[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



This I found on the web and remember reading it on paper.  Liked it then
and like it now. .  Long before there was a gfortran there was
fortran G.  

Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal

[ A letter to the editor of Datamation, volume 29 number 7, July
1983. I've long ago lost my dog-eared photocopy, but I believe this was
written (and is copyright) by Ed Post, Tektronix, Wilsonville OR USA.

The story of Mel is a related article. ]

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 who understood computer programming, and the Quiche Eaters
were the ones who 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).

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 by 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.

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 example 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 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 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.

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 6
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 Time Sharing system that runs on
OS/370, but after careful study I have come to the conclusion that they
were mistaken.

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 line
printer 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].

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.

    * The computers in the Space Shuttle were programmed by Real
    * Programmers.

    * Real Programmers are at work for Boeing designing the operation
    * 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 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" ((C), 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 had enough
interesting features to make it approachable-- it's incredibly complex,
includes methods for messing with the operating system and rearranging
memory, and Edsger 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.

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 11 by 14 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 scanner himself, because
    * he never could trust keypunch operators to get it right the first
    * time.

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 line-printer Snoopy calendar 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 maintenence
    * 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 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.

    * 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.

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 Pas- cal 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 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 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 MIT 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!

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/TM-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.

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
inspiration.

Webbed by Greg Lindahl ([email protected])


-- 
*********************************************************************
* George Yanos     *                                                *
* UTC at UIC       *                                                *
* 312-413-0059(w)  *                                                *
* 708-848-4221(h)  *                                                *
* [email protected]   *                                                *
*********************************************************************


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]
  Powered by Linux