more average in ability, and thus more average in their ability to avoid mistakes. Thus you may need a tool that reduces the possibility or impact of those mistakes, even at the expense of some power and flexibility (which those developers will rarely if ever use anyway).
Strangely enough, this has always been one of the reasons I've liked C++ as a practical, real-world language. While it has plenty of theoretical flaws, it does combine both raw power and flexibility with a decent set of abstraction tools to keep routine development away from the most dangerous areas. You can have your top developers write subsystems using all the cunning tricks they need, but keep everyone else using only clearly defined interfaces. Given a little basic training (sadly a lacking commodity in the C++ programming world, but not beyond any competent manager to arrange -- this is the second factor above) the vast majority of "typical" developers can avoid the really dangerous programming practices, and take advantage of the neat stuff the top guys made for them. When those top guys have finished developing really neat stuff, they can just become super-efficient people doing the mundane stuff using the same tool.
Bottom line: for most real world projects, you need to judge a language by both what it's capable of when used by a really good guy and how well it looks after Joe Developer. If one language isn't enough to do both and your project needs them, maybe you need more than one language and some good glue, but that's a whole different topic. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.