Slashdot Mirror
Taco Bell Programming
theodp writes "Think outside the box? Nah, think outside the bun. Ted Dziuba argues there's a programming lesson to be learned from observing how Taco Bell manages to pull down $1.9 billion by mixing-and-matching roughly eight ingredients: 'The more I write code and design systems, the more I understand that many times, you can achieve the desired functionality simply with clever reconfigurations of the basic Unix tool set. After all, functionality is an asset, but code is a liability. This is the opposite of a trend of nonsense called DevOps, where system administrators start writing unit tests and other things to help the developers warm up to them — Taco Bell Programming is about developers knowing enough about Ops (and Unix in general) so that they don't overthink things, and arrive at simple, scalable solutions.'"
Can I get a server logging system, hold the email notifications. Can I get extra rotating log files with that?
Reminds me of a job interview I did once with an old guy, he had around 30 different programming languages on his resume. I asked him which programming language was his favorite, expecting it to be something like Lisp or Forth, but he said, "shell script." I was a bit surprised, but he said, "it lets me tie pieces in from everywhere and do it all with the least amount of code."
I wasn't entirely convinced, but he did have the resume. Seems Mr Dziuba is from the same school of thought. I read the full introduction to the DevOps page and I'm still not entirely sure what it's about. We should work together and deliver on time, or something like that.
Qxe4
exactly.
Those 8 keywords are + - > [ ] . ,
Good grief, I think this is yet another useless article from the Ted Dziuba/Jeff Atwood/Joel Spolsky crowd. They spew out article after article after article with, in my opinion, bullshit "insights" that don't hold any water in the real world. Yet they've developed such a large online following, mainly of "web designers", "JavaScript programmers" and "NoSQL DBAs", that it tricks a lot of people in the industry into thinking what they say actually has some usefulness, when it usually doesn't.
Yeah, it's great when we can write a few shell or Perl scripts to perform simple tasks, but sometimes that's just not sufficient. Sometimes we do have to write our own code. While UNIX offers a very practical and powerful environment, we shouldn't waste our time trying to convolute its utilities to all sorts of problems, especially when it'll be quicker, easier and significantly more maintainable to roll some tools by hand.
"Compilers are like boyfriends, you miss a period and they go crazy on you."
I limit myself to two bits. A 0 and a 1.
Why would I need 8?
Ook! Ook?
Not a typewriter
From over a decade ago: Taco Bell's Five Ingredients Combined In Totally New Way
I think of that every time Taco Bell adds a "new" item to their menu.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I made most of a SOAP server using static files and Apache's mod_rewrite. I could have done the whole thing Taco Bell style if I had only manned up and broken out sed, but I pussied out and wrote some Python.
It seems that only software he knows counts as "Taco Bell ingredients". I'd trust Axis (or any other SOAP library) much more than sed to parse a web service request. Heck, if you discount code that you don't directly maintain, SOAP requires very little code other than the functionality of the service itself. I had a boss like this once. He would let you do anything as long as you used tools he was familiar with, but if you brought in a tool that he didn't know, you had to jump through a thousand extra testing hoops. He stopped doing actual work and got into management in the early 90's, so he pretty much didn't know any modern tool. He once made me do a full regression test on a 50KLOC application to get approval to add an index to a Microsoft SQL Server table.
The complexity people seem to delight in putting into things always amazes me. I was recently working at a major bank (they didn't like me eventually as I'm bad at authority structures). Anyway the area I was working on involved opening bank accounts from the web site. Complicated, right? The new account holder has to choose the type of account they want (of about 7), enter their details (name, address, etc), and press go. Data gets passed about, the mainframe makes the account, and we return the new account number.
Gosh.
So why, oh tell me why, did they use the following list of technologies (usually all on the same jsp page) [I may have missed some]
HTML
CSS
JSP (with pure java on the page)
Javascript (modifying the page)
JQuery
XML
XSLT
JDBC with Hibernate
JDBC without Hibernate
Custom Tag library
Spring (including AOP)
J2EE EJBs
JMS
Awesome. All this on each of the countless pages, each custom designed and built. Staggering. In fact, the site needed about 30 pages, many of them minor variations of each other. The whole thing could have been built using simple metadtata. It would have run faster, been easier to debug and test (the existing system was a nightmare), and easily changeable to suit the new business requirements that poured in.
So instead of using one efficient, smart programmer for a while, then limited support after that, they had a team of (cheap) very nervous programmers, furiously coding away, terrified lest they break something. And yes, there were layers and layers of software, each overriding the other as the new programmer didn't understand the original system, so added their own. Palimpsest, anyone?
And yet, despite my offers to rebuild the whole thing this way (including demos), management loved it. Staggering.
But I still like to keep things simple. And yes, my name is Simon. And yes, I do want a new job.
"Cats like plain crisps"
I've found the best reuse comes from simple modules, not from complex ones that try to do everything. The one that tries to do everything will still be missing the one feature you need. It's easier to add the features you need to the simple one because it's, well, simpler. With the fancier one you have to work around all the features you don't need to add those that you do need, creating more reading time and more mistakes.
Table-ized A.I.
You can easily have a little more or less salt, sugar or flour in your food. However, software is not so forgiving. Change one character and you screw up badly..
Just try substituting a tsp with a tbsp of salt in your favorite recipe and then tell me food it forgiving.
Unexpected comparison of trained coders / developers, many with certifications and degrees, to untrained sub-GED Taco Bell employee... well... frankly, knuckle-draggers.
Also, I don't care if your code is minimal and profitable, if it gives me a sore stomach as Taco Bell does, I'm opting for something more complex and just... better. Better for me, better for everyone.
I get the appeal of promoting minimalistic coding styles with food concepts, and it's a refreshing change from the raggedy car analogies... but come on. Taco Bell? Really??
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
I've found the best reuse comes from simple modules, not from complex ones that try to do everything. The one that tries to do everything will still be missing the one feature you need. It's easier to add the features you need to the simple one because it's, well, simpler. With the fancier one you have to work around all the features you don't need to add those that you do need, creating more reading time and more mistakes.
Agreed. With most complex frameworks there is also the additional overhead of having to do things in a particular way. If you try to do it differently or need to add a feature that wasn't designed for in the original framework, you often find yourself fighting it rather than working with it. At that point you should ditch the framework, but often it's not your decision to make, and then cost of redoing things once the framework is removed makes it impractical.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I once had a pair of command line tools that both printed lists of words (usernames, actually, one per row), and I wanted to find out how many unique ones there were. Obviously, the right hand side part of the pipeline was going to be something along the lines of " | sort -u | wc -l", but then I got utterly stuck by the left hand side. How can I combine the STDOUTs of two processes? Do I really need to resort to using temporary files? Is there really no tool to do the logical opposite of the "tee" command?
You are probably thinking: "Oh, you silly person, that's so trivial, you must be very incompetent", but in case you aren't, you might want to spend a minute trying to figure it out before reading on. I even asked a colleague for help before realizing that the reason I could not find a tool for the task was quite an obvious one: such a tool does not exist. Or actually it kinda does, but only in an implied sense: what I was hoping to achieve could be done by the humble semicolon and a pair of parens. I only had to put the two commands in parens to run them in a subshell, put a semicolon in between, so one will run after the other is finished, and I was done. I guess it was just that the logical leap from "This task is so simple, there must be a tool for this" to "just run the commands one after another" was too big for my feeble mind to accomplish.
So I guess the moral of the story is, even if you want to use just one simple tool, you may be overthinking it :-)
I read the linked Devops article and know even less about than before I read the article. It's full of management buzzwords and I'm sure a CIO would love it, but what does it mean?
How does Devops help?
The Devops movement is built around a group of people who believe that the application of a combination of appropriate technology and attitude can revolutionize the world of software development and delivery.
Beyond this multi-disciplinary approach, the Devops movement is attempting to encourage the development of communication skills, understanding of the domain in which the software is being written, and, crucially, a sensitivity and passion for the underlying business, and for ensuring it succeeds.
oh yeah, that clears it up. All it takes is a passion for the underlying business and it's sure to succeed!
I'm more disturbed by the fact that you know what dead donkey ass tastes like...
Mexican food's great, but it's essentially all the same ingredients, so there's a way you'd have to deal with all these stupid questions. "What is nachos?" "...Nachos? It's tortilla with cheese, meat, and vegetables." "Oh, well then what is a burrito?" "Tortilla with cheese, meat, and vegetables." "Well then what is a tostada?" "Tortilla with cheese, meat, and vegetables." "Well then what i-" "Look, it's all the same shit! Why don't you say a spanish word and I'll bring you something." - Jim Gaffigan
Once, about 20 years ago, I worked for a company who's line of business generated a VERY large amount of data which for legal reasons had to be carefully reduced, archived, etc. There were various clusters of VMS machines which captured data from different processes to disk, from where it was processed and shipped around. There were also some of the 'new fangled' Unix machines that needed to integrate into this process. The main trick was always constantly managing disk space. Any single disk in the place would probably have 2-10x its capacity worth of data moving on and off it in an given day. It was thus VITAL to constantly monitor disk usage in pretty much real time.
On VMS the sysops had developed a system to manage all this data which weighed in at 20-30k lines of code. This stuff generated reports, went through different drives and figured out what was going in where, compared it to data from earlier runs, created deltas, etc. It was a fairly slick system, but really all it did was iterate through directories, total up file sizes, and write stuff to a couple report files, and send an email if a disk was filling up too fast.
So one day my boss asks me to write basically the same program for the Unix cluster. I had a reputation as the guy that could figure out weird stuff. Even had played a small amount with Unix systems before. So I whipped out the printed Man pages and started reading. Now I figured I'd have to write a whole bunch of code, after all I'm duplicating an application that has like 30k lines of code in it, not gigantic but substantial. Pretty soon though I learned that every command line app in Unix could feed into the other ones with a pipe or a temp file. Pretty soon I learned that those apps produced ALL the data that I wanted and produced it in pretty much the format that I needed. All that I really had to do was glue it together properly. Pretty soon I (thank God it starts with A) I found awk, and then sed. 3 days after that I had 2 awk scripts, a shell script that ran a few things through sed, a cron job, and a few other bits. It was maybe 100 lines of code, total. It did MORE than the old app. It was easy to maintain and customize. It saved a LOT of time and money.
There's PLENTY to recommend the KISS principle in software design. Not every problem can be solved with a bit of shell coding of course, but it is always worth remembering that those tools are tried and true and can be deployed quickly and cheaply. Often they beat the pants off fancier approaches.
One other thing to remember from that project. My boss was the one that wrote the 30k LoC monstrosity. The week after I showed her the new Unix version, I got downsized out the door. People HATE it when you show them up...
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I think this is one of the reasons why jQuery has become so popular... it does "just enough" in a consistent (relatively) way, with a decent plug-in model... so stringing things together works pretty well, and there is usually a plugin for just about anything you'd want/need. Though it's maybe a bit heavier than hand crafted code, stringing jQuery and plugins is less debt, with more reuse. I do have a few things in my current js toolbox... namely some JS extensions, json2 (modified), date.js, jquery, jquery templates and jquery validation... from there I tweak the ui with PIE and wire up the validators... jquery is about 70k (min uncompressed), with 60k for my js/browser extensions, and 60k for jquery extensions... another 20K in site/app scripts... usually dead cache load is around 400k on a page (around 220k with gzip) and in about 12-16 http requests... using deferred script calls, under a second for initial load, and under another 1.4 seconds for js & binding... A bit thick, but works very well.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Had a friend confuse bulbs of garlic with cloves of garlic. Niiice.
Had a friend confuse bulbs of garlic with cloves of garlic.
My uncle made that mistake once. It resulted in everyone asking him for the recipe (true story).
My webcomic
I thought there were 6 - up, down, strange, charm, top and bottom?
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
I find that most defects in the English that is produced is due to the use of words that are not in the vocabulary. A sufficiently intelligent compiler (listener) is able to successfully compile the code even though the programmer(speaker) did not write it correctly, which unfortunately only reinforces the bad habit of the programmer.
I saw this same behavior in Internet explorer a few days ago. Someone complained that "Firefox isn't working", because an ASP page had a malformed link in it. IE was "smart" enough to unmangle it and display it. Firefox chose not to try to outthink the programmer and reinterpret the mess that had been passed to it. The users assumption was that Firefox was broken. I would argue the opposite.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
No, it's up, down, sideways. sex-appeal and peppermint.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
A big problem with shell programming is that the error information coming back is so limited. You get back a numeric status code, if you're lucky, or maybe a "broken pipe" signal. It's difficult to handle errors gracefully. This is a killer in production applications.
Here's an example. The original article talks about reading a million pages with "wget". I doubt the author of the article has actually done that. Our sitetruth.com system does in fact read a million web pages or so a month. Blindly getting them with "wget" won't work. All of the following situations come up routinely:
That's just reading the page text. More things can go wrong in parsing.
Even routine reading of some known data page requires some effort to get it right. We read PhishTank's entire XML list of phishing sites every three hours. Doing this reliably is non-trivial. PhishTank just overwrites their file when they update, rather than replacing it with a new one. (This is one of the design errors of UNIX, as Stallman once pointed out. Yes, there are workarounds they could do.) So we have to read the file twice, a minute apart, and wait until we get two identical copies. Then we have to check for 1) an empty file, 2) a file with proper XML structure but no data records, and 3) an improperly terminated XML file, all of which we've encountered. Then we pump the data into a MySQL database, prepared to roll back the changes if some error is detected.
The clowns who try to do stuff like this with shell scripts and cron jobs spend a big fraction of their time dealing manually with the failures. If you do it right, it just keeps working. One of my other sites, "downside.com", has been updating itself daily from SEC filings for over a decade now. About once a month, something goes wrong with the nightly update, and it's corrected automatically the next night.
That post is worthless without pics!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Psst,
" | sort | uniq -c "
Will sort and then count repetitive lines and output count, line. You can pipe the result back through sort -n if you want a frequency sort or sort -k 2 for item sorting.
That's why one of my friends calls the place Taco Bowel. It's much more descriptive than the commonly-heard Taco Hell.
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
It leaves results in your shorts.
Your argument is terribly flawed; Taco Bell doesn't serve French fries.
I think programming on an old machine should be required for any sort of programming course. It would teach people to conserve resources and think about how the machine works.
He who cannot program in 64K cannot program in more.
You had 1s?
Luxury! When I was a lad we had to program everything using only zeros!
8 ingredients, no. i've worked at a taco bell, there's a few more then that. this is most Hot Line: beef, chicken, steak, beans, rice, potatoes, red sauce, nacho cheese sauce, green sauce (only used by request), cold line: lettuce, tomatos, cheddar cheese, 3 cheese blend, onions, fiesta salsa (pico de gallo, the same tomatos and onions mixed with a sauce), sour cream, gaucamole, baja sauce, creamy jalapeno sauce. plus 5 kinds/sizes of tortillas (3 sizes of regular, 2 sizes of die cut) nacho chips, etc etc here's an interesting fact, those Cinnamon Twists you may or may not love? they're made of deep fried rotini (a type of pasta, usually boiled)
nobody's perfect
"When you work in a monkeyhouse you're more used to having shit thrown at you".
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Noli strepere.
Per tempus mei, "zero" non habemus. Numerorum Romanorum usi eramus.
So if I limit myself to 8 keywords my code has less defects and is more maintainable?
... fewer defects. Never mind.
to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
Psst,
" | sort | uniq -c "
Will sort and then count repetitive lines and output count, line. You can pipe the result back through sort -n if you want a frequency sort or sort -k 2 for item sorting.
The problem was not figuring out how to count the unique items. It's the part before the pipe that was difficult. The poster needed to combine the results of two different commands and then compute the unique items. The solution would have to be, logically, "command1 + command2 | sort | uniq -c".
Unless you can find a way to pass the output from command1 through command2, you will lose command1's data. The solution he/she found was elegant: (command1):(command2) | someKindOfSort. My syntax is probably wrong. If you were simply pointing out a better way to sort, then please disregard.