Some software is actually pretty good by any standards. Think of the Mars Rovers, Google, and the Human Genome Project. That's quality software! Fifteen years ago, most people, and especially most experts, would have said each of those examples was impossible. Our technological civilization depends on software, so if software had been as bad as its worst reputation, most of us would have been dead by now.On the other hand, looking at "average" pieces of code can make me cry. The structure is appalling, and the programmers clearly didn't think deeply about correctness, algorithms, data structures, or maintainability. Most people don't actually read code; they just see Internet Explorer "freeze."
I think the real problem is that "we" (that is, we software developers) are in a permanent state of emergency, grasping at straws to get our work done. We perform many minor miracles through trial and error, excessive use of brute force, and lots and lots of testing, but--so often--it's not enough.Software developers have become adept at the difficult art of building reasonably reliable systems out of unreliable parts. The snag is that often we do not know exactly how we did it: a system just "sort of evolved" into something minimally acceptable. Personally, I prefer to know when a system will work, and why it will
Comentarios, discusiones, notas, sobre tendencias en el desarrollo de la tecnología informática, y la importancia de la calidad en la construcción de software.
sábado, diciembre 09, 2006
Bjarne Stroustrup: reflexiones sobre programación
El 28 de noviembre la revista del MIT publica un reportaje a Bjarne Stroustrup, que sigue provocando comentarios:
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios de la entrada (Atom)
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario