Slashdot Mirror
Old-School Coding Techniques You May Not Miss
CWmike writes "Despite its complexity, the software development process has gotten better over the years. 'Mature' programmers remember manual intervention and hand-tuning. Today's dev tools automatically perform complex functions that once had to be written explicitly. And most developers are glad of it. Yet, young whippersnappers may not even be aware that we old fogies had to do these things manually. Esther Schindler asked several longtime developers for their top old-school programming headaches and added many of her own to boot. Working with punch cards? Hungarian notation?"
Some of those are obnoxious and good to see them gone. Others, not so much. For instance, sorting/searching algorithms, data structures, etc. Don't they still make you code these things in school? Isn't it good to know how they work and why?
On the other hand, yeah... fuck punch cards.
The one thing I don't think I'll ever, ever miss is writing loaders for some of the stupider file formats out there. Sure, it's not hard, per se, to write a .bmp loader, but once you've done it once or twice it gets old. Eventually I wrote a helper image library to do it all but it still would occasionally come across some obscure variant that it wouldn't load. Far worse were early 3D model formats, even now I tend to stick with .md2 for hobby projects just because it's simple, does what I want, and EVERYTHING exports to it.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Yeah, some of these are pretty old. I do remember working on a machine where the compiler wasn't smart enough to make the code really fast so I would get the .s file out and hand edit the assembly code. This resulted in some pretty spectacular speedups (8x for instance). Mind you, more recently I was forced to do something similar when working with some SSE code written for the Intel chips which was strangely slower on AMD. Turned out it was because the Intel chips (PIII and P4) were running on a 32 bit bus and memory access in bytes was pretty cheap. The Athlons were on the 64 bit EV6 bus and so struggled more so were slower. Once I added some code to lift the data from memory in 64 bit chunks and then do the reordering it needed using SSE the AMD chips were faster than the Intel ones.
Sometimes I think we have lost more than we have gained though with our reliance on compilers being smarter. It was great fun getting in there with lists of instruction latencies and manually overlapping memory loads and calculations. Also when it comes to squeezing the most out of machines with few resources, I remember being amazed when someone managed to code a reasonably competent Chess game into 1K on the Sinclair ZX81. Remember too that the ZX81 had to store the program, variables, and display all in that 1K. For this reason, the chess board was up at the left top of the screen. It was the funniest thing to be writing code on a 1K ZX81 and as the memory got full you could see less and less of your program until the memory was completely full and you could only see one character on screen....
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
Documentation!
First of all, most actual practices mentioned are well alive today -- it's just most programmers don't have to care about them because someone else already did it. And some (systems and libraries developers) actually specialize on doing just those things. Just recently I had a project that almost entirely consisted of x86 assembly (though at least 80% of it was in assembly because it was based on very old code -- similar projects started now would be mostly in C).
Second, things like spaghetti code and Hungarian notation are not "old", they were just as stupid 20 years ago as they are now. There never was a shortage of stupidity, and I don't expect it any soon.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Hollerith constants
Equivalences
Computed Gotos
Arithmetic Ifs
Common blocks
There were worse things, horrible things... dirty tricks you could play to get the most out of limited memory, or to bypass Fortran's historical lack of pointers and data structures. Fortran-90 and its successors have done away with most of that cruft while also significantly modernizing the language.
They used to say that real men programmed in Fortran (or should I say FORTRAN). That was really before my time, but I've seen the handiwork of real men: impressive, awe-inspiring, crazy, scary. Stuff that worked, somehow, while appearing to be complete gibberish -- beautiful, compact, and disgustingly ingenious gibberish.
Long live Fortran! ('cause you know it's never going to go away)
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
Actually, the worst spaghetti code I have ever seen (in 30+ years most of it in life-critical systems) is OO C++. It doesn't have to be that way, but I have seen examples that would embarrass the most hackish FORTRAN programmers.
I am alarmed at the religious fervor and non-functional dogma associated with modern programming practices. Even GOTOs have good applications - yes, you can always come up with some other way of doing it, by why and with how much extra futzing? But it's heresy.
Brett
Hungarian notation is bad because you are encoding type and scope information into the name, which makes it harder to change things later.
The fact that it is also one of the ugliest naming conventions is merely a secondary issue.
Dunx
Converting caffeine into code since 1982
Three reasons.
1)Variables change type. And then you have to rename everything. Its a pain
2)The extra information it gives you is minimal. I want to know what data is in a variable, not the language type used to hold it. If the name of the variable is firstName, I don't need it to be called lpcstrzFirstName, I know it's a string. And the language type is rarely interesting- I want to know that the variable outsideTemp holds degrees farenheit, not that it's an integer. But Hungarian doesn't tell me that. (It also doesn't work even if I make a typedef for temperature- it'll still start with 'i').
3)It makes searching the code for a variable that much more annoying, because they all start with freaking 'i' and 'p'.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Really it has nothing to do with IDEs, but more compilers, good coding practice and OO principles. A few cons:
For a succinct summary: Hungarian Notation Considered Harmful
Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
For some reason the article says that only variables beginning with I,J,and K were implicitly integers in Fortran. Actually, it was I-N.
Good Hungarian notation does exactly that, actually. Check out Apps Hungarian, which encodes the semantic type of the data, rather than the language-level data type.
Of course stupid Hungarian notation is stupid. Stupid anything is stupid. Problem is, most people don't hear about the right approach.
Duff's Device. Pre-ANSI C-language means of unrolling an arbitrary-length loop. We had an Evans and Sutherland Picture System II at the NYIT Computer Graphics Lab, and Tom wrote this to feed it IO as quickly as possible.
Bruce Perens.
First off, most of the things on the list haven't gone away, they've just moved to libraries. It's not that we don't need to understand them, it's just that not everyone needs to implement them (especially the data structures one- having a pre-written one i good, but if you don't understand them thoroughly you're going to have really bad code)..
On top of that, some of their items
*Memory management- still needs to be considered about in C and C++, which are still top 5 languages. You can't even totally ignore it in Java- you get far better results from the garbage collector if you null out your references properly, which does matter if your app needs to scale.
I'd even go so far as to say ignoring memory management is not a good thing. When you think about memory management, you end up with better designs. If you see that memory ownership isn't clearcut, it's usually the first sign that your architecture isn't correct. And it really doesn't cause that many errors with decent programmers(if any- memory errors are pretty damn rare even in C code). As for those coders who just don't get it- I really don't want them on my project even if the language doesn't need it. If you can't understand the request/use/release paradigm you aren't fit to program.
*C style strings
While I won't argue that it would be a good choice for a language today (heck even in C if it wasn't for compatibility I'd use a library with a separate pointer and length), its used in hundreds o thousands of existing C and C++ library and programs. The need to understand it isn't going to go away anytime soon. And anyone doing file parsing or network IO needs to understand the idea of terminated data fields.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
* Sorting algorithms
If you don't know them, you're not a programmer. If you don't ever implement them, you're likely shipping more library code than application code.
* Creating your own GUIs
Umm.. well actually..
* GO TO and spaghetti code
goto is considered harmful, but it doesn't mean it isn't useful. Spaghetti code, yeah, that's the norm.
* Manual multithreading
All the time. select() is your friend, learn it.
* Self-modifying code
Yup, I actually write asm code.. plus he mentions "modifying the code while it's running".. if you can't do that, you shouldn't be wielding a debugger, edit and continue, my ass.
* Memory management
Yeah, garbage collection is cheap and ubiquitous, and I'm one of the few people that has used C++ garbage collection libraries in serious projects.. that said, I've written my own implementations of malloc/free/realloc and gotten better memory performance. It's what real programmers do to make 64 gig of RAM enough for anyone.
* Working with punch cards
Meh, I'm not that old. But when I was a kid I wrote a lot of:
100 DATA 96,72,34,87,232,37,49,82,35,47,236,71,231,234,207,102,37,85,43,78,45,26,58,35,3
110 DATA 32,154,136,72,131,134,207,102,37,185,43,78,45,26,58,35,3,82,207,34,78,23,68,127
on the C64.
* Math and date conversions
Every day.
* Hungarian notation
Every day. How about we throw in some reverse polish notation too.. get a Polka going.
* Making code run faster
Every fucking day. If you don't do this then you're a dweeb who might as well be coding in php.
* Being patient
"Hey, we had a crash 42 hours into the run, can you take a look?"
"Sure, it'll take me about 120 hours to get to it with a debug build."
How we know is more important than what we know.
Jeez. You must have taken the same course that I did. (Probably not actually.) In my case it was a programming class emphasizing statistics taught by someone in the business school who actually wanted card decks turned in. (This was probably no later than, maybe, '80/'81.) I did the same thing you did. I wrote all the software at a terminal (one of those venerable bluish-green ADM 3As) and when it was working I left the code in my virtual card punch. When I sent a message to the operator asking to have the contents sent off to a physical card punch, his message back was "Seriously?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Try overlays...
Back in the day we had do all the memory management by hand. Programs (FORTRAN) had a basic main "kernel" that controlled the overall flow and we grouped subprograms (subroutines and functions) into "overlays" that were swapped in as needed. I spent hours grouping subprograms into roughly equal sized chunks just to fit into core, all the while trying to minimize the number of swaps necessary. All the data was stored in huge COMMON blocks so it was available to the subprograms in every overlay. You'd be fired if you produced such code today.
Virtual memory is more valuable than full screen editors and garbage collection is just icing on a very tall layer cake...
Circa 1984, when I did summer programming jobs at Digital Research (purveyors of CP/M), one of the programmers there showed me how you could put a transistor radio inside the case of your computer. You could tell what the computer was doing by listing to the sounds it picked up via the RF emissions from the computer. For instance, it would go into a certain loop, and you could tell because the radio would buzz like a fly.
Documentation was a lot harder to come by. If you wanted the documentation for X11, you could go to a big bookstore like Cody's in Berkeley, and they would have it in multiple hardcover volumes. Each volume was very expensive. The BSD documentation was available in the computer labs at UC Berkeley in the form of 6-foot-wide trays of printouts. (Unix man pages existed too, but since you were using an ADM3A terminal, it was often more convenient to walk over to the hardcopy.)
On the early microcomputers, there was no toolchain for programming other than MS BASIC in ROM. Assemblers and compilers didn't exist. Since BASIC was slow, if you wanted to write a fast program, you had to code it on paper in assembler and translate it by hand into machine code. But then in order to run your machine code, you were stuck because there was no actual operating system that would allow you to load it into memory from a peripheral such as a cassette tape drive. So you would first convert the machine code to a string of bytes expressed in decimal, and then write a BASIC program that would do a dummy assignment into a string variable like 10 A$="xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx". Then you would write self-modifying code in BASIC that would find the location where the string literal "xxx...." was stored, and overwrite it with your machine code. So now if you gave the LIST command, it would display the program on the screen, with the string literal displayed as goofy unprintable characters. Then you would code the program so it would execute the machine code stored at the address of the variable A$. Finally you'd save the program onto cassette.
Find free books.
You will never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your thoughts.
http://www.xkcd.com/568/
If you're going to talk about old school, you gotta mention Mel.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
Self-modifying code
Yup, I actually write asm code.. plus he mentions "modifying the code while it's running".. if you can't do that, you shouldn't be wielding a debugger.
Code that generates code is occasionally necessary, but code that actually modifies itself locally, to "improve performance", has been obsolete for a decade.
IA-32 CPUs still support self-modifying code for backwards compatibility. (On most RISC machines, it's disallowed, and code is read-only, to simplify cache operations.) Superscalar IA-32 CPUs still support self-modifying code. But the performance is awful. Here's what self-modifying code looks like on a modern CPU:
Execution is going along, with maybe 10-20 instructions pre-fetched and a few operations running concurrently in the integer, floating point, and jump units. Alternate executions paths may be executing simultaneously, until the jump unit decides which path is being taken and cancels the speculative execution. The retirement unit looks at what's coming out of the various execution pipelines and commits the results back to memory, checking for conflicts.
Then the code stores into an instruction in the neighborhood of execution. The retirement unit detects a memory modification at the same address as a pre-fetched instruction. This triggers an event which looks much like an interrupt and has comparable overhead. The CPU stops loading new instructions. The pipelines are allowed to finish what they're doing, but the results are discarded. The execution units all go idle. The prefetched code registers are cleared. Only then is the store into the code is allowed to take place.
Then the CPU starts up, as if returning from an interrupt. Code is re-fetched. The pipelines refill. The execution units become busy again. Normal execution resumes.
Self-modifying code hasn't been a win for performance since the Intel 286 (PC-AT era, 1985) or so. It might not have hurt on a 386. Anything later, it's a lose.
x = x xor y
y = x xor y
x = x xor y
Now you know!
I don't get what the big deal is with Hungarian Notation. Why do people consider it a bad thing?
The proper name is Hungarian Line Noise, which should answer your question.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
Correct. I worked for Charles at Xerox on the BravoX project and I initially fought Hungarian. One day I had an epiphany about what it was really about and then I didn't have any problems with it. Properly done it can reduce "name choosing time" to almost zero and it makes walking into other people's code almost completely painless. The key is that you encode semantics, not machine-level details.
A feature like intellisense isn't a feature to save typing time... its primary benefit is to save looking things up in a manual if one happens to not remember the exact spelling of some class member or function. If one knows exactly what ones wants to type in the first place, it doesn't stop you, nor should it even slow you down, unless it's implemented poorly.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Let me tell you a true story to illustrate why I think people should still learn that stuff.
ACT I
So at one point I'm in a room with what looks like two particularly unproductive Wallys. Though it's probably unfair to call both Wally, since at least one looks like the hard working kind... he just makes as much progress as a courier on a treadmill.
So Wally 1 keeps clicking and staring at the screen all week and spewing things like "Unbelievable!" every 5 minutes. My curiosity gets the better of me and I ask what's happening.
"Look at this," goes Wally 1, and I indeed move over to see him toiling in the debugger through a Hashtable with String keys. He's looking at its bucket array, to be precise. "Java is broken! I added a new value with the same hash value for the key, and it just replaced my old one! Look, my old value was here, and now it's the new one!"
"Oh yes, we had that bug too at the former company I worked for," chimes in Wally 2. "We had to set the capacity manually to avoid it."
I clench my teeth to stop myself from screaming.
"Hmm," I play along, "expand that 'next' node, please."
"No, you don't understand, my value was here and now there's this other key there."
"Yes, but I want to see what's in that 'next' node, please."
So he clicks on it and goes, "Oh... There it is..."
Turns out that neither of them had the faintest fucking clue what a hash table is, or for that matter what a linked list is. They looked at its hash bucket and expected nothing deeper than that. And, I'm told, at least one of them had been in a project where they actually coded workarounds (that can't possibly do any difference, too!) for its normal operation.
ACT II
So I'm consulting at another project and essentially they use a HashMap with string keys too. Except they created their own key objects, nothing more than wrappers around a String, and with their own convoluted and IMHO suboptimal hash value calculation too. Hmm, they must have had a good reason, but I ask someone.
"Oh," he goes, "we ran into a Java bug. You can see it in the debugger. You'd add a new value whose key has the same hash value and it replaces yours in the array. So Ted came up with an own hash value, so it doesn't happen any more."
Ted was their architect, btw. There were easily over 20 of them merry retards in that project, including an architect, and neither of them understood:
A) that that's the way a hash table works, and more importantly
B) that it still worked that way even with Ted's idiotic workaround. It's mathematically impossible to code a hash there which doesn't cause the same collisions anyway, and sure enough Ted's produced them too.
ACT III
I'm talking to yet another project's architect, this time a framework, and, sure enough...
"Oh yeah, that's the workaround for a bug they found in project XYZ. See, Java's HashMap has a bug. It replaces your old value when you have a hash collision in the key."
AAARGH!
So I'm guessing it would still be useful if more people understood these things. We're not just talking abstract complaints about cargo-cult programming without understanding it. We're talking people and sometimes whole teams who ended up debugging into it when they had some completely unrelated bug, and spent time on it. And then spent more time coding "workarounds" which can't possibly even make any difference. And then spent more time fixing the actual bug they had in the first place.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
There is no practical difference between OO code and structured code. The article assumed structured code means goto and gosub, but any Real Programmer knows that procedures (which are just gosubs by name rather than address) are still structured programming.
So what's OO? Each class is just a bunch of functions and procedures, with one entry point and one exit point for each - your standard structured programming methodology. The fact that there are different classes makes no difference. Calls between classes don't change the nature of a class any more than pipes between programs change the nature of programs.
I wasn't impressed by other claims, either. Garbage collection is still a major headache in coding, which is why there are so many debugging mallocs and so many re-implementations of malloc() for specialist purposes. Memory leaks are still far, far too common - indeed they're probably the number 1 cause of crashes these days.
Pointer arithmetic? Still very very common. If you want to access data in an internal database quickly, you don't use SQL. You use a hash lookup and offset your pointer.
Sorts? Who the hell uses a sort library? Sort libraries are necessarily generic, but applications often need to be efficient. Particularly if they're real-time or HPC. Even mundane programmers would not dream of using a generic library that includes sorts they'll never refer to in, say, an e-mail client or a game. They'll write their own.
One of the reasons people will choose a malloc() like hoard, or an accelerated library like liboil is that the standard stuff is crappy for anything but doing standard stuff. This isn't the fault of the glibc folks, it's the fault of computers for not being infinitely fast and the fault of code not being absolutely identical between tasks.
The reason a lot of these rules were developed was that you needed to be able to write reusable code that also had a high degree of correctness. Today, you STILL need to be able to write reusable code that also has a high degree of correctness. If anything, the need for correctness has increased as security flaws become all the more easily exploited, and the need for reusability has increased as code bases are often just too large to be refactored on every version. (Reusability is just as important between versions as it is between programs - a thing coders often forget, forcing horrible API and ABI breakages.)
The reason that software today is really no better, stability-wise, than it was 15-30 years ago is that new coders think they can ignore the old lessons because they're "doing something different", only to learn later on that really they aren't.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
And a few more examples of cargo-cultism, from people who were untrained to understand what they're doing, but someone thought it was ok because the Java standard library does it for them anyway.
1. The same Wally 1 from the previous story had written basically this method:
Then he called it like this, to try to get around an immutable field in an object. Let's say we have an object called Name, which has an immutable String. So you create it with that string and can't change it afterwards. You have a getName() but not a setName() on it. So he tried to do essentially:
I understand that he worked a week on trying to debug into why it doesn't work, until he asked for help.
2. From Ted's aforementioned project:
So they used the wrapper classes like Integer or Character all over the place instead of int or char. This was back in Java 1.3 times too, so there was no automatic boxing and unboxing. The whole code was a mess of getting the values boxed as parameters, unboxing them, doing some maths, boxing the result. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I ask what that's all about.
"Oh, that's a clever optimization Ted came up with. See, if you have the normal int as a parameter, Java copies the whole integer on the stack. But if you use Integer it only copies a pointer to it."
AAARGH!
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The biggest "new" headache that will probably end up in such an article 20 years from now is web "GUIs", A.K.A. HTML-based interfaces. Just when I was starting to perfect the art of GUI design in the late 90's, the web came along and changed all the rules and added arbitrary limits. Things easy and natural in desktop GUI's are now awkward and backassward in a browser-based equivalent.
Yes, there are proprietary solutions, but the problem is that they are proprietary solutions and require users to keep Flash or Active-X-net-silver-fuckwhat or Crashlets or hacky JimiHavaScript up-to-date, making custom desktop app installs almost seem pleasant in comparison, even with the ol' DLL hell.
On a side note, I also came into the industry at the tail end of punched cards (at slower shops). Once the card copy machine punched the holes about 1/3 mm off, making them not read properly, but on *different* cards each pass thru. It's like including 0.5 with binary numbers, or 0.4999 and 0.5001 with a quantum jiggle.
Good Times
Table-ized A.I.
You don't need long division in normal life. Regardless of if you are in a math heavy career or not, you aren't going to waste your time doing it by hand, you'll use a calculator which is faster and more accurate. However, you need to learn it. You need to understand how division works, how it's done. Once you learn it, you can leave it behind and automate it, but it is still important to learn. An understand of higher level math will likely be flawed if basic concepts aren't learned properly.
Good Hungarian notation does exactly that, actually. Check out Apps Hungarian, which encodes the semantic type of the data, rather than the language-level data type.
Good explicitly LONG where appropriate variable names that don't conform to a complex set of rules that need to be memorized are ALWAYS a better solution.
# rwPosition : variable represents a row ("rw");
Awful! For one extra character you get rowPosition which is unambiguous and doesn't need to be looked up.
# usName : variable represents an unsafe string ("us"), which needs to be "sanitized" before it is used (e.g. see code injection and cross-site scripting for examples of attacks that can be caused by using raw user input)
unsafeName or unsafeNameString would be much better. It doesn't imply this name only applies in the U.S.A.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"goto cleanup;" however, is hard to mess up.
hehe, have a look at Ian Kent's code in autofs sometime.
His use of "goto cleanup;" is an infinite source of double free bugs.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This is one of my favourite quotes:
"The First Rule of Program Optimization: Don't do it. The Second Rule of Program Optimization (for experts only!): Don't do it yet." - Michael A. Jackson
That being said, when I hit the experts only situation I can usually get 2 orders of magnitude improvement in speed. I just then have to spend the time to document the hell out of it so that the next poor bastard who maintains the code can understand what on earth I've done. Especially given that all too often I am this poor bastard.
The reason people say C++ is slower and uses more memory is because it is. Not due to the language itself (except for one case), but due to how people use it and the mistakes they make
1)RTTI and exceptions- very slow. If you use them you will be slower than C. Of course most embedded systems avoid them like the plague. (This is the one case where it's a language fault)
2)Passing objects. Its a frequent mistake that people forget to pass const object& rather thn the object itself, causing extra constructors and destructors to be called. Honest but costly mistake.
3)The object oriented model and memory. In an object oriented model you tend to do a lot more memory copying. In C, if you have an OS function that returns a string (a char*), you'll use generally save that pointer somewhere, use it directly a few times, then free it. In C++ you'll take it, insert it into a string object (which will cause a copy), pass that object around (and even by reference thats less efficient than using a char* directly), probably call c_str() on it if you need to pass it back to the OS, then finally let the destructor free it. More time.
4)The object oriented model and hiding complexity- it can be very easy in an object oriented system to forget the true cost of an operation. Programmers think of x=y as a cheap operation, like it is with ints. With objects, it may be very expensive. Same with other operations that happen "automatically" like string concatenation using +. It can be easy to write code that doesn't look too bad, but really takes thousands of cycles.
5)Constructors, copy constructors, and operator =- some of these can be called in very unusual places, especially when they're being passed to and/or returned from a function. Read Scott Meyers for a list of all of them. If you had a function that was passed in two Foo objects, mainpulated them, created a new Foo object, set it equal to one of the two passed in, and returned that Foo object I doubt 1 in 10 programmers would correctly guess all of the times these would be called (and I'm not that 1- it's been way too long since I studied the issue). In C these would be at worst 4 memcpys (two for pass in, 1 for assignment, 1 for return). So C++ object quirks can eat up a lot of time in these situations.
All that doesn't mean you shouldn't use C++. But due to it you won't get the sheer execution speed you would in C.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The only Hungarian notation I know is that of Windows MFC, and that IS stupid. The names don't even match the types anymore because they changed the names and not the types. It looks ugly, it looks LEGACY. It's a shame that the inheritance of this will remain forever in the official winapi for C++.
This might be okay if you are SO constrained you can't afford one register's worth of temp space, but if you're into performance, this is 4-8x slower than using a temp variable, in every language I've tried it on. Run your own benchmarks, see what I mean. Also, don't obfuscate your code, just to be "clever".
Full Hungarian notation is a bit redundant, precisely because everyone (for reasonable values of 'everyone') DOES use some form of IDE to code, and any non-epic-fail IDE will at the least tell you variable types when you mouse over them, or pop up a member list for a class/struct when you go to type them.
Um - Hungarian notation is for coding what the variable represents, not the type of variable it's represented by.
Anyone using iVariable or sVariable to indicate that the former is an int and the latter is a string is doing it wrong.
It's this misunderstanding that's resulted in HN's 'bad' reputation.
See http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html for an example of how HN should be used.
http://harridanic.com
Um, I'm pretty sure quicksort is still the go-to sort simply because it's the implementation that's built into almost every single programming environment. Then again honestly, I'd say that from the point of view of a pragmatic programmer... it doesn't matter. There's a built-in fuction (whether it's qsort() in the C standard library, or Arrays.Sort() in Java, or whatever) that will take your array and return it, sorted. If your app runs too slow and you profile it and it turns out the speed problem is in the sorting AND you can't find a better algorithm that doesn't depend so much on sorting... THEN you look at optimising it. Never forget the two cardinal rules of optimising:
1) Don't optimise.
2) (Experts only:) Optimise later.
Or as I once read it eloquently expressed:
1) Make it work.
2) Make it work right.
3) Make it work fast.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Why, why, why do people get SO offended when you tell them they have to learn computers to be good at computers?
Because you're essentially attacking them.
What if I responded to you by saying: "I'm sorry, but if you don't understand how flatly attacking people's qualifications for their job is insulting and threatening, you shouldn't be having this discussion. You simply don't have the interpersonal skills to articulate this kind of thing in a manner that would be productive, let alone persuasive."
Get your dander up at all?
And please don't hide behind the "I was just stating a fact, if the shoe fits, wear it." There are lots of good ways to say what you're trying to get at that are probably even closer to the truth.
Which is that really don't have to learn *everything* about computers in order to be good at computers. It is certainly an underlying truth that the more you know, the better you are as a developer. But it's entirely possible to be a reasonably productive developer without knowing everything... as long as your abilities are matched to what you need to accomplish. And there's more or less a curve of task difficulty to go along with a curve of developer abilities.
I don't know very much about building compilers. Some people would say that makes me a mere dilettante of a software developer. That's a rash overstatement. It's absolutely true I would be a *better* developer if I knew more about these things, and certain problem domains would be more open to me, but there's a huge problem space that really doesn't require this knowledge. This works the other way, too: I probably know more about Linear Algebra and Discrete Mathematics than many developers and even some CS majors (studied Math in school) and I'm familiar with the Logic Programming paradigm (written full programs in Prolog). These things make me a better developer, particularly for some problem domains, but it certainly doesn't mean anyone who doesn't know these things is a simple hack.
I think implementing hashes and other primitives that are now part of libraries/languages falls in this category. Being able to implement them is certainly a *demonstration* that you've mastered certain skills. The contrapositive doesn't necessarily follow. Not ever having implemented them -- in particular because you've never had to -- doesn't necessarily imply that you lack the ability to solve that class of problem.
And in fact, it might demonstrate a certain stripe of wisdom: there's a limited amount of time and a pretty much infinite supply of problems. What do you spend time learning how to do?
Tweet, tweet.