Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!tektronix!zeus!amadeus!karenc
From: karenc@amadeus.TEK.COM (Karen Cate;6291502;92-734;LP=A;60sC)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Cynic's Guide to Software Engineering, part 3
Message-ID: <3370@zeus.TEK.COM>
Date: 7 Apr 88 21:33:12 GMT
References: <2636@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU>
Sender: news@zeus.TEK.COM
Reply-To: karenc@amadeus.UUCP (Karen Cate)
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 80

In article <2636@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> neff@Shasta.stanford.edu (Randall Neff) writes:
>	Monolingualism:  the Religion and Curse of Software Engineering
>
>[Note:  A, U, E are free variables and not meant to be any specific program]
>
>Joe's group/company prides itself on using programming
>language A, ... operating system U, ... and text editor E... [which are] 
>about twenty years old.
> ...
>Now Joe's company only hires programmers with training and experience in
>A,U,E, so they only get programmers that like A,U,E.
> ...
>Is the state of the software related to the choice and continued use of A,U,E?
> ...
>The basic conclusion is that a specific programming language is, at best, a 
>tool;  imperfect, containing some subset of possible features.  
>...Unfortunately, monolinguists get
>confused and seem to think that their language is the only true light.
>

As I was reading this, I saw the situation from another point of view.  Let
me try it this way:

Joe's group/company started a large/complex project 10 years ago.  At that
time, they chose language A, operating system U, and text editor E.  The
product grew, and they hired people that could work with AUE.  Now
this product is still doing well, and other products in the same "family"
are being developed, additional "follow-on" projects are released, etc.
They now have 10 years of development time invested in AUE.  Later 
products can leverage heavily on the previous, so they continue in
the AUE tradition.  

Of course some of these developers are going to think AUE is wonderful...
Look at all the great things they can do with it.  They have spent the 
last 10 years becoming experts in it.  They don't want to have
to start all over.  The company has thousands of man-hours invested in
their product.  It's the best there is.  They don't want to start all over.

Of course the state of the software is related to the choice of AUE.
The software and environment are mutually reinforcing.  When one
develops a major system, one not only designs it to meet functional
specs, but also to meet environment requirements and limitations.
Application Q would be designed completely differenly in, say, Ada than
it would be in, say, C.  One might be able to make it look and act just
the same (maybe...), but the data and control structures will be
completely different.


For example:

COBOL will be around for a very long time.  It has built up a lot of
inertia.  I happen to not like working with COBOL very much, but it is
well suited to many applications for which it is used.  Even if
something new is faster/easier to develop, whole departments, office
procedures, etc, are based on systems designed for COBOL.  Not only
would the all the code have to be converted, but chances are that the
system would have to change, so procedures would have to change...  The
entire philosophy of the "world" would undergo a minor revolution.  One
can argue that the result would be better, but the cost is so high that
companies are not willing to pay it.  So old, slow COBOL still hangs
around, and COBOL programmers are still being hired.  I'm just not going
to be one of them.

We want to have libraries of common functions, and be able to re-use
algorithms, etc, but we can't do that if we change environments every
few years.  I admit, I like the environment I'm using.  I know it, I
"think" in it, and I'm comfortable with it.  We don't buy new cars every
year or two just because the new ones are a little better.  We like the
car we chose five years ago, why change?  I have a wonderful 20 year old
car that runs better now than many new cars.  It doesn't get as good 
gas mileage, it doesn't have emission control stuff, no beeps or buzzes to 
remind me to put on my seat belt, but it has almost 150,000 miles on it.
I trust it to take me across the country without breaking down.  I have 
the tools, and know how to fix it when it does break.  There are advantages
and disadvantages, but I'm not going to just junk all I have invested in
it just because it's out of style.

Karen A. Cate
Tektronix Inc, Beaverton OR
tektronix!amadeus!karenc -OR- karenc@amadeus.LA.TEK.COM