Slashdot Mirror
Real World Code Sucks
An anonymous reader tips an article at El Reg about the disparity between the code you learn at school and the code you see at work. Quoting:
"There is a kind of cognitive dissonance in most people who've moved from the academic study of computer science to a job as a real-world software developer. The conflict lies in the fact that, whereas nearly every sample program in every textbook is a perfect and well-thought-out specimen, virtually no software out in the wild is, and this is rarely acknowledged. To be precise: a tremendous amount of source code written for real applications is not merely less perfect than the simple examples seen in school — it's outright terrible by any number of measures."
It might be interesting to read The Rise of "Worse is Better"
This just in: real world a lot harder than school.
Gee, thanks Slashdot!
http://xkcd.com/844/
---
The opposite is true too: code you see in textbooks is often horrible. It omits error checking, often uses global variables, makes assumptions, etc. Someone mentioned that K&R has memory leaks all over the place, because it's more readable.
The goal of textbook code is to be readable, to communicate, not to handle every possible case. This means industry code is often less readable, but more solid. I'm sure I've missed other ways academic code is bad.
Of course a lot of industry code is unreadable and also not solid. That's another issue.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Because in real life:
- specs change constantly
- need to work with crap that's already there
- there are deadlines
- need to get stuff done
And I'm pretty sure I'm forgetting some other points.
This just in: Examples provided in school have no practical real world application. Duh. In the real world you have things like deadlines, bosses, and clueless managers. When you screw up in class, the teacher tells you where you messed up and you get a chance to do it again. In the real world, when you screw up you probably won't know what you did, at least not right away. And you're going to have to figure it out while everyone is mad at you, calling your phone, and asking why it died.
I don't know where this idea of the Zen Programmer(tm) comes from with visions of calm blue waters and bright bleached sand and everything is calm, thought out, and composed. Programmers I know hammer down mountain dew like it's nobody's business. They do not spend months debugging and thinking about it academically: If it works, you move on to the next thing. Don't bitch about the quality of the code (manager or academic) in the real world because there are almost no programmers in the corporate world that sit around thinking in O notation and figuring out the best and worst case scenario for every line of code. They bang out 500 lines in a few hours and then hit compile and hope to god it works on the first go.
That's reality people -- you don't have the time, the resources, and if you took the academic attitude to work with you, you'd be cut up and used as shark food by everyone else for being so damn slow and pragmatic when they need things working tonight so they can go home after being there for 15 effing hours to make the latest milestone.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
And English class samples (such as books and essays that they have you read) versus the comments you read on YouTube.
The last page bashes Haskell using a snippet from Uncyclopedia as anecdotal evidence that it is "all but impossible to write readable code" in Haskell.
Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of whinge, a dimension of fallacy, a dimension of diminished journalistic integrity. You're moving into a land of more shadow than substance, of vague and half-baked wit; you've just crossed over into the Register.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Water is wet, the sky is (perceived as) blue, the world *did not* end, etc.
On a more serious note I wouldn't describe any of the code examples I encountered in school as perfect or "well-thought-out" specimens." Nearly every one of them was a trivial case which ignored most error cases and expected the client human/system/software to be well-behaved. I've often thought that Comp. Sci. students (3rd or 4th year) should be forced to pick up someone else's code and refactor it into something workable. I'm not talking about the disgustingly huge and unmaintainable messes that we work with out in the real world, but something big enough to give them an inkling of the kind of scope they'll be expected to deal with.
I also think that if you're not learning TDD in school these days you're not getting your money's worth, and you'd actually be jeopardizing your career by not learning this early, as it is a life-saver out in the real world.
God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
In the academic world, if you were tasked with picking a perfect team, you would steal players from Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, a fistful of Germans, Franck Ribery, etc.
In the real world, if you are tasked with managing a programming project, you don't get to pick the best. You are given some young kids with more energy than sense, an old, wise, but disgruntled experienced guy, who nobody listens to, a few folks who really don't give a damn, and most of them really truly detest each other. So you try to make out as well as you can, with what you've got.
Hey, Mercedes are great cars, why isn't every car built like them? Well, not everyone can afford a Mercedes, and maybe most folks can get by with just a Ford.
It's just the reality of life vs. theoretical academics. Despite the physics problems you solved in college, there are no frictionless surfaces. Or the ones that are available, you just can't afford.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I work in enterprise embedded stuff where the systems are five nines reliable, and even there we've got problems. We recently ran into a day-one bug that suddenly turned and bit us because we switched to a different brand of hard drive.
Yeah, they're right about the state of things, but they get the "why" part totally fucking wrong:
The most common reason for the existence of bad software is bad programmers.
NOPE! Bad software is a result of BAD Code, even good programmers can write bad code...
At the other end of the spectrum, many projects are sabotaged by developers who are “too good”
NOPE! Maybe those scare quotes are there for a reason, but "doing things the most complex way possible" is usually because coding is iterative and there was no way for you to know of the unforeseeable future requirements.
And then there’s “bad” laziness, the kind that leads programmers to cut corners or do things in the quickest possible way, rather than taking the three extra hours to do them right.
NOPE! You're assuming that the programmer WANTED to do things the quickest way possible...
If the system is working, almost no manager will pay just to have you recode a piece of it “the right way,” without adding any new functionality. There’s always something more important that needs to be done—until that quick-and-dirty fix blows up and (because it’s urgent) gets replaced by another quick-and-dirty fix.
BINGO! This. Everything, all of the other bullshit is due to Management. Not just not paying to have things done right (see: Fast, Good, Cheap), but also unrealistic schedules and deadlines, new features being promised by sales without consulting the programmers, etc. Deadlines exist. That's why even a good programmer hacks in a kludge ridden short cut instead of taking the time to do it the right way: There is no time to take! The most common reason for bad software isn't bad programmers, is bad management and terrible working conditions. See also: Getting what you pay for when you outsource the programming department. The outsourced workers will get it done cheaper in less time -- Cheap, FAST -- What's missing here, eh? GOOD Sadly to compete with the fast and cheap the goodness of the software must be sacrificed.
As mentioned above, C++, despite its superficial similarities to Java, is infinitely easier than Java to write impenetrable code in. And one language I’ve been warned about, though I’ve never had the opportunity to use it, is Haskell, an offshoot of ML. According to a friend in academia who’s studied it, it’s “the Taliban version of ML,” in which it’s all but impossible to write readable code.
Just stop talking noob.
In the real world, tight budgets, shortsighted managers, and unreasonable expectations from non-techies almost always conspire to make developers do things too quickly.
You mention this and yet you somehow fail to realize THIS, not Languages, not Laziness, not Ignorance, not Hubris, is what is really the root cause of all the damn evil?! Fuck you, man. You're part of the problem.
In conclusion: Bad software is primarily a result of GREED.
Obviously the author has never tried to untangle outsource code. If he thinks home grown code is bad, wait until he wades through a bowl of Bangalore spaghetti code. Yummy.
Although I did make a lot of money sorting through that crap. Many companies would just assume outsource code would work when they needed it and couldn't figure out how come their wonder app, that they got done for half of what U.S. programmers would have cost, kept crashing.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
When I first graduated college and got a programming job, I thought the code was a bit shit too. Then I learned about deadlines and most importantly Bit Rot. I soon realized that you need both strokers and crankers to make a successful company (I like bowling terms).
Crankers bang out code like there is no tomorrow. When good managers find these people, they immediately put them in the department of developing new features. Competition is fierce, and a lot of times it doesn't matter about quality but about who gets there first. End of story.
Strokers take their time with code. They are fit for the "support queue," debugging, and any specific jobs that require needlework precision. I work in this department. I fix a lot of code made by Crankers, taking in both memory-efficiency and speed-efficiency. So when a customer finally does have 10,000 loads which the Cranker didn't foresee in his/her code, I fix it, and the customer is happy. I also provide a lot of options to the user instead of forcing the user down one path. Lastly, I do jobs that require excellent quality. Do not give money-critical new features to Crankers; give them to Strokers. I actually have used a lot of the the computer sciencey things that I learned in college like Big O, various Dijkstra algorithms, etc.
Tweeners are the in-betweens. They are good for the basic infrastructure/architecture. They write the base library fast and with decent enough quality. For example, they may write layers around the database, GUI, etc. to make life easier. If you don't have a Tweener, then use a Stroker. If you need the product out fast though, use a Cranker and then a Stroker later on to refactor, or use a Cranker and Stroker in unison.
To make a killer software company, you need all three. And the companies that last a long time, have managers that know how and where to place these people.
The G