Real Men Don't Use Pascal -- 1982
by Ed Post
(An oldie but a goodie that sprang, as memory serves me,
from a letter by Post to Datamation)
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 computerized 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-80s!
There is a clear need to point out the differences between
the typical high-school junior Pac-Man player and a Real Programmer.
Understanding these differences will give these kids something
to aspire to -- a role model, a Father Figure. It will also
help employers of Real Programmers to realize 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, was once 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 abstract concepts to get their jobs done: they
are perfectly happy with a keypunch, a FORTRAN IV compiler,
and a beer.
Real Programmers do List Processing in FORTRAN.
Real Programmers do String Manipulation in FORTRAN.
Real Programmers do Accounting (if they do it at all) in FORTRAN.
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
Computer science academicians have gotten into the "structured
programming" rut over the past several years. They claim
that programs are more easily understood if the programmer
uses some 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 page of some obscure journal or
another -- clearly not enough of an example to convince anyone.
When I got out of school, I thought 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
programs that WORKED. (Really!) Then I got out into the Real
World. My first task in the Real World was to read and understand
a 200,000 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:
Real Programmers aren't afraid to use GOTOs.
Real Programmers can write five page long DO loops without
getting confused.
Real Programmers enjoy Arithmetic IF statements because they
make the code more interesting.
Real Programmers write self-modifying code, especially if
it saves them 20 nanoseconds in the middle of a tight loop.
Programmers don't need comments: the code is obvious.
Since FORTRAN doesn't have a structured IF, REPEAT ... UNTIL,
or CASE statement, Real Programmers don't have to worry about
not using them. Besides, they can be simulated when necessary
using assigned GOTOs.
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 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 USENET 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.)
OS/370 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 are 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 Seymour
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. Seymour, needless to 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 some
important work. Jim was able to repair the damage over the
phone, getting the user to toggle in disk I/O 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 Programmer in this situation has to do his work with
a text editor program. Most systems supply several text editors
to select 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 are probably the most well known of this class
of editors. 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:
FORTRAN preprocessors like MORTRAN and RATFOR. The Cuisinarts
of programming -- great for making Quiche. See comments above
on structured programming.
Source language debuggers. Real Programmers can read core
dumps.
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.
Source code maintainance 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!):
Real Programmers work for Los Alamos National Laboratory,
writing atomic bomb simulations to run on Cray I supercomputers.
Real Programmers work for the National Security Agency, decoding
Russian transmissions.
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 cosmonauts.
The computers in the Space Shuttle were programmed by Real
Programmers.
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 can to do incredible feats of navigation and improvisation,
such as hitting ten-kilometer wide windows at Saturn after
six years in space, and 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.
One plan for the upcoming Galileo spacecraft mission 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 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" (registered
trademark, 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 challange in
that.) Everyone working at LucasFilm is a Real Programmer.
(It would be crazy to turn down the money of 50 million Star
Wars 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 people doing Graphics in order to avoid having to write
COBOL programs.
THE REAL PROGRAMMER AT PLAY
Generally, the Real Programmer 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:
At a party, the Real Programmers are the ones in the corner
talking about operating system security and how to get around
it.
At a football game, the Real Programmer is the one comparing
the plays against his simulations printed on 11 by 14 fanfold
paper.
At the beach, the Real Programmer is the one drawing flowcharts
in the sand.
A Real Programmer goes to a disco to watch the light show.
At a funeral, the Real Programmer is the one saying "Poor
George. And he almost had the sort routine working before
the coronary."
In a grocery store, the Real 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:
Listings of all programs the Real Programmer has ever worked
on, piled in roughly chronological order on every flat surface
in the office.
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.
Unless he is very good, there will be copies of the OS JCL
manual and the Principles of Operation open to some particularly
interesting pages.
Taped to the wall is a line-printer Snoopy calender for the
year 1969.
Strewn about the floor are several wrappers for peanut butter
filled cheese bars (the type that are made stale at the bakery
so they can't get any worse while waiting in the vending machine).
Hiding in the top left-hand drawer of the desk is a stash
of double stuff Oreos for special occasions.
Underneath the Oreos is a flow-charting template, left there
by the previous occupant of the office. (Real Programmers
write programs, not documentation. Leave that to the maintainence
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 Real 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 inpresses 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:
No Real Programmer works 9 to 5. (Unless it's 9 in the evening
to 5 in the morning.)
Real Programmers don't wear neckties.
Real Programmers don't wear high heeled shoes.
Real Programmers arrive at work in time for lunch. [9]
A Real Programmer might or might not know his wife's name.
He does, however, know the entire ASCII (or EBCDIC) code table.
Real Programmers don't know how to cook. Grocery stores aren't
often open at 3 a.m., so they 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 an industry
of Unix hackers and Pascal programmers?
On the contrary. From my experience, I can only report that
the future is bright for Real Programmers everywhere. Neither
OS/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. It has two different
and subtly incompatible user interfaces, an arcane and complicated
terminal 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. It's
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!
ACKNOWLEGEMENT
I would like to thank Jan E., Dave S., Rich G., Rich E. for
their help in characterizing the Real Programmer, Heather
B. for the illustration, Kathy E. for putting up with it,
and atd!avsdS:mark for the initial inspriration.
REFERENCES
[1] Feirstein, B., Real Men Don't Eat Quiche, New York, Pocket
Books, 1982.
[2] Wirth, N., Algorithms + Datastructures = Programs, Prentice
Hall, 1976.
[3] Xerox PARC editors . . .
[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 Nostrabd Reinhold, 1971, page 110.
[6] Dijkstra, E., On the GREEN Language Submitted to the
DoD, Sigplan notices, Volume 3, Number 10, October 1978.
[7] Rose, Frank, Joy of Hacking, Science 82, Volume 3, Number
9, November 1982, pages 58 - 66.
[8] The Hacker Papers, Psychology Today, August 1980.
[9] Datamation, July, 1983, pp. 263-265.
|