Real Programmers Don't Use PASCAL

 ``Real Programmers Don't Use PASCAL''

Ed Post

    Tektronix, Inc.

   Copyright (C) 1982

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 either call me by name, pronouncing it `Veert', or call

me 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 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, ana a beer.

   o  Real Programmers do List Processing in FORTRAN.

   o  Real Programmers do String Manipulation in FORTRAN.

   o  Real Programmers do Accounting (if they do it at all) in FORTRAN.

   o  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.

 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 sole 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 pace of some obscure journal or

another -- clearly not enough of an example to convince anyone.  When I

got out of school, I thcught 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 prograns that WORKED. (Really!)  Then I

got out into the Real World.  My first task in the Real World was to read

and understand a 2O0,OO0-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:

   o  Real Programmers aren't afraid to use GOTO's.

   o  Real Programmers can write five-page-long DO loops without

      getting confused.

   o  Real Programmers like Arithmetic IF statements -- they make the

      code more Interesting.

   o  Real Prograwmers write self-modifying code, especially if they can

      save 20 nanoseconds in the middle of a tight loop.

   o  Real Programmers don't need comments -- the code is obvious.

   o  Since FORTRAN doesn't have a structured IF, REPEAT ... UNTIL, or

      CASE statement, Real Programners 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 programing

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

6-megabyte core dump without using a hex calculator.  (I have actually

seen this done.)

0S 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.

   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 tc 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/0

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 Progranmer in this situation

has to do his work with a ``text cditor' program.  Most systems supply

several text editors to selcct 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:

   o  FORTRAN preprocessors like MORTRAN and RATFOR. The Cuisinarts of

      Programming -- great for making Quiche.  See comments above on

      structured programiing.

   o  Source language debuggers.  Real Programmers can read core dumps.

   o  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.

   o  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!).

   o  Real Programmers work for Los Alamos National Laboratory, writing

      atomic bomb simulations to run on Cray I supercomputers.

   o  Real Programmers work for the National Security Agency, decoding

      Russian transmissions.

   o  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.

   o  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' ((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 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 Progranmer 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:

   o  At a Party, the Real Programmers are the ones in the corner talking

      about operating system security and how to get around it.

   o  At a football game, the Real Programmer is the one comparing the plays

      against his simulations printed on 11 by 14 fanfold paper.

   o  At the beach, the Real Programmer is the one drawing flowcharts in

      the sand.

   o  At a funeral, the Real Programmer is the one saying ``Poor George.

      And he almost had the sort routine working before the coronary.''

   o  In a grocery store, the Peal 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.

 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:

   o  Listings of all programs the Real Programmer has ever worked on, piled

      in roughly chronological order on every flat surface in the office.

   o  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.

   o  Unless he is very good, there will be copies of the 0S JCL manual and

      the Principles of Operation open to some particularly interesting

      pages.

   o  Taped to the wall is a line-printer Snoopy calendar for the year 1969.

   o  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.

   o  Hiding in the top left-hand drawer of the desk is a stash of

      Double-Stuff Oreos for special occasions.

   o  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 deal 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:

   o  No Real Progranmer works 9 to 5 (unless it's the ones at night).

   o  Real Programmers don't wear neckties.

   o  Real Programmers don't wear high-heeled shoes.

   o  Real Programmers arrive at work in time for lunch [9].

   o  A Real Programmer might or might not know his wife's name.  He does,

      however, know the entire ASCII (or EDCDIC) code table.

   o  Real Programmers can'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 on industry of Unix hackers and PASCAL

programmers?

From my experience, I can only report that the future is bright for Real

Programmers everywhere.  Neither DS\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 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 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!

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Jan E., Dave S., Rich G., Rich E., for their help

characterizing the Real Programmer, Heather B. for the illustration, Kathy

E. for putting up with it, and atd!avsdS:mark for the initial inspiration.

REFERENCES

    [1]  Feirsteln, 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.

    [9]  sdcarl!lin, ``Real Programmers'', UUCP-net, Thu Oct 21

         16:55:16 1982.

참조 사이트:

http://web.mit.edu/humor/Computers/real.programmers