|
Programming is the most intellectually stimulating activity that I have ever performed. It is not so much the making of things from nothing as it is the satisfaction that comes when I have created a thing of intellectual beauty. To me programming is a combination of art and science. And, in programming, technical competency goes hand in hand with technical currency.
So that you understand from whence I come I would like to introduce you to what I have done during my career, and what I continue to do in a more relaxed environment: I wrote stand alone multi-threaded client/server systems; graphics software and effective user interfaces to complex scientific and engineering applications; real-time and embedded system software and firmware; and communications system software. I continue to be fluent in multiple computer programming languages (e.g., C#, C, Ada, FORTRAN, COBOL, and Pascal). I have programmed within Windows, UNIX, Linux, VxWorks, as well as others too old and long ago to mention.
What bothers me about programming today is the number of people who claim to be programmers but who are not. These wannabes claim to be programmers but when you look at a wannabe's accomplishments, they usually include applications that are written in a macro language (such as VBA) and that are usually trivial and unfocused. We need a word to describe this class of people who are intelligent enough to pretend to program without actually programming. In many other career paths, they would be called apprentices.
Let me define what I did in unambiguous terms. I was a professional production programmer who wrote computer software for money paid by someone who would probably not use the software.
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software.
One of my favorite managers was not always a manager. In 1976, when I first met him, he was an expert FORTRAN programmer - more than expert - brilliant. About a year later, he told me that he was going to move into management. I expressed my disappointment and told him that within a year he would no longer be technically competent. Of course, he disagreed. He managed with flair. He made it clear to the people who worked for him that they were the foremost of his concerns. He proved his commitment more than once and his reputation as a good manager grew. About a year after he became a manager, he called me. He was writing a simple FORTRAN program but couldn't recall how to reposition a file pointer to the beginning of the file without first closing and then reopening it. It was a simple thing to do in FORTRAN (the FORTRAN statement is REWIND). I reminded him of my prediction and suggested that it had come true. However, in light of his growing reputation as a great manager, I told him that I'd rather him be a good manager. There are far too few good managers. But note, although he remained a great manager, he would not be able to be certified as a professional programmer.
Programming has not only kept me gainfully employed but it has also provided me with some of my most satisfying life-time experiences. But at the same time, programming skills in the United States are dismal. What has caused this dismal state of programming skills in the United States? I can think of at least two reasons. Academia is certainly one problem. Our educational institutions are not teaching the ethics of programming well enough. I also believe that Microsoft, one of the leading vendors of software development tools, is another.
I believe that it's time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it was needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost.
It's time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
gggustafson wrote: I believe that it's time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification
We have schools for that.
Since their papers aren't very convincing anymore, how would you prevent that problem from happening in another institute?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I know of no school that will provide any of the benefits that I included.
Regards,
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
It provides certification and guarantees a certain level of familiarity with the subject. Accountability is not something that should be in hands of someone else outside of the law*.
The rest reads like a workers' union.
--edit
*) the software was there to cover up an existing problem. So who is responsible?
Hundreds Of 737 Max Pilots Sue Boeing Over 'Unprecedented Cover-Up" | Zero Hedge[^]
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
modified 24-Jun-19 13:20pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you actually feel that trade unions are bad?
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
Nooo, quite the opposite!
Without them we'd have a 15-hour workday.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Certifications are a scam that only benefits the people that are charging money for them. Anyone can get one. Like a college diploma.
Your cited example of the 737 Max problem was NOT the fault of the programmers. They wrote the code to the specs, and Boeing knew IN ADVANCE that there might be a problem with their specs. They even had a workaround for pilots to perform in the event a problem cropped up.
Boeing management's fault, not the coders.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: Certifications are a scam that only benefits the people that are charging money for them. Anyone can get one. Like a college diploma.
You can get your Masters degree 
#realJSOP wrote: Your cited example of the 737 Max problem was NOT the fault of the programmers. They wrote the code to the specs, and Boeing knew IN ADVANCE that there might be a problem with their specs. They even had a workaround for pilots to perform in the event a problem cropped up.
Boeing management's fault, not the coders.
Read the text I linked. It's a patch to work around a hardware-problem. Pretty sure management did a risc/reward analysis 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How it looks vs how it is. What's next, how people "believe" the software was?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that programmers are absolved.
From a link by another (How the Boeing 737 Max Disaster Looks to a Software Developer - IEEE Spectrum[^]
START QUOTE
It is astounding that no one who wrote the MCAS software for the 737 Max seems even to have raised the possibility of using multiple inputs, including the opposite angle-of-attack sensor, in the computer’s determination of an impending stall. As a lifetime member of the software development fraternity, I don’t know what toxic combination of inexperience, hubris, or lack of cultural understanding led to this mistake.
But I do know that it’s indicative of a much deeper problem. The people who wrote the code for the original MCAS system were obviously terribly far out of their league and did not know it. How can they implement a software fix, much less give us any comfort that the rest of the flight management software is reliable?
END QUOTE
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
0) Most corporate coders are given a task to perform, and that is all they are to do, Many times, they have no contextual basis for the code they write beyond expected paramaters, and expected results. USAA (a big insurance company here in the US) is like this. Because they lack context, they couldn't possibly identify a potential issue.
1) Even if they were more aware, they could have said something to their immediate superior (or logged it in their bug tracking software), but the idea/observation was quashed/ignored somewhere along the management food chain.
2) Problems may have been cited, but management decided not to act due to costs. It's not a big leap to assume that management would scrub evidence that indicates this was the case, so saying it doesn't show up in the bug tracking/source controls logs doesn't mean squat.
3) Ultimately, the system engineer should have been included in the acceptance testing phase, and probably be the one to identify the problem - NOT the coders.
4) Even if the coders were "out of their league", how would the coders test something they don't fully understand?
5) What do you want to bet that it was the *engineers* that wrote this code? I woudln't EVER refer to an engineer as a "programmer". They simply aren't.
The "hubris" lies with the engineers, not the programmers. If I was a programmer that had worked on that system, and they were trying to claim I was the reason for the flaw, and further, that I knew the actual truth, I'd be pretty vocal about placing the blame where it rightly belongs.
Boeing is looking for scapegoats, and programmers are low man on the totem pole. If they thought they could get away with blaming the janitors, they certainly would try.
In the end, the guy in charge of Boeing is ultimately responsible.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
If we are to change the scenario you rightly describe, we cannot justr wait until it happens. We must make it happen.
With a strong organization, I think we can define the process by which software is developed. I'm not sure how (my job here is not to direct but rather to propose) but once organized the issues can be addressed.
Your points are a sad commentary on today's state of programming. They're more reason to organize.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
Organizing programmers is NOT going to fix faulty management.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. Faulty management should be addressed by the organization. Management training should be provided. And sanctions if companies do not cooperate. Remember Congressionally Charted?
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. There is a vast difference between "coders", "programmers" and "analyst programmers".
Coders write code to fulfill the complete specification that are given. Sometimes they given the basic code to enter.
Programmers have the ability to flesh out less well defined specification by getting answers to the undefined parts of the specification.
Analyst programmers read and question the specification they have been to ensure that the specification meet, and will resolve, the problem for which the specification was written.
In addition, consideration has be given to the working environment and management of the project. I have worked in organisations in which management not only dictated the specifications for the features or issues, they also dictated the time estimates to complete the feature or resolve the issue. This environment makes it very difficult to raise questions or even make changes to obvious issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy, thanks for that link to the 737 Max story: a very well written, compelling, piece !
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
Yw 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not push back a little and outlaw bad languages that allow software to be easily, yet poorly constructed?
Go after the root issue -- the devs who create bad languages and require them to provide languages in which the dev cannot create bad code.
That's a smaller set to deal with and more likely to happen.
In the good future, JavaScript will be illegal. 
All Python Purveyors will be Imprisoned!
|
|
|
|
|
I mentioned Microsoft. The problem that I have with MS is the continuous update of the C# language. When I was a member of the ANS X3J9 technical committee (Pascal) we were limited to a language update every five years.
Most developers are not in a position to dictate language standards. Nor are they usually listened to by large companies.
The problem is really systemic to the programming community - except we don't have a programming community!
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
gggustafson wrote: . When I was a member of the ANS X3J9 technical committee (Pascal) we were limited to a language update every five years.
And back then that worked because there wasn't as often a change in the industry. Now, this industry moves much faster and needs updates much more often.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
During my 50+ year career, I have been employed by 16 companies, each for varying periods of time. At the end of it all, guess how much of a retirement fund that I have - $0. Guess how much insurance I have - $0. Basically, I have no benefits that accrued over the 50+ years. Nothing was done illegally. In large part this situation was caused as a result of my decisions. But, when you're 34, you seldom have the wisdom that you have when you are 60. The other side of the problem was that in 2 cases, my salary was significantly higher with recent to that of recent graduates. I believe that a professional organization would have protected me against myself.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
gggustafson wrote: this situation was caused as a result of my decisions.
absolutely.
If you are an American, and paid your taxes, you have Social Security benefits, which can begin as early as 62 years of age.
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
If you made software-engineer wages and didn't put anything away for retirement, that is so totally your fault. A union with a mandatory-participation retirement plan to "protect you from yourself" is the kind of union that union-haters particularly dislike. It's an organization with enough money to make it ripe for abuse and racketeering. This is the wrong model IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
When I started programming for a major software services company in 1973, I was paid $12K per year. I received 10% pay raises every 6 months. Because I was cheap and good, my job was secure. In 1998, I was earning $103K per year. But when I left my then-current employer I also left all of my benefits: six weeks vacation, a retirement account, health benefits for my partner and myself, and most importantly a job. The reason for my departure was the need to reallocate discretionary funds to Bosnia training (I was a contractor for the US Army at the National Training Center). When I landed in a new job, I was paid $25K per year (my choice to get a job). By the time I finally left commercial programming, I was earning about $50K per year.
Because of my life style, I didn't need savings: no kids, no college, no weddings, etc. I thought my whole salary was discretionary (with the exception of mortgages, automobile loan, etc.). I am not complaining about my foolishness. I have Social Security, Veterans benefits, an annuity, and a trust fund (the latter two established by my family who recognized my financial planning shortcomings). In a quick search, I turned up an Experian survey that suggests that I was not alone in the manner in which I spent money.
The take-away: a professional organization for programmers may well have solved my financial planning problem. Not necessarily, but possibly.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
