Slashdot Mirror


More Than Coding Errors Behind Bad Software

An anonymous reader writes "SANS' just-released list of the Top 15 most dangerous programming errors obscures the real problem with software development today, argues InfoWeek's Alex Wolfe. In More Than Coding Mistakes At Fault In Bad Software, he lays the blame on PC developers (read: Microsoft) who kicked the time-honored waterfall model to the curb and replaced it not with object-oriented or agile development but with a 'modus operandi of cramming in as many features as possible, and then fixing problems in beta.' He argues that youthful programmers don't know about error-catching and lack a sense of history, suggesting they read Fred Brooks' 'The Mythical Man-Month,' and Gerald Weinberg's 'The Psychology of Computer Programming.'"

10 of 726 comments (clear)

  1. Perfection Has a Price by alain94040 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most common errors: SQL injection, command injection, cleartext transmission of Sensitive Information, etc.

    People make mistakes. Software needs to ship, preferably yesterday.

    How much would it cost to have perfect software? I happen to have worked in an industry that requires perfect coding. So I can imagine what it would look like if Microsoft tried it.

    The debugger would cost half a million dollar per seat (gdb is free). There would be an entire industry dedicated to analyzing your source code and doing all kinds of proofs, coverage, what-if analysis and other stuff that require Ph.Ds to understand the results.

    The industry I'm referring to is the chip industry. Hardware designers code pretty much like software developers (except the languages they use are massively parallel, but apart from that, they use the same basic constructs). Hardware companies can't afford a single mistake because once the chip goes to fab, that's it. No patches like software, no version 1.0.1.

    It's just not practical. Let the NSA order special versions of Office that cost 10 times the price and ship three years after the consumer version.

    But for me, "good enough" is indeed good enough.

    --
    FairSoftware.net -- work where geeks are their own boss

    1. Re:Perfection Has a Price by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that software doesn't even ship as "good enough" anymore. It's more like "it compiles, ship it".

      Your example of hardware, and how it's impossible to patch it, was true to a point for software, too, in the past. Before it became easy to distribute software patches via the internet, companies actually invested a lot more time into testing. Why? Because yes, you could technically patch software, but it was tied to sometimes horrible costs to do just that.

      You can actually see a similar trend with the parts of hardware (i.e. BIOSes) that are patchable. Have you ever seen hardware shipped with all BIOS options fully enabled and working? I haven't in the past 2-3 years. More often than not you get a "new" board or controller with the predecessor's BIOS flashed in, and the promise for an update "really soon now".

      The easier it is to patch something, the sloppier the original implementation is. You'd see exactly the same with hardware if it wasn't so terribly hard (read: impossible) to rewire that damn printed circuit. I dread the day when they find some way to actually do it. Then the same will apply to hardware that you have today with some OSs: It's not done until it reads "SP1" on the cover.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. When I was breaking in by PingXao · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the early '80s there were no "older" programmers unless you were talking mainframe data processing. On microprocessor CPU systems the average age was low, as I recall. Back then we didn't blame poor software on "youthful programmers". We blamed it on idiots who didn't know what they were doing. I think it's safe to say that much hasn't changed.

    1. Re:When I was breaking in by Skapare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is true with any group. There are geniuses and idiots in all groups. The problems exist because once the supply of geniuses have been exhausted, businesses tap into the idiots. And this is made worse when employers want to limit pay across the board based on what the idiots were accepting. Now they are going overseas to tap into cheaper geniuses, which are now running out, and in the mean time, lots of local geniuses have moved on to some other career path because they didn't want to live at the economic level of an idiot.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:When I was breaking in by Surt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you care whether they write a loop or return (n*n+1)/2? (where n=100 in this case?)

      (curious whether you are looking for the person who knows the clever solution, or the guy who can write a basic loop).

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  3. Re:Waterfall by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The waterfall method is still the best development model. [...] Unfortunately waterfall doesn't fit into the real world

    WTF? Not working in the real world makes it a crap model.

    When you boil all the trendy stuff out of Agile, you're basically left with a generic iterated waterfall, which is[...]

    ...not a waterfall.

  4. Users are to blame by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The sad truth is, given the choice between a well-written, stable and fast application with a tiny set of features and a giant slow buggy program with every feature under the sun, too many users choose the second.

    If people refused to use and pay for buggy applications, they would either get fixed or die off.

    --
    Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
  5. It's economics, too... by gillbates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as:

    • Consumers buy software based on flashy graphics and bullet lists of features, without regard for quality...
    • Companies insist on paying the lowest wages possible to programmers...
    • Programmers are rewarded for shipping code, rather than its quality...

    You will have buggy, insecure software.

    Fast. Cheap. Good. Pick any two.

    The market has spoken, and said that they would rather have the familiar and flashy than secure and stable. Microsoft fills this niche. There are other niches, such as the Stable and Secure Computer market, and they're owned by the mainframe and UNIX vendors. But these aren't as visible as the PC market, because they need not advertise as much; their reputation precedes them. But they are just as important, if not moreso, than the consumer market.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  6. Re:Waterfall by radish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The waterfall is broken, seriously. I'm paraphrasing from an excellent talk I attended a while back, but here goes.

    For a typical waterfall you're doing roughly these steps: Requirements Analysis, Design, Implementation, Testing, Maintenance. So let's start at the beginning...requirements. So off you go notebook in hand to get some requirements. When are you done? How do you know you got them all? Hint: you will never have them all, and they will keep changing. But you have to stop at some point so you can move onto design, so when do we stop? Typically it's when we get to the end of the week/month/year allocated on the project plan. Awesome. Maybe we've got 50% of the reqs done, maybe not. It'll be a long time until we find out for sure...

    Next up - Design! Woot, this bit is fun. So we crank up Rose or whatever and get to work. But when do we stop? Well again, that's tough. Because I don't know about you but I can design forever, getting better and better, more and more modular, more and more generic, until the whole thing has flipped itself inside out. So we stop when it's "good enough" - according to who? Or more likely, it's now 1 week to delivery and no-one's written any code yet so we better stop designing!

    Implementation time. Well at least this time we know when we're done! We're up against it time wise though, because we did such a good job on Reqs & Design. Let's pull some all nighters and get stuff churned out pronto, who cares how good it is, no time for that now. That lovely, expensive design gets pushed aside.

    No time to test...gotta hit the release date.

    Sure this isn't the waterfall model as published in the text books, but it's how it works (fails) in real life. And the text books specifically don't say how to fix the problems inherent in the first two stages. What to do instead? Small, incremental feature based development. Gather requirements, assign costs to them, ask the sponsors to pick a few, implement & test the chosen features, repeat until out of time or money.

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  7. Re:Its all true by Cornflake917 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think refusing to hire someone solely because of their age is naive. Is there some magical event at the age of 30 that bestows knowledge of linkers to the aging programmer? Give me a break. You are making bad assumptions. Your first bad assumption is that just because of your anecdotal experience dealing with one individual, that all schools no longer teach anything about linkers. Your second bad assumption is that even if that was true, no programmer would learn that information on their own, as if no one is generally interested in learning comp sci any more outside of the classroom.