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."
Advanced developers who learned how to code on what would be considered bare bones IDEs don't feel the need to use tools that are meant to let low level developers produce functional GUI applications without having to dedicate tons of hours.
News at 11!
Yes, in some respects, programming is becoming easier and more unqualified people are able to do it.
But I think that these guys are really missing the boat. The closer the programming environment can come to providing domain-relevant expression tools to the user, the better they will be able to create programs that fit their domain.
In addition, content these days is a form of programming. Whether it is HTML/CSS or word processing or spreadsheets, the distinct line between what is a program and what is pure data is blurred beyond recognition. So a programming language for interpretive dance would probably find the Natal very useful.
"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."
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")
Tho I'm a little strangely biased, I miss the days of assembly, when 10k was a LOT of code to write to solve a problem, thing ran at blindingly fast speed with almost no disk or memory footprint. Nowadays, Hello World is a huge production in itself. 97% of today's coders don't have any idea what they've missed out on and just accept what they've got. Even someone that understands the nerf tools like VB at a lower level can get sooo much more out of them. I recall taking someone's crypto code in VB and producing a several thousand-fold speed boost because of my understanding of how VB was translating things. They didn't know what to say, they'd just accepted that what they were doing was going to be dog slow. (and unfortunately the users are also falling under the same hypnosis)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
because the modern Microsoft development tools need that infernal Dotnet library to be loaded and then when it gets messes up any software that depends on it does not work.
Indeed. One of my PCs has a broken '.Net framework' which can't be fixed without a complete reinstall of the operating system: even Microsoft's own 'completely obliterate every last trace the bloody thing' uninstaller isn't enough to remove all the traces which prevent it from reinstalling properly. As a result, a lot of new software simply will not run.
Fortunately I do most of my useful work on Linux or Solaris these days so not being able to run random Windows software is no big deal, but '.Net' is such a monstrosity that it makes 'DLL Hell' look good in comparison; if even Microsoft can't fix it when it breaks, what chance do users have?
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.
I really don't see an issue or any hypocrisy here.
Yeah, really. Senior Engineers disagree with company marketing strategy and prefer to keep things simple. That isn't newsworthy -- that's a Dilbert strip ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Many companies aren't big enough (or use Windows extensively enough) to get a volume license. And besides that, the significant cost is not the license, but replacing the hardware, and all the man-hours of work getting all the old apps up and working again.
Windows 9x will remain for many years to come, on business PCs with modest needs. And yes, there periodically need to be new programs written, as well as several old programs maintained.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I just realized that I am now committed to the proposition that Perl "tries to spoonfeed you." I am not sure this is a good position to be in ;-)
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.
Huh? If you don't want .NET, don't use a Managed C++ project, use a native C++ project. You can control exactly what libraries are included, and no, it doesn't include .NET libraries by default. I'm not sure how you can claim to know anything about Visual Studio, if you don't know this.
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.
Our programmers are getting a bad rep because of our coding-for-weenies tradition. Can you please run an article that makes Microsoft programmers look like total badasses?
XOXOXO
-Steve B.
I hate Microsoft more than anyone
See, being subjected to IDEs has lowered your ability of detecting faulty code. You're basically saying A > A since this "anyone" includes "you" too. ;)
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Don't know about interpretive dance, but I'm guessing that the MFC was written in abstract pottery.
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
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.
Yeah, really. Senior Engineers disagree with company marketing strategy ...
Who said that "graphical programming" is company marketing strategy today? Oh, sorry, it's another kdawson story; you expected any facts here? Let me explain then.
Anyone who deals with .NET tools knows that there had been a recent shift back towards code. For example, WinForms development was too tedious without visual drag&drop form editor, but WPF markup is best hand-coded, just like HTML (VS provides a visual editor, too, but hardly anyone uses it for anything except quick preview). Or what used to be called "typed datasets" - also very designer-centric, but with LINQ2SQL and Entity Framework, again, most people stick to writing code and mappings in XML by hand.
In fact, it's easy to find out that much if you just look up the names mentioned in TFA. For example, who is Don Box? He's working on Microsoft "Oslo" project, next-gen modeling platform which was hyped back on PDC2008, and all Microsoft managers in the division blogged on how it's the next big thing etc. And the main difference of that platform from the existing "DSL" tools in VS2008? Oslo is centered around text-based DSLs, and comes with a Emacs-like editor which can handle them.
In short, developers of the new tools for Microsoft development platform - which are fully backed by marketing - criticize some aspects of the previous generation of tools. Surprise, eh?
But go ahead and ask them what they use to edit C# code that they write, and I bet you'll hear "why, VS of course".
Then there's Jeffrey's comment on .NET. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with it, and if you RTFA, you'll see that he is an architect for PowerShell - a very high-level scripting/shell language built on top of .NET! To interpret his comment as a criticism of managed, when he is in fact the one "pushing" for it via the tech he works on, is rather disingenuous.
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.
A decade ago when I was employed at Big Blue it's then CEO Lou Gerstner said "All code has been written, it just needs to be managed". We all laughed so hard it hurt, however the way things are going Lou may get to have the last laugh after all.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
But the OP may be right if it is statistically true (I don't know that it is) that there exists high correlations between "good" programmers preferring a text editor and/or "posers" preferring Visual Studio.
I'll buy the former, but absolutely *not* the latter.
Coding with a simple text editor, make/gcc/etc, and gdb implies a fundamental set of skills: familiarity and comfort on the command-line, ability to (presumably) write and invoke Makefiles, ability to use gdb (which, let's face it, ain't pretty for a newcomer), and so forth. So it stands to reason that there's a greater chance such an individual has the skills necessary to write decent code (also known as "trial by fire"), as a poorer developer would likely be scared away.
But I find it very difficult to believe that, given a population of VS users, there's a disproportionate number of crappy developers (ie, that the ratio of skilled to unskilled developers exceeds the ratio in the software developer population at large). A weak developer will obviously use any tools that make the job of writing code less daunting, and a good IDE definitely fits in that category. And a strong developer will use whatever tool makes their job easier, and guess what? VS is a *damn* good tool, particularly if you're targeting the .NET stack.
So I'd would say this: A developer that's happy using a simple text editor/compiler/debugger combo has a greater than average chance of being a good developer. But you can assume nothing about a developer who chooses an integrated IDE over the aforementioned environment if given the choice.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that any developer who actively *shuns* IDEs without good reason (and, BTW, simple familiarity is a good reason... mindless elitism, however, is not) deserves as much skepticism as one who isn't capable of using the editor/compiler/debugger environment, as they're expressing dogmatic tendencies that can be deeply counterproductive in the work environment.
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.
Embedded development and bootstrapping is the last bastion of necessity in assembly.
Any other use is likely for obfuscation, academia or pride.
About this time last year I was told to implement (in a C++ app) something not unlike the IMPORT command in VB. In other words, it allows you to call an arbitrary DLL function from a script language in our application.
Since we do not know at compile-time how many parameters are going to be passed to it, the only way I could think of doing this was to manually construct the stack into the required calling convention using PUSH instructions and do JMP EAX to call the function.
It took about 10-20 lines of assembler. I then had to do a couple of alternative implementations to support win32, elf32, win64, elf64 and win32 on ARM for the PDA version, but since there wasn't much code involved, the whole exercise took about a week from nothing to fully working.
Maybe there is a way to do this in C++ without resorting to assembler, and without requiring the called module to have a predefined interface, but I'm damned if I can think of one. To be fair, it is the only assembler module in the entire program.