Sorry, but I think your ideas are horribly misguided. Software isn't poorly programmed because hardware hasn't improved to the point where good hardware is supportable. In fact, I believe the processing power to be permanently solved, at least for business applications. Even most scientific programming can be parallelized and distributed. Meanwhile, the average user's home machine has enough programming power to support running just about any software they could possibly need.
Here the hard-core gamers may disagree, but the fact is that most new laptops today have enough programming power to be useful for at least a decade. Word processing, programming, Internet use, media viewing, etc. etc. etc. just don't take that much power. This is a big problem facing both hardware and OS vendors today.
You obviously haven't programmed in many languages if you think that the most they offer is C-style data types and functions. You claim that hardware-supported garbage collection would solve a "huge number" of programming problems, when all it would do is speed up one phase of the object life cycle. Users of correctly-programmed software would realize zero improvement in their experience from this, and neither would developers. Garbage collection is already transparent in modern OO languages.
Primary problem: programmers (this may mean you)
on
Why Software is Hard
·
· Score: 1
The replies as to what the problem really is are all over the map. This shows the biggest problem facing software developers today: software developers. There's no standardization that's worth a damn in most shops or on most projects. In addition, there are many people writing code who shouldn't be-- survivors from the flush times, when plenty of secretaries and liberal arts majors made their way into the field for the easy money. Lots of these people stayed on, got undeserved respect from business people, and were viewed as experts while others lost their jobs.
I think that big business thinks it's got a good chokehold on IT, finally, but they're wrong. Instead non-savvy managers have managed to promote people who are most like them. In addition, without any pressure to improve or conform to standards, most people who begin with rigorous training let themselves slide, through a lack of direction on sheer laziness.
The one-programmer rule only seems to add value because the suckage of multiple lamebrains working on the same bug-riddled code, with different bad concepts, being pulled in multiple directions by cheeseheaded managers, increases exponentially.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, so you agree with me. We should not advocate hardware efficiency to counteract poor programming.
Sorry, but I think your ideas are horribly misguided. Software isn't poorly programmed because hardware hasn't improved to the point where good hardware is supportable. In fact, I believe the processing power to be permanently solved, at least for business applications. Even most scientific programming can be parallelized and distributed. Meanwhile, the average user's home machine has enough programming power to support running just about any software they could possibly need. Here the hard-core gamers may disagree, but the fact is that most new laptops today have enough programming power to be useful for at least a decade. Word processing, programming, Internet use, media viewing, etc. etc. etc. just don't take that much power. This is a big problem facing both hardware and OS vendors today. You obviously haven't programmed in many languages if you think that the most they offer is C-style data types and functions. You claim that hardware-supported garbage collection would solve a "huge number" of programming problems, when all it would do is speed up one phase of the object life cycle. Users of correctly-programmed software would realize zero improvement in their experience from this, and neither would developers. Garbage collection is already transparent in modern OO languages.
The replies as to what the problem really is are all over the map. This shows the biggest problem facing software developers today: software developers. There's no standardization that's worth a damn in most shops or on most projects. In addition, there are many people writing code who shouldn't be-- survivors from the flush times, when plenty of secretaries and liberal arts majors made their way into the field for the easy money. Lots of these people stayed on, got undeserved respect from business people, and were viewed as experts while others lost their jobs. I think that big business thinks it's got a good chokehold on IT, finally, but they're wrong. Instead non-savvy managers have managed to promote people who are most like them. In addition, without any pressure to improve or conform to standards, most people who begin with rigorous training let themselves slide, through a lack of direction on sheer laziness. The one-programmer rule only seems to add value because the suckage of multiple lamebrains working on the same bug-riddled code, with different bad concepts, being pulled in multiple directions by cheeseheaded managers, increases exponentially.