Slashdot Mirror
Code Quality In Open and Closed Source Kernels
Diomidis Spinellis writes "Earlier today I presented at the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering a research paper comparing the code quality of Linux, Windows (its research kernel distribution), OpenSolaris, and FreeBSD. For the comparison I parsed multiple configurations of these systems (more than ten million lines) and stored the results in four databases, where I could run SQL queries on them. This amounted to 8GB of data, 160 million records. (I've made the databases and the SQL queries available online.) The areas I examined were file organization, code structure, code style, preprocessing, and data organization. To my surprise there was no clear winner or loser, but there were interesting differences in specific areas. As the summary concludes: '..the structure and internal quality attributes of a working, non-trivial software artifact will represent first and foremost the engineering requirements of its construction, with the influence of process being marginal, if any.'"
That is if you can figure out which of the 12 links are the actual FA and which are supporting material.
That you have neither capitalized on your shared synergies, nor have you recovered your cherished paradigms.
Oh. Wait. This is about propeller-head stuff rather than management stuff. Lemme get my "Handbook of postmodern buzz words"...
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
Final line in the paper: "Therefore, the most we can read from the overall balance of marks is that open source development approaches do not produce software of markedly higher quality than proprietary software development."
Interesting, but not shocking for those who have worked with disciplined commercial teams. I wonder what the results would be in less critical areas than the kernel, say certain types of applications.
"The OpenSolaris kernel was a welcomed surprise: it was the only body of source code that did not require any extensions to CScout in order to compile."
Given that the Solaris kernel has been compiled by two very different compilers (Sun Studio, of course, and gcc), it isn't that surprising. Because of the compiler issues, it is likely the most ANSI compliant of the bunch.
Well, you lose your bet, been over five minutes and no anti Microsoft screeds let alone spelling it with a $.
Just so everyone understands, the tactic used here is known as "Poisoning the well." The idea is the discredit an argument's source before the argument is presented. Here, our AC friend is trying to ward off criticism of Microsoft by insinuating that anyone who does so is a 13 year old "Slashbot."
The fallacy is in the fact that even someone who is 13 and often goes along with the Slashdot zeitgeist may still have legitimate criticisms of Microsoft, such as the fact that Microsoft sucks giant hairy donkey balls.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I haven't seen anybody else comment on the fact that the statement that the quality of the code had more to do with the engineering than the process through which the code was developed is quite interesting.
;)
From my personal experiences, it typically seems code is written to solve a specific need. Said another way, in the pursuit of solving a given problem, whatever engineering is required to solve the problem must be accomplished - if existing solutions to problems can be recognized, they can be used (for example, Gang of Four/GOF patterns), otherwise, the problem must have a new solution engineered.
Seeing as how there are teams successfully developing projects (with both good, and bad code quality) using traditional OO/UML modeling, the software development life-cycle, capability maturity model, scrum, agile, XP/pair programming, and a myriad of other methods, it would seem to be that what the author is saying is, it didn't necessarily matter which method was used, it was how the solution was actually built (the.. robustness of the engineering) that mattered.
Further clarification on the difference between engineering and "process" would strengthen this paper.
I went to a Microsoft user group event some time ago - and the presenter described what they believed the process of development of code quality looked like. They suggested the progression of code quality was something like:
crap -> slightly less crappy -> decent quality -> elegant code.
Sometimes, your first solution at a given problem is elegant.. sometimes, it's just crap.
Anyways, just my two cents. Maybe two cents too many..
SixD
Sorry, I've been in the business for over 25 years and had to hear one pin head after another spout about code quality or productivity. Its all subjective at best.
The worst looking piece of spaghetti code could have fewer bugs, be more efficient, and be easier to maintain than the most modular object oriented code.
What is the "real" measure of quality or productivity? Is it LOC? No. Is it overall structure? no. Is it the number of "globals?" maybe not.
The only real measure of code is the pure and simple darwinian test of survival. If it lasts and works, its good code. If it is constantly being rewritten or is tossed, it is bad code.
I currently HATE (with a passion) the current interpretation of the bridge design pattern so popular these days. Yea, it means well, but it fails in implementation by making implementation harder and increasing the LOC benchmark. The core idea is correct, but it has been taken to absurd levels.
I have code that is over 15 years old, almost untouched, and still being used in programs today. Is it pretty? Not always. Is it "object oriented" conceptually, yes, but not necessarily. Think the "fopen,"fread," file operations. Conceptually, the FILE pointer is an object, but it is a pure C convention.
In summation:
Code that works -- good.
Code that does not -- bad.
How useful is it to write something about computers that needs to be translated for the slashdot audience? Jargon is a great way to provide specialized information to insiders quickly and efficiently, but this is slashdot. If slashdot readers need for you to restate your description of a problem or observation related to the Linux kernel (even if that description is taken out of context), could it be that the paper could be written in a more open manner? The quote you provided from your paper seems to speak to a narrow audience; how narrow must your audience be, however, if it excludes a good portion of slashdot's readers?
If I seem overly critical, I do not mean to, it is only that I hate to see good, useful research made less accessible to non-academics by the use of academic language.