soft-eng@MITRE.ARPA (Alok Nigam) (10/10/88)
Soft-Eng Digest Sun, 9 Oct 88 V: Issue 36
Today's Topics:
Cynic's Guide to SE #6: Forthcoming Revolt (5 msgs)
Re: Cynic's Guide to SE #6: Forthcoming Revolt
whoa there mike (was Re: Cynic's Guide to SE #6: Forthcoming Revolt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1 Oct 88 22:40:13 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!sommar@uunet.uu.net (Erland Sommarskog)
Subject: Cynic's Guide to SE #6: Forthcoming Revolt
One thing is for sure: A PC, Macintosh or an Amiga can *look* much
more impressive than the old traditional monochrome screen connected
to VAX or similar. But you use them for different purposes, and if
we are talking software engineering, these boring glass screens win.
Admittedly I have very little experience of PC software and none of
Mac or Amiga. No doubt you have better and nicer *application* software
available on these machines like tools for doing slides and documentation.
And since documentaion is a an important thing, this means these
machines can be of good help for that part of the work. And, at the
place I currently located, they have both VAXes and Macintoshes.
But for program development? Can these small machines give the
same support for large-scale projects? I saw a demonstration of
the debugger for Turbo-Pascal, and I wasn't too impressed. Nice
graphics, but it didn't seem to do better than the VMS debugger.
Source-code control? Make?
I think that the conclusion that the computer at home does better
than the one at work is little of a short-cut. You are looking too
much at the surface. For mangagers and other people who mainly
use application programs, the PC is a winner, but for a software
engineer?
A final comparison. For a while we had fun with the PC game "Leisure
Larry in the Land of Lounge Lizards". Nice graphics, true, but the
game as such became uninteresting since once you solved it, there
were no variations. On the other hand, I still like from time to
time playing nethack on this Unix machine. Simple ASCII for graphics,
not fancy at all, but the game as such has much more to offer than
------------------------------
Date: 30 Sep 88 11:42:53 GMT
From: steinmetz!ge-dab!ge-rtp!edison!rja@itsgw.rpi.edu (rja)
Subject: Cynic's Guide to SE #6: Forthcoming Revolt
In response to neff@helens.Stanford.EDU (Randall B. Neff)'s
comments on graphic interfaces, and micros vs. superminis/mainframes:
The real trick is to scale the computer used to the job at hand. Using
micro computers in CS courses where relatively small pieces of code are
being written is often more appropriate than using superminis/mainframes.
On the other hand as the programs get larger, the superminis make much more
sense than micros -- especially if a large 'make' is what happens. The tools
provided with most dialects of UNIX ( troff, pic, tbl, etc.) can produce
graphics more than adequate for anything I've needed to do and the source
files are portable to any troff, pic, etc. not just the same brand of pc
or Macintosh.
Graphical interfaces aren't everything. I find that mice are annoying
because they make me take my hands off of the 'home row' of the keyboard.
That is why I use WordPerfect at home not MS Word. A good command line
interface or shell ( ksh leaps to mind ) makes me much more productive
and happy than mice and windows ever will. I'd much rather have a 17"
monocrome display with 35-50 lines of text than a smaller one that does
graphics and colour.
Disclaimer: My first computer was a PDP-11, the terminal was a DECwriter,
and the editor was TECO as I recall.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Oct 88 13:48:17 GMT
From: uwslh!lishka@speedy.wisc.edu (Fish-Guts)
Subject: Cynic's Guide to SE #6: Forthcoming Revolt
[Excuse my writing, as it may be a bit incoherent. I managed to get
less than an hours sleep last night, and am feeling a bit fatigued.
Aren't college computer science classes fun? ;-) ]
>One thing is for sure: A PC, Macintosh or an Amiga can *look* much
>more impressive than the old traditional monochrome screen connected
>to VAX or similar. But you use them for different purposes, and if
>we are talking software engineering, these boring glass screens win.
You should look again, a little more closely. Personal computers
have matured a great deal since the dawn of the PET and Apple II.
>But for program development? ...
Yup, program development tools are becoming as good or better
than many UNIX tools. Take the Amiga, for instance (it is the one I
am most familiar with): it has several versions of emacs, vi, diff,
grep, compress, make, shells (both cshell workalikes and others) with
input-line-editting, etc. There are source-level debuggers available
(apparently with the power of dbx), two nice C compilers (one which
mimics much of the functionality of UNIX cc), modula compilers, lint,
etc. There are "batch files" (the near-equivalent to shell-scripts),
file protection bits, file dates, task spawning commands, etc.
As you can see, personal computers are coming of age. The
development environments are becoming robust, and with the added
advantage of a good windowing interface, personal computers are
beginning to rival the old glass-tty/Vax/Unix/Gnu-Emacs/ksh standard
(at least in *my* book! ;-). The only thing I really miss is memory
protection, but hey, OS/2 is supposed to provide that (and everything
else, including the kitchen sink). In short, personal computers are
becoming small workstations in their own right.
>I think that the conclusion that the computer at home does better
>than the one at work is little of a short-cut. You are looking too
>much at the surface. For mangagers and other people who mainly
>use application programs, the PC is a winner, but for a software
>engineer?
Depends on the comparisons. The original poster complained (and
rightly so) about outdated micros or mainframes and work vs. the
latest, greatest personal computers which people are buying and
finding more functional. Now, if schools and companies kept up with
the times (and some of them do), students and programmers would have
access to the latest and greatest larger computers, and then maybe
they wouldn't want to program at home so much.
As a side note, here at the University of Wisconsin-Madison the
Computer Science Departments hardware has changed drastically in the
last few years. I used to program on overloaded PDP-11's and VAX
750's; now we use IBM RT's (which are a bit slooow), Macintoshes, HP
9000's, Microvaxes, IBM PC's etc. Our department seems to have
tackled the old equipment situation and has greatly improved the
hardware. The software isn't too shabby either (typically UNIX,
sometimes running X-Windows).
>A final comparison. For a while we had fun with the PC game "Leisure
>Larry in the Land of Lounge Lizards". Nice graphics, true, but the
>game as such became uninteresting since once you solved it, there
>were no variations. On the other hand, I still like from time to
>time playing nethack on this Unix machine. Simple ASCII for graphics,
>not fancy at all, but the game as such has much more to offer than
>Larry.
Welllll, I used to play rogue a lot on the VAX/UNIX system here
at work until I got a shareware version of Larn for my Amiga. Let's
see, VAX-rogue has black-and-white character graphics, a 9600 baud
transfer rate, can only be used with a keyboard, and is subject to
variations in "the Load Average (!)", whereas Amiga-Larn has
eight-color beasties, much faster transfer, uses the mouse, and the
only person on the machine is 'lil ol' me! No contest....
------------------------------
Date: 4 Oct 88 19:49:07 GMT
From: hubcap!billwolf@gatech.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Subject: Cynic's Guide to SE #6: Forthcoming Revolt
> One thing is for sure: A PC, Macintosh or an Amiga can *look* much
> more impressive than the old traditional monochrome screen connected
> to VAX or similar. But you use them for different purposes, and if
> we are talking software engineering, these boring glass screens win.
True; but why not do both? A Mac II with both MacOS and Unix,
with Ada and an appropriate APSE, would be an *excellent* workstation.
Having about a year of experience with Mac Plusses and Mac SEs,
I am now VERY reluctant to use an IBM PC or similar monstrosity;
those mice and windows are almost as addictive as programming!!
Disclaimer: I'm assuming the standard, no-mouse IBM PCs...
------------------------------
Date: 3 Oct 88 18:45:48 GMT
From: voder!pyramid!weitek!dms!albaugh@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Mike Albaugh)
Subject: Cynic's Guide to SE #6: Forthcoming Revolt
> The incredible rate of innovation and product development in the personal
> computer market has resulted in greatly improved user interfaces for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> most home computers. These interfaces are available on operating
It apears that, to this writer, GIUI == mouse & windows & menues.
To me, it means apropriate to the job at hand, without being hideously clumsy
when I stray off the beaten path.
> Aphorisms:
> If your hardware does not support a mouse, then it is obsolete.
Even if it supports a data-glove?
> If your software does not support a mouse, then it, too, is obsolete.
Even if it's a compiler-generator?
> If your hardware does not support color graphics, windows, menus, then it
> is obsolete.
My main use of a MAC is PageMaker, and I would HATE to try to use it
on a color screen. 6pt text (12 pt "fit in window") on a < $6000
color monitor sucks.
> If your software does not support color graphics, windows, menus, then it,
> too, is obsolete.
The MAC programs I have seen which support color graphics do so in
quite a rudimentary fashion, leading to rude shocks later.
> Batch processing: making people wait in order to minimize computer cycles.
Personal computers: Making a user wait while his whole file is
formatted and printed before we can read his mail, or buy a very
expensive and buggy print spooler that will break next time
Apple/Microsoft sneezes
I bought a MAC (SE with Radius Full Page display and Accelerator16)
because my wife is doing contract work which requires it. In making room
in the office at home, I had to get rid of the old CIT-101 terminal and use
a terminal emulator on the MAC. I cannot understand how anyone considers
such a thing to be equivalent to (let alone better than) a real terminal
unless he has never used one or the other. Crude one-bit-deep characters
slowly scrolling by, cheesy feeling keyboard, etc. I know keyboards are
very subjective, but 6x8x1 vs 10x14x2 characters should be obvious to all.
Also, all the MAC software I have been exposed to has what I
call the brick-wall effect. By this I mean that the "learning curve"
starts really shallow to lead you down the path, then as soon as you need
to do something just a little out of the way (e.g. add a word which is a
proper name but also an English word to the hyphenation dictionary) it's
Hello customer service. (you _did_ buy the extended warranty didn't you?)
Yes, I would like a "easy to use" machine that also was easy
to program and customize and relatively bug free. From my experience
the MAC (let's not even discuss IBM PCs) is not it. If I have to make
a choice of "mice & windows" vs "programable & reliable", I'll take the
latter. If the hypothetical student would _understanding the tradeoff_
choose the latter, we should all pray he/she doesn't end up programming
for SDI or MasterCard
>
> The absurdity of have a more useable, more likeable, more productive
??? maybe for some things
> computer at home compared to the provided computers at school or at work will
> lead to dissatisfaction and frustration. The first solution will be using
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The same frustration I'm supposed to feel when I can't put 8 people in the
cab of my pickup or haul construction debris in my station wagon?
Perhaps computer science _is_ irrelevant to "the real world". Certainly a
cursory examination of "Inside Macintosh" or the MSDOS reference manuals
shows that the developers of both systems considered all sorts of research
into robust systems, extensibility, error recovery, etc. to be "irrelevant"
to their "advanced" systems.
Disclaimer: My first computer was an IBM 1440.
Caveat: The 1440 was _not_ the last, best, worst, cheapest, most expensive,
or anything else, just the first.
Summary: Some people use computers for more than fancy party announcements.
2nd disclaimer: Maybe I'm just in a bad mood today. Maybe it has to do with
having to meet a deadline using a MAC. Maybe not.
------------------------------
Date: 5 Oct 88 18:03:25 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!psu-cs!warren@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Warren Harrison)
Subject: Re: Cynic's Guide to SE #6: Forthcoming Revolt
As they say, you should use the tool that is appropriate for the job. For a
little (<10K lines) program, I don't think you can beat the environment
something like Turbo C on a PC gives you with any mini or mainframe I've
ever worked with. For larger systems of programs? Not a chance. In fact
many of the biggest names in PC software actually do their development on
a workstation or a mini, and then generate code for the target once its
running. A good rule of thumb I've observed is that anytime a project can
be done by one or (maybe) two people, a PC is probably your best choice.
Since most programs written by students are under the 10K limit why not use
PCs? Well, it's good to get used to working in an environment which supports
large software development (but still no reason to inflict vi on people),
even if you don't need it right now.
Hope my two cents worth have further (in)flammed the discussion. It is an
important issue, and I don't believe that in order to develop large code
systems I have to work with development tools that suck eggs just to get
the ability to manage and integrate the work of a dozen programmers.
------------------------------
Date: 4 Oct 88 23:05:54 GMT
From: amdcad!weitek!dms!albaugh@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Mike Albaugh)
Subject: whoa there mike (was Re: Cynic's Guide to SE #6: Forthcoming Revolt)
>From article <548@dms.UUCP>, by albaugh@dms.UUCP (Mike Albaugh):
[much flamage, perhaps induced by BigMac attack, perhaps not]
Before I start a flame war, I gues I should just say that my previous message
even looked bad too me in the cold light of dawn. I need to re-read
the ettiquette guide again. Anyway, pretty much what I meant to say is
that those who are so dazzled by the style of modern Personal Computers
(generic term, not (tm)IBM, including, but not limitted to the MAC)
that they lose sight of the basic hackeroid underlying system might _benefit_
from a few CS courses, but they are unlikely to approve_of/enjoy them.
My personal belief is that first you get the underlying foundation
right, then you add mice/windows/data_gloves/eeg_readers/etc...
My experience with the MAC is that first they got the mouse and windows
working, then built an operating system underneath. I _know_ that's not
literally the case, but the pain currently being experienced by system 6.0
users, and the wait for OS2/386 and Presentation manager are powerful
arguments.
I still think there are more uses for computers than those that
map conveniently to mouse/windows, and I still think that those who disagree
are welcome to their opinion, as long as they allow me mine (and stay away
from SDI 1/2 :-) )
------------------------------
End of Soft-Eng Digest
******************************