Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Top Devs Don't Seem To Like Own Tools
ericatcw writes "Through tools such as Visual Basic and Visual Studio, Microsoft may have done more than any other vendor to make drag and drop-style programming mainstream. But its superstar developers seem to prefer old-school modes of crafting code. During the panel at the Professional Developers Conference earlier this month, the devs also revealed why they think writing tight, bare-metal code will come back into fashion, and why parallel programming hasn't caught up with the processors yet." These guys are senior enough that they don't seem to need to watch what they say and how it aligns with Microsoft's product roadmap. They are also dead funny. Here's Jeffrey Snover on managed code (being pushed by Microsoft through its Common Language Runtime tech): "Managed code is like antilock brakes. You used to have to be a good driver on ice or you would die. Now you don't have to pump your brakes anymore." Snover also joked that programming is getting so abstract, developers will soon have to use Natal to "write programs through interpretative dance."
I hate Microsoft more than anyone, but... I really don't see an issue or any hypocrisy here.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Well you are very close to the mark here.
The integrated IDEs arose to allow the hobbyist and corporate IT newbie turn out something, which has a good chance of being functional if not maintainable or efficient. These tools also allow specialists from other fields (accountants, meteorologists, scientists) actually turn out products.
Efficiency, maintainability and extensibility don't matter for that type of programmer. They just need to put up a few screens to count the widgets or produce the daily report. It doesn't have to be portable,or efficient, and chances are it will be tossed as soon as that programmer moves on to another job.
Those programmers do manage to turn out a reasonable amount of customized applications, some of which are actually marketable. The vast majority are for in-house use. But some actually work quite well for specialized industry applications like Medical Billing, where the knowledge of the subject matter is more important than the efficiency of the code.
OS level code has to be much more efficient, and there is no substitution for knowing the programming language, the processor capabilities, and the compiler peculiarities. You can not leave to some IDE the task of putting code behind a button that will drag in half a ton of MS Foundation Classes or use some particular C/C++ construct that is horribly inefficient. You are basically always dealing with some data stream or message and doing X Y and Z with it and handing it off to the next task.
As such these guys virtually never see a piece of data all the way thru the computer. Their customers are other pieces of software. Their wholesaler are yet more pieces of software. Its data-in, whack it, pound it, and pass it on sort of code, and a lot of it, and a lot of self plagiarism. The IDEs just get in the way.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
C'mon, this is unfair. By your logic we shouldn't have Perl or Python or any other scripting language because they "[don't] give nearly as much control because it tries to spoonfeed you."
There are lots of situations when you don't need to twiddle the bits or delete your own allocated memory. What's wrong with simplifying the language for simplified tasks?
It's not like Microsoft doesn't support low-level languages.
When BASIC was bundled with almost every 8-Bit computer sold in the 1970's and 1980's? It was the default language on most of the systems sold and other languages like FORTRAN, C/C++, Pascal, COBOL, etc had to be bought separately. So the el cheapo way to program was via BASIC. Many computer magazines issued BASIC programs in them and cross platform modifications for Apple //, Commodore 64, IBM PC MS-DOS, Atari 800/400, TRS-80 and TRS-80 COCO, TI 99/4a, etc that had BASIC default.
Borland turned Turbo Pascal into Borland Delphi, but Microsoft turned GWBASIC and Quick BASIC into Visual BASIC. Then when Windows dominated the Visual BASIC took over C++ and Delphi, as it was easier to program in for managers to understand. I didn't program in Visual BASIC because I liked it, I programmed in it because the job required me to do so. My managers didn't understand Java, C/C++, Python, Perl, PHP, etc, only BASIC and Visual BASIC, so they didn't trust programmers to write with anything else. Most of the Microsoft Windows IT/IS departments are run almost the same way and most of them use Visual BASIC (or in some cases Visual C# as it is easier than C++) because it is easier for management to understand what their programmers are doing and review code.
You don't earn money programming with your choice of a programming language, you earn money with a programming language that your employers choose for the jobs that are available in your area. Unless you want to migrate to a Linux or Macintosh IT/IS department, but sometimes you have to settle for a Visual BASIC development job and have no choice in the matter.
Just that now Microsoft Programmers are catching on that Dotnet is rotten, and if corrupt any program written to use it won't work.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
do they use vim or emacs now?
The biggest posers I worked with used Visual Studio. The best group of programmers I worked with used text editor. That group could code rings around VS. The best of the best of them used vi.
This is absurd. Visual Studio, Eclipse, Vim, these are fucking *tools*. People use tools, not because the people are better, but because they find the tools useful.
Me, if I'm writing code for Unix or my DS, yeah, I prefer a maximized xterm, GNU Screen, and Vim. But if I'm writing a .NET application, I'm gonna use Visual Studio, as it's a very powerful development environment (doubly so when coupled with ViEmu).
OTOH, people who judge others based on their choice of IDE? Those people *are* tools...
The original article and the summary both come of as rather smug to me. The truth of the matter is that you need both low-level nitty-gritty programming and high-level programming. It depends on what you're using it for.
Think of it this way. You have people who make pipes. You know, the kind used in plumbing. Fittings, too. And they're very good at it. If you take your average house builder and try to get him to make a pipe, he'll be hopelessly bad at it. But you know what those guys who build houses are good at? Putting the pipes together in meaningful ways to get what they need (i.e. building a house) done. Take a guy who's brilliant at making pipes and fittings and try to get him to build a house. Yeah, not such a superstar now.
It's the same with programmers. Tell someone who is very good at writing low-level code, "I need a killer efficient compiler." Give them enough time, and they can churn it out and make it wicked optimized. Tell them, "I need a new type of control that works in this specific way and with crucial efficiency," and they're your guys. Tell them, "I need an new application entirely from scratch that can process my specific business logic, it needs to look and feel like a standard Windows application, it needs to be easy for end users to figure out and work with, and we need a working version in a couple of weeks," and they'll probably laugh at you. Yet that's what those people they're looking down on, the people developing with higher-level abstracted languages, are doing every day.
In my experience, competence != usefulness. They're not opposites, mind you, but it takes both types. It takes the people who work with the low-level nitty-gritty stuff, and it takes the people who use what they churn out to actually accomplish real-world productive things. One isn't smarter, one isn't better, neither should be looked down upon. Both are necessary.
Yeah, because IDEs don't have lists of errors, and double clicking on the error doesn't take you right to the line where the error is. It's so much easier to hunt through random code than to look at the little red squiggle on the line the IDE pointed out to you.
I'd call you an idiot but that would be insulting to idiots.
When I have to write a Windows GUI app, C# rocks! I can design the UI whip off the code and be done with it. It's better than MFC and after writing countless message loops in win32 and OS/2 for that matter, I don't think writing more GUI boiler plate code, using the APIs to match resource IDs, and all that mindless coding will do any good - especially when I need the time to figure out an algorithm or other problems. And I can still do low level stuff (really low level) with P/Invokes, so the only thing I'm really missing out is busy work. And if there's a time when I DO need the control and abilities of unmanaged code, well there's the C++ stuff.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Well, I like some of those guys but as someone who has been closer to the bare medal than they have (I'm a former Atari 2600 programmer), I'd say that the habits of old pros say little about the quality of today's tools.
We used 6502 cross-compilers on a PDPxx and VAX, not because we thought the command-line was better but because that was the best we had at the time.
BTW, I'm not trying to say that I'm better or smarter than those other guys, I just have written very low-level, real-time code.
The point you are missing is that "bare-metal code" is assembler, regardless of how much effort is involved.
I again have to point you to Linux or *BSD, these OSes have real time drivers in C. I don't recall seeing *any* peripheral driver in Linux that is not C. Practically all assembly code is under arch/ which means bootstrap, memory initialization and main timers. The rest is C.
Go ahead and write a real time driver in C, let me know how it works for you.
I'm doing this right now, and it is a very usual thing for me to do because I work on firmware for slower microcontrollers that run at clock speeds from 1.8 to 16 MHz. I have tons of peripherals in the MCU, and they must be serviced on time. A typical MCU project is a real time design. Sometimes I profile the code by connecting an oscilloscope to some spare pins and check that I have enough time in critical parts of the code. And *all* the code is C, compiled by avr-gcc 4.3.2. I have maybe 0.1% of the code that is in assembler, and that is stock macros that come with avr-gcc.
To illustrate, here you can see the lowest level of avr32 support, and you can observe how many LOCs are in .S and how many are in .c files. If still not convinced, visit mm/ and see what language the do_page_fault() is implemented in; that is one of most performance-critical pieces of code. C today is the "bare-metal" language of choice, and it works well in that role.
I don't really see the point in using assembly anymore. Yeah, its fast. But, its also a total pain to port and sometimes to maintain. With predictions saying that ARM will eventually catch up to x86 within the next 5 years, the fact that an ARM version of netbooks could be coming, etc. I don't know why anyone would still program in assembly for anything other than, say, emulators which need to be built for speed.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
... 97% of today's coders don't have any idea what they've missed out on and just accept what they've got. ...
My apologies for snipping such a large portion of your reply, but that one sentence from your post nicely sums up so many of the problems with new coders it deserves calling out.
Disclaimer: I'm an old fart when it comes to programming. I admit it. I like bare metal programming, high-performance applications with minimal footprint, and elegant solutions to non-trivial problems. I don't avoid kernel-level threads; they're a useful tool.
The company I work for has hired a large number of programmers over the last year in order to replace a number of aging systems. I've interviewed a lot of these people, and I've worked with most of the ones that have we've hired on various parts of the overall project. The newer programmers know quite a lot about available frameworks and their general capabilities. They've been taught the 80/20 rule early on, and they embraced it: When faced with a new task, these people find something that already exists and set about modifying it. All that is fine for applications that are of a certain size. A size that, apparently, is about the size of school projects and therefore succeeds admirably when graded.
So what I've seen coming through the door are people who can put Lego blocks together. They're used to that type of problem solving. They've been taught to download 80% of the solution, then "fix it" so it also does the other 20%. This type of problem solving works well when you're building Lego-block-shaped solutions. That fails to happen much of the time, however. Most real-world solutions -- you know, the kind that are complex enough that someone is willing to pay an actual salary to solve -- don't look like a collection of Lego blocks. The amount of custom code grows and grows as more and more Lego blocks are added. Interoperability problems between the Lego blocks start encompassing the majority of coding effort. The overall system gains complexity at an alarming rate. Things start to suck, both from the programmer's perspective as well as from a systems perspective.
The bad part of this, and to bring things back to my original point, is that these newer programmers expect it to be that way. What's worse, at least from my point of view, is that this entire mentality has been around long enough for these programmers to stop coding and start managing other programmers. So now we have people who build things that suck, and managers who expect it to suck. Expectations are lowered and, unfortunately, met.
Google and Apple seem unafraid to break this cycle, albeit in different ways. So hope is not entirely lost. Maybe that's the 3% you alluded to in your original post.
The real reason why they don't use Visual Studio is far more prosaic -- the build environment of most of Microsoft products does not support the Visual Studio project files. Their products are built using a system called CoreXT -- basically a set of binary tools and scripts cobbled together by build engineers and developers over the past decade or so. CoreXT uses a lot of different crap, make, perl, compilers, etc, etc., and all tools and SDKs are checked in and versioned. The upside is that you can roll back your Source Depot (Microsoft's own flavor of Perforce) enlistment to an earlier date and be sure things will build exactly the same way, and once you enlist, you get repeatable, isolated build environment where you can guarantee the correctness of versions for all tools, compilers and libraries (Java developer's wet dream, even though they don't know it). The downside is that you have to maintain the makefiles by hand, and you can't use Visual Studio, because there are no project files checked in, and even if there are, most people don't use them and they are not updated, so you can count on them being broken.
I did a lot of my coding in either Notepad2, or in a separate project in Visual Studio against a test harness emulating the rest of the project (what Enterprise Java types call a "mock"). Some folks used Ultra Edit or vi, or EMACS. For some just a bare Notepad did the trick. Some stuck with Visual Studio, which in their case was just a glorified Notepad with autoindent since it doesn't support build or Intellisense if you don't have a project file.
Yes, it's an enormous waste of time, and yes, it was painful. But CoreXT is so integrated into the rest of the dev pipeline that replacing it with something else in a large product is a major, destabilizing endeavor that is bound to undo at least some of the work around gated check-in infrastructure, test infrastructure, automated deployment infrastructure and god knows what else, so few teams ever attempt it. Now naturally, DevDiv eats their own dogfood, so they were one of the first teams to switch completely to MSBuild. It took something like a year in their case, they did it gradually, from the leaves down the tree. I'm sure if they had a choice, they would be using CoreXT to this day though, and fighting with incremental build issues. :-)
Recently, a few more teams have adopted MSBuild. They can actually open their entire projects in Visual Studio and rebuild them. If they have test infrastructure deployed on the side, some of them can even test the product without waiting for it to deploy. So I predict that as more and more teams adopt MSBuild (this in itself could take another decade easily), these "senior" folks will come around to appreciate its benefits. It's awfully handy when you can set a conditional breakpoint on your local box and step through things.
"I work on firmware for slower microcontrollers that run at clock speeds from 1.8 to 16 MHz"
No wonder you can afford to use C! ;)
I can buy a $1.20 microcontroller that's more than an order of magnitude faster than the machine I learned to code on. Still, there are still times when a nice bit of assembly makes a big difference. Not much, just as much as you need.
As for the rest of the thread, assembly IS the bare metal. C is the next best thing to bare metal. Not to say that you should code everything in assembly, that would be silly. But being aware that it exists can't hurt.
Might have been more appropriate to compare it in that people in the high performance arena (nascar) don't like antilock brakes because of their limits and the separation you get from your task at hand. (you lose your "feel for the road")
I always laugh when I read this sort of thing.
In *real* high performance racing - Formula 1 - ABS (along with traction control, launch control, active suspension, and a whole bunch of other fancy electronics that basically turned the cars into a ludicrously fast go-karts) was used very successfully and then banned because it could do a far, far better job than any human.
I can't stand it when Microsoft developers talk about multi-threaded programming when the entire corporation has done that absolute bare minimum to make developer's lives easier. No wonder that they don't like using their own tools, because their tools are terrible.
Many years ago, a brilliant third-party multi-threaded library was released for Java, by a professor at Oswego university. I used it in several large production apps, and it absolutely rocked. You could build up safe, reliable, scalable multi-threaded applications by simply snapping together flexible pieces like Lego. It was so good that it became a part of the SUN Java standard library, and it's now called "util.concurrent". Compared to having to "hand craft" multi-threaded code in C++, it was wonderful. It's as if the lights had just turned on, and everything had become clear to me.
Now that I'm a C# dev, it's been a huge step backwards, doubly so because .NET was developed after the Oswego library was already popular, so Microsoft must have seen it and just flat out ignored it. For years afterwards, the whole entirety of multi-threading in both .NET and C++ were "threads" and "locks". The one nicety they included was an anemic thread pool in .NET which was just usable enough for the most basic tasks, but couldn't handle any real load. Even the locks were heavyweight inter-process kernel locks that are unusably slow for many tasks.
It's only now in .NET 4 (which won't be final until 2010) that they are adding a small set of very basic lock-free containers, light-weight locks, and actual interfaces that one can implement in order to customize behavior. It's all still very basic, and nowhere near as flexible, powerful, or comprehensive as the Java APIs that are years old now.
Microsoft's general attitude to API design is so bad that it can only be described as wilful ignorance. Reading articles evangelizing "modern multithreaded programming to better utilize new multi core processors" somehow feels like a religious zealot harping on about their appreciation of pure rational logic and science.
If only Microsoft's architecture and best practices groups actually worked to leverage the efficiency of the tools, rather than just drain it. The thing about Microsoft is that the tools are good, yes, but then they sell them with these practices and recommendations that just drain innovation and drags all developers down to a lowest common denominator.
It's really, Taylor all over again but applied to computer programming. The problem is, Taylor is what GM and Ford and Chrysler do, and the unions are locked in with. Just like we have pipefitters and machinist titles of varying kind on the shop floor at an old style manufacturing plant, we have guys that are being pushed into the database, u/i design, or middle tier roles, and really, 90% of all projects could be done with one guy putting together a half way decent screen in a craftsmen like fashion.
At this point, Microsoft is headed out just like GM - recruiting a lot of the best engineers, then just killing them in red tape, and delivering products that increasingly fail to captivate their market.
This is my sig.
Not really. Compilers these days do a better job at optimizing most code than most assembly programmers (for well-supported CPUs anyway), mostly because instruction timing and dependency issues in modern complex CPUs are quite complicated, and compilers are able to take a lot more into account (just because the code 'looks' tighter doesn't mean it'll run faster). The only place where it really makes sense to use asm is for tight inner algorithm loops, especially when you can use SIMD instructions.
I'd call that "runtime environment glue" and that's an extremely appropriate place for assembly code in modern programming. You're quite literally outside the language at that point, when you have to manually manage the calling convention.
Program Intellivision!