We're aiming for something a little different this year. The conference committee (in as far as it has one) has decided that if we belong to a community that really does value individuals and their interactions more than processes and tools, and responding of change more than following a plan, then our conference should work in a way consonant with that. I'm Programme Co-chair, so a lot of the mechanics of how that will work in practice fall to me to figure out–and this is almost done. I'll keep you posted.
Nice interview over at InformIT (it's that Binstock guy again, why had I not heard of him a couple of weeks ago?) with Prof Knuth.
He makes this observation:
[...]]the idea of immediate compilation and "unit tests" appeals to me only rarely, when I’m feeling my way in a totally unknown environment and need feedback about what works and what doesn’t. Otherwise, lots of time is wasted on activities that I simply never need to perform or even think about. Nothing needs to be "mocked up."I believe him. I also draw a few inferences.
One is that Knuth probably doesn't spend much time working on systems that do their work by intimately coördinating (with) six or eight other systems with very different usage patterns, metaphors, implementation stacks, space and time complexities, latencies, interface styles/languages/protocols etc. etc. etc.
Another is that he probably doesn't spend much time working on problems that are incompletely and ambiguously described (and that can't be fixed in a meaningful time and/or budget), part of an ad–hoc domain, intrinsically fuzzy, aiming or a moving target from a moving platform, subject to capricious and arbitrary constraints, etc. etc. etc.
And thus is the working life of the research computer scientist different from the working life of the commercial software engineer. I'm tempted to say (and so I will) that the jobbing industrial programmer spends more time in an unknown environment and needs more feedback (and, right now!) about what works and what doesn’t more often than a researcher does.
PostscriptBy the way, anyone* who reads that interview and thinks to themselves "ha! See! Knuth doesn't unit test, so I don't need to either" needs to consider a couple of things:
It's a symptom of the bourgeoisie's self-hatred that creation (or worse yet, creativity) is seen as a wild, undisciplined, anarchic thing. And yet every person who'd be called an artist that I've ever met has been passionately interested in form and structure and rules and schemata and in doing work under constraints that force them to try new things. That's right, introducing constraints can increase creativity, can bring to light new and exiting possibilities that were, so to speak, hidden by the freedom.
Haiku. Silverpoint drawing. Strict counterpoint. You wouldn't want to not have any other way to express yourself, but what a learning exercise!
Andrew Binstock relates a certain set of constraints within which to practice OO programming.
One of them I like a huge amount:
Wrap all primitives and strings. [...] So zip codes are an object not an integer, for example. This makes for far clearer and more testable code.It certainly does, which was the topic of the session which Ivan and I ran at Spa this year.
Another is this:
Don’t use setters, getters, or properties. [...] “tell, don’t ask.”Indeed. What we now know as jMock was invented to support this style of programming. It works a treat.
This one, though, I'm a bit equivocal about:
Don’t use the ‘else’ keyword. Test for a condition with an if-statement and exit the routine if it’s not met.See, depends on what's meant. It could be that a trick is being missed. On the one hand, I'm a huge fan of code that returns early (
if(roundHole.depthOf(squarePeg).sufficient()) return;), and also of very aggressive guard clauses (
if(i.cantLetYouDoThat(dave)) throw new DeadAstronaut();) On the other, I believe that the constraint that does most to force you to "get" OO is this:
Don't use any explicit conditionals. Never mindCan you see how that would work? I learned this so long ago that I can't remember where from (by some route from "Big" Dave Thomas, perhaps?)
else, use no
Oh yes, and for bonus points, Andrew mentions this: "Don’t use any classes with more than two instance variables". I suggest that you try not using any classes that have any instance variables, and see how far you get. You might find that to make progress you need a better language.