💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › humor › REAL › real_p.rog captured on 2022-07-17 at 02:55:51.
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-06-12)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal
Ed Post
Tektronix
Back in the good old days--the "Golden Era" of
computers--it was easy to separate the men from the boys
(sometimes called "Real Men" and "Quiche Eaters" in the
literature). 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-80's.
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 call me by name, pronouncing it 'Virt', or
call be 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 like 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 acounting (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, 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
techniques. 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 example 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 Programmers and Structured Programming:
* Real Programmers aren't afraid to use GOTO's.
* 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
GOTO's.
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 programming 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
Programmer? 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 outstanding programmer can find bugs buried in
a six-megabyte core dump without using a hex calculator. (I
have actually seen this done.)
OS is a truly remarkable operating system. It's
possible 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 Timesharing 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
whenever 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 Seymore 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. Seymore, needless to say, is a Real Programmer.
One of my favorite Real Programmers was a systems
programmer for Texas Instruments. One day he got a long-
distance call from a user whose system had crashed in the
middle 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 usually 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
precise.
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 maintenance systems. A Real Programmer
keeps his code locked up in a card file, because it
implies that its owner cannot leave his important
programs 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
Programmer wants tasks of earth-shaking importance
(literally!).
* Real Programmers work for Los Alamos National
Laboratory, 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.
* 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 photographed 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 a 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
Department. 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
Department decided that all defense programs should be
written in some grand unified language called "ADA". 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
incredibly complex, includes methods for messing with the
operating 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
Programmer 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
Programmer knows how to beat the machine every time: no
challenge in that.) Everyone working at LucasFilm is a Real
Programmer. (It would be crazy to turn down the money of
fifty million 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 of 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
opinion 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
comparing the plays against his simulations printed
on 11x14 fanfold paper.
* At the beach, the Real Programmer is the one
drawing flowcharts in the sand.
* At a funeral, the Real Programmer is the one saying
"Poor George. And he almost had the sort routine
working before the coronary."
* In a grocery store, the Real Programmer is the one
who insists on running the cans past the laser
checkout 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
function 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
computer 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
coffee. Occasionally, there will be cigarette
butts floating 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 lineprinter Snoopy calendar
of 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-stuffed Oreos for special
occasions.
* Underneath the Oreos is a flowcharting template,
left there by the previous occupant of the office.
(Real Programmers write programs, not
documentation. Leave that to the maintenance
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 the 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 impresses 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
[9].
* Real Programmers might or might not know their
spouse's name. They do, 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
programmers are not being brought up with the same outlook
on life as their elders. many of them have never seen a
computer with a front panel. Hardly anyone graduating from
school these days can do hex arithmetic without a
calculator. College graduates these days are soft--
protected from the realities of programming by source-level
debuggers, text editors that count parentheses, and "user
friendly" operating systems. Worst of all, some of these
alleged "computer scientists" manage to get degrees without
ever learning FORTRAN! 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
compiler at the drop of an option card--to compile DO loops
as 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, and 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
FORTRAN 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,
Kathy E. for putting up with it, and atd!avsdS:mark for the
initial inspiration.
[DEC hacker note: this came from a paper that surfaced
in Bedford, unsigned. The author apparently is a Unix
hacker (note the node name). Does anyone know where this
came from?]
REFERENCES
----------
[1] Feirstein, B., "Real Men don't Eat Quiche", New
York, Pocket Books, 1982.
[2] Wirth, N., "Algorithms + Data Structures =
Programs", Prentice Hall, 1976.
[3] Ilson, R., "Recent Research in Text Processing",
IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., Vol. PC-23, No. 4,
Dec. 4, 1980.
[4] Finseth, C., "Theory and Practice of Text Editors--
or--a Cookbook for an EMACS", B.S. Thesis,
MIT/LCS/PM-165, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, May 1980.
[5] Weinberg, G., "The Psychology of Computer
Programming", New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
1971, p. 110.
[6] Dijkstra, E., "On the GREEN language submitted to
the DoD", Sigplan notices, Vol. 3 No. 10, Oct
1978.
[7] Rose, Frank, "Joy of Hacking", Science 82, Vol. 3
No. 9, Nov 82, pp. 58-66.
[8] "The Hacker Papers", Psychology Today, August 1980.
[9] sdcarl!lin, "Real Programmers", UUCP-net, Thu Oct
21 16:55:16 1982