informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/humor/REAL/real_pro.pas

557 lines
24 KiB
ObjectPascal
Raw Permalink Blame History

March 24, 1983
Real Programmers Don't Use PASCAL
Ed Post
Tektronix, Inc.
P.O. Box 1000 m/s 63-205
Wilsonville, OR 97070
Copyright (c) 1982
(decvax | ucbvax | cbosg | pur-ee | lbl-unix)!teklabs!iddic!evp
Back in the good old days -- the "Golden Era" of com-
puters, it was easy to separate the men from the boys (some-
times called "Real Men" and "Quiche Eaters" in the litera-
ture). During this period, the Real Men were the ones that
understood computer programming, and the Quiche Eaters were
the ones that didn't. A real computer programmer said things
like "DO 10 I=1,10" and "ABEND" (they actually talked in
capital letters, you understand), and the rest of the world
said things like "computers are too complicated for me" and
"I can't relate to computers -- they're so impersonal". (A
previous work [1] points out that Real Men don't "relate" to
anything, and aren't afraid of being impersonal.)
But, as usual, times change. We are faced today with a
world in which little old ladies can get computers in their
microwave ovens, 12 year old kids can blow Real Men out of
the water playing Asteroids and Pac-Man, and anyone can buy
and even understand their very own Personal Computer. The
Real Programmer is in danger of becoming extinct, of being
replaced by high-school students with TRASH-80s.
There is a clear need to point out the differences
between the typical high-school junior Pac-Man player and a
Real Programmer. If this difference is made clear, it will
give these kids something to aspire to -- a role model, a
Father Figure. It will also help explain to the employers of
Real Programmers why it would be a mistake to replace the
Real Programmers on their staff with 12 year old Pac-Man
players (at a considerable salary savings).
LANGUAGES
---------
The easiest way to tell a Real Programmer from the
crowd is by the programming language he (or she) uses. Real
Programmers use FORTRAN. Quiche Eaters use PASCAL. Nicklaus
Wirth, the designer of PASCAL, gave a talk once at which he
was asked "How do you pronounce your name?". He replied,
"You can either call me by name, pronouncing it 'Veert', or
call me by value, 'Worth'." One can tell immediately from
this comment that Nicklaus Wirth is a Quiche Eater. The only
parameter passing mechanism endorsed by Real Programmers is
call-by-value-return, as implemented in the IBM/370 FORTRAN
G and H compilers. Real programmers don't need all these
abstract concepts to get their jobs done -- they are
perfectly happy with a keypunch, a FORTRAN IV compiler, and
a beer.
* Real Programmers do List Processing in FORTRAN.
* Real Programmers do String Manipulation in FORTRAN.
* Real Programmers do Accounting (if they do it at all)
in FORTRAN.
* Real Programmers do Artificial Intelligence programs in
FORTRAN.
If you can't do it in FORTRAN, do it in assembly language.
If you can't do it in assembly language, it isn't worth
doing.
STRUCTURED PROGRAMMING
---------- -----------
The academics in computer science have gotten into the
"structured programming" rut over the past several years.
They claim that programs are more easily understood if the
programmer uses some special language constructs and tech-
niques. They don't all agree on exactly which constructs, of
course, and the examples they use to show their particular
point of view invariably fit on a single page of some
obscure journal or another -- clearly not enough of an exam-
ple to convince anyone. When I got out of school, I thought
I was the best programmer in the world. I could write an
unbeatable tic-tac-toe program, use five different computer
languages, and create 1000 line programs that WORKED.
(Really!) Then I got out into the Real World. My first task
in the Real World was to read and understand a 200,000 line
FORTRAN program, then speed it up by a factor of two. Any
Real Programmer will tell you that all the Structured Coding
in the world won't help you solve a problem like that -- it
takes actual talent. Some quick observations on Real Pro-
grammers and Structured Programming:
* Real Programmers aren't afraid to use GOTOs.
* Real Programmers can write five page long DO loops
without getting confused.
* Real Programmers like Arithmetic IF statements -- they
make the code more interesting.
* Real Programmers write self-modifying code, especially
if they can save 20 nanoseconds in the middle of a
tight loop.
* Real Programmers don't need comments -- the code is
obvious.
* Since FORTRAN doesn't have a structured IF, REPEAT ...
UNTIL, or CASE statement, Real Programmers don't have
to worry about not using them. Besides, they can be
simulated when necessary using assigned GOTOs.
Data structures have also gotten a lot of press lately.
Abstract Data Types, Structures, Pointers, Lists, and
Strings have become popular in certain circles. Wirth (the
above-mentioned Quiche Eater) actually wrote an entire book
[2] contending that you could write a program based on data
structures, instead of the other way around. As all Real
Programmers know, the only useful data structure is the
Array. Strings, Lists, Structures, Sets -- these are all
special cases of arrays and can be treated that way just as
easily without messing up your programing language with all
sorts of complications. The worst thing about fancy data
types is that you have to declare them, and Real Programming
Languages, as we all know, have implicit typing based on the
first letter of the (six character) variable name.
OPERATING SYSTEMS
--------- -------
What kind of operating system is used by a Real Pro-
grammer? CP/M? God forbid -- CP/M, after all, is basically
a toy operating system. Even little old ladies and grade
school students can understand and use CP/M.
Unix is a lot more complicated of course -- the typical
Unix hacker never can remember what the PRINT command is
called this week -- but when it gets right down to it, Unix
is a glorified video game. People don't do Serious Work on
Unix systems: they send jokes around the world on UUCP-net
and write adventure games and research papers.
No, your Real Programmer uses OS/370. A good programmer
can find and understand the description of the IJK305I error
he just got in his JCL manual. A great programmer can write
JCL without referring to the manual at all. A truly out-
standing programmer can find bugs buried in a 6 megabyte
core dump without using a hex calculator. (I have actually
seen this done.)
OS is a truly remarkable operating system. It's possi-
ble to destroy days of work with a single misplaced space,
so alertness in the programming staff is encouraged. The
best way to approach the system is through a keypunch. Some
people claim there is a Time Sharing system that runs on
OS/370, but after careful study I have come to the
conclusion that they were mistaken.
PROGRAMMING TOOLS
----------- -----
What kind of tools does a Real Programmer use? In
theory, a Real Programmer could run his programs by keying
them into the front panel of the computer. Back in the days
when computers had front panels, this was actually done
occasionally. Your typical Real Programmer knew the entire
bootstrap loader by memory in hex, and toggled it in when-
ever it got destroyed by his program. (Back then, memory was
memory -- it didn't go away when the power went off. Today,
memory either forgets things when you don't want it to, or
remembers things long after they're better forgotten.)
Legend has it that Seymour Cray, inventor of the Cray I
supercomputer and most of Control Data's computers, actually
toggled the first operating system for the CDC7600 in on the
front panel from memory when it was first powered on. Sey-
mour, needless to say, is a Real Programmer.
One of my favorite Real Programmers was a systems pro-
grammer for Texas Instruments. One day, he got a long dis-
tance call from a user whose system had crashed in the mid-
dle of saving some important work. Jim was able to repair
the damage over the phone, getting the user to toggle in
disk I/O instructions at the front panel, repairing system
tables in hex, reading register contents back over the
phone. The moral of this story: while a Real Programmer usu-
ally includes a keypunch and lineprinter in his toolkit, he
can get along with just a front panel and a telephone in
emergencies.
In some companies, text editing no longer consists of
ten engineers standing in line to use an 029 keypunch. In
fact, the building I work in doesn't contain a single
keypunch. The Real Programmer in this situation has to do
his work with a "text editor" program. Most systems supply
several text editors to select from, and the Real Programmer
must be careful to pick one that reflects his personal
style. Many people believe that the best text editors in the
world were written at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center for
use on their Alto and Dorado computers [3]. Unfortunately,
no Real Programmer would ever use a computer whose operating
system is called SmallTalk, and would certainly not talk to
the computer with a mouse.
Some of the concepts in these Xerox editors have been
incorporated into editors running on more reasonably named
operating systems -- EMACS and VI being two. The problem
with these editors is that Real Programmers consider "what
you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text
Editors as it is in Women. No, the Real Programmer wants a
"you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. TECO, to be pre-
cise.
It has been observed that a TECO command sequence more
closely resembles transmission line noise than readable text
[4]. One of the more entertaining games to play with TECO is
to type your name in as a command line and try to guess what
it does. Just about any possible typing error while talking
with TECO will probably destroy your program, or even worse
-- introduce subtle and mysterious bugs in a once working
subroutine.
For this reason, Real Programmers are reluctant to
actually edit a program that is close to working. They find
it much easier to just patch the binary object code
directly, using a wonderful program called SUPERZAP (or its
equivalent on non-IBM machines). This works so well that
many working programs on IBM systems bear no relation to the
original FORTRAN code. In many cases, the original source
code is no longer available. When it comes time to fix a
program like this, no manager would even think of sending
anything less than a Real Programmer to do the job -- no
Quiche Eating structured programmer would even know where to
start. This is called "job security". Some programming
tools NOT used by Real Programmers:
* FORTRAN preprocessors like MORTRAN and RATFOR. The
Cuisinarts of programming -- great for making Quiche.
See comments above on structured programming.
* Source language debuggers. Real Programmers can read
core dumps.
* Compilers with array bounds checking. They stifle
creativity, destroy most of the interesting uses for
EQUIVALENCE, and make it impossible to modify the
operating system code with negative subscripts. Worst
of all, bounds checking is inefficient.
* Source code maintainance systems. A Real Programmer
keeps his code locked up in a card file, because it
implies that its owner cannot leave his important pro-
grams unguarded [5].
THE REAL PROGRAMMER AT WORK
--- ---- ---------- -- ----
Where does the typical Real Programmer work? What kind
of programs are worthy of the efforts of so talented an
individual? You can be sure that no real Programmer would be
caught dead writing accounts-receivable programs in COBOL,
or sorting mailing lists for People magazine. A Real Pro-
grammer wants tasks of earth-shaking importance
(literally!).
* Real Programmers work for Los Alamos National Labora-
tory, writing atomic bomb simulations to run on Cray I
supercomputers.
* Real Programmers work for the National Security Agency,
decoding Russian transmissions.
* It was largely due to the efforts of thousands of Real
Programmers working for NASA that our boys got to the
moon and back before the Russkies.
* The computers in the Space Shuttle were programmed by
Real Programmers.
* Real Programmers are at work for Boeing designing the
operating systems for cruise missiles.
Some of the most awesome Real Programmers of all work
at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. Many of them
know the entire operating system of the Pioneer and Voyager
spacecraft by heart. With a combination of large ground-
based FORTRAN programs and small spacecraft-based assembly
language programs, they are able to do incredible feats of
navigation and improvisation -- hitting ten-kilometer wide
windows at Saturn after six years in space, repairing or
bypassing damaged sensor platforms, radios, and batteries.
Allegedly, one Real Programmer managed to tuck a pattern-
matching program into a few hundred bytes of unused memory
in a Voyager spacecraft that searched for, located, and pho-
tographed a new moon of Jupiter.
The current plan for the Galileo spacecraft is to use a
gravity assist trajectory past Mars on the way to Jupiter.
This trajectory passes within 80 +/- 3 kilometers of the
surface of Mars. Nobody is going to trust a PASCAL program
(or PASCAL programmer) for navigation to these tolerances.
As you can tell, many of the world's Real Programmers
work for the U.S. Government -- mainly the Defense Depart-
ment. This is as it should be. Recently, however, a black
cloud has formed on the Real Programmer horizon. It seems
that some highly placed Quiche Eaters at the Defense Depart-
ment decided that all Defense programs should be written in
some grand unified language called "ADA" ((r), DoD). For a
while, it seemed that ADA was destined to become a language
that went against all the precepts of Real Programming -- a
language with structure, a language with data types, strong
typing, and semicolons. In short, a language designed to
cripple the creativity of the typical Real Programmer.
Fortunately, the language adopted by DoD has enough
interesting features to make it approachable -- it's incred-
ibly complex, includes methods for messing with the operat-
ing system and rearranging memory, and Edsgar Dijkstra
doesn't like it [6]. (Dijkstra, as I'm sure you know, was
the author of "GoTos Considered Harmful" -- a landmark work
in programming methodology, applauded by Pascal Programmers
and Quiche Eaters alike.) Besides, the determined Real Pro-
grammer can write FORTRAN programs in any language.
The real programmer might compromise his principles and
work on something slightly more trivial than the destruction
of life as we know it, providing there's enough money in it.
There are several Real Programmers building video games at
Atari, for example. (But not playing them -- a Real Program-
mer knows how to beat the machine every time: no challange
in that.) Everyone working at LucasFilm is a Real Program-
mer. (It would be crazy to turn down the money of fifty mil-
lion Star Trek fans.) The proportion of Real Programmers in
Computer Graphics is somewhat lower than the norm, mostly
because nobody has found a use for Computer Graphics yet. On
the other hand, all Computer Graphics is done in FORTRAN, so
there are a fair number people doing Graphics in order to
avoid having to write COBOL programs.
THE REAL PROGRAMMER AT PLAY
--- ---- ---------- -- ----
Generally, the Real Programmer plays the same way he
works -- with computers. He is constantly amazed that his
employer actually pays him to do what he would be doing for
fun anyway (although he is careful not to express this opin-
ion out loud). Occasionally, the Real Programmer does step
out of the office for a breath of fresh air and a beer or
two. Some tips on recognizing real programmers away from the
computer room:
* At a party, the Real Programmers are the ones in the
corner talking about operating system security and how
to get around it.
* At a football game, the Real Programmer is the one com-
paring the plays against his simulations printed on 11
by 14 fanfold paper.
* At the beach, the Real Programmer is the one drawing
flowcharts in the sand.
* A Real Programmer goes to discos to watch the light
shows.
* At a funeral, the Real Programmer is the one saying
"Poor George. And he almost had the sort routine work-
ing before the coronary."
* In a grocery store, the Real Programmer is the one who
insists on running the cans past the laser checkout
scanner himself, because he never could trust keypunch
operators to get it right the first time.
THE REAL PROGRAMMER'S NATURAL HABITAT
--- ---- ------------ ------- -------
What sort of environment does the Real Programmer func-
tion best in? This is an important question for the
managers of Real Programmers. Considering the amount of
money it costs to keep one on the staff, it's best to put
him (or her) in an environment where he can get his work
done.
The typical Real Programmer lives in front of a com-
puter terminal. Surrounding this terminal are:
* Listings of all programs the Real Programmer has ever
worked on, piled in roughly chronological order on
every flat surface in the office.
* Some half-dozen or so partly filled cups of cold cof-
fee. Occasionally, there will be cigarette butts float-
ing in the coffee. In some cases, the cups will contain
Orange Crush.
* Unless he is very good, there will be copies of the OS
JCL manual and the Principles of Operation open to some
particularly interesting pages.
* Taped to the wall is a line-printer Snoopy calender for
the year 1969.
* Strewn about the floor are several wrappers for peanut
butter filled cheese bars -- the type that are made
pre-stale at the bakery so they can't get any worse
while waiting in the vending machine.
* Hiding in the top left-hand drawer of the desk is a
stash of double-stuff Oreos for special occasions.
* Underneath the Oreos is a flow-charting template, left
there by the previous occupant of the office. (Real
Programmers write programs, not documentation. Leave
that to the maintainence people.)
The Real Programmer is capable of working 30, 40, even
50 hours at a stretch, under intense pressure. In fact, he
prefers it that way. Bad response time doesn't bother the
Real Programmer -- it gives him a chance to catch a little
sleep between compiles. If there is not enough schedule
pressure on the Real Programmer, he tends to make things
more challenging by working on some small but interesting
part of the problem for the first nine weeks, then finishing
the rest in the last week, in two or three 50-hour
marathons. This not only inpresses the hell out of his
manager, who was despairing of ever getting the project done
on time, but creates a convenient excuse for not doing the
documentation. In general:
* No Real Programmer works 9 to 5. (Unless it's the ones
at night.)
* Real Programmers don't wear neckties.
* Real Programmers don't wear high heeled shoes.
* Real Programmers arrive at work in time for lunch.
* A Real Programmer might or might not know his wife's
name. He does, however, know the entire ASCII (or
EBCDIC) code table.
* Real Programmers don't know how to cook. Grocery stores
aren't open at three in the morning. Real Programmers
survive on Twinkies and coffee.
THE FUTURE
--- ------
What of the future? It is a matter of some concern to
Real Programmers that the latest generation of computer pro-
grammers are not being brought up with the same outlook on
life as their elders. Many of them have never seen a com-
puter with a front panel. Hardly anyone graduating from
school these days can do hex arithmetic without a calcula-
tor. College graduates these days are soft -- protected from
the realities of programming by source level debuggers, text
editors that count parentheses, and "user friendly" operat-
ing systems. Worst of all, some of these alleged "computer
scientists" manage to get degrees without ever learning FOR-
TRAN! Are we destined to become an industry of Unix hackers
and Pascal programmers?
From my experience, I can only report that the future
is bright for Real Programmers everywhere. Neither OS/370
nor FORTRAN show any signs of dying out, despite all the
efforts of Pascal programmers the world over. Even more
subtle tricks, like adding structured coding constructs to
FORTRAN have failed. Oh sure, some computer vendors have
come out with FORTRAN 77 compilers, but every one of them
has a way of converting itself back into a FORTRAN 66 com-
piler at the drop of an option card -- to compile DO loops
like God meant them to be.
Even Unix might not be as bad on Real Programmers as it
once was. The latest release of Unix has the potential of
an operating system worthy of any Real Programmer -- two
different and subtly incompatible user interfaces, an arcane
and complicated teletype driver, virtual memory. If you
ignore the fact that it's "structured", even 'C' programming
can be appreciated by the Real Programmer: after all,
there's no type checking, variable names are seven (ten?
eight?) characters long, and the added bonus of the Pointer
data type is thrown in -- like having the best parts of FOR-
TRAN and assembly language in one place. (Not to mention
some of the more creative uses for #define.)
No, the future isn't all that bad. Why, in the past
few years, the popular press has even commented on the
bright new crop of computer nerds and hackers ([7] and [8])
leaving places like Stanford and M.I.T. for the Real World.
>From all evidence, the spirit of Real Programming lives on
in these young men and women. As long as there are ill-
defined goals, bizarre bugs, and unrealistic schedules,
there will be Real Programmers willing to jump in and Solve
The Problem, saving the documentation for later. Long live
FORTRAN!
ACKNOWLEGEMENT
--------------
I would like to thank Jan E., Dave S., Rich G., Rich E.
for their help in characterizing the Real Programmer,
Heather B. for the illustration, Kathy E. for putting up
with it, and atd!avsdS:mark for the initial inspriration.
REFERENCES
----------
[1] Feirstein, B., Real Men Don't Eat Quiche, New York,
Pocket Books, 1982.
[2] Wirth, N., Algorithms + Datastructures = Programs,
Prentice Hall, 1976.
[3] Xerox PARC editors . . .
[4] Finseth, C., Theory and Practice of Text Editors -
or - a Cookbook for an EMACS, B.S. Thesis,
MIT/LCS/TM-165, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
May 1980.
[5] Weinberg, G., The Psychology of Computer Programming,
New York, Van Nostrabd Reinhold, 1971, page 110.
[6] Dijkstra, E., On the GREEN Language Submitted to the DoD,
Sigplan notices, Volume 3, Number 10, October 1978.
[7] Rose, Frank, Joy of Hacking, Science 82, Volume 3, Number 9,
November 1982, pages 58 - 66.
[8] The Hacker Papers, Psychology Today, August 1980.
==================================================================
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink