6 ms·

E.W. Dijkstra Archive: The Humble Programmer

124 points by mrzool 10y ago

isseu 10y ago
> I married and Dutch marriage rites require you to state your profession and I stated that I was a programmer. But the municipal authorities of the town of Amsterdam did not accept it on the grounds that there was no such profession. wow
- throwaway676565 10y ago
  Shocking in his case as he was a true programmer (computer scientist). Today, people say they're "software engineers" with a straight face, which is a disservice to real engineers. I know because I get paid to code. If bridges were built like software is...
  - Xophmeister 10y ago
    There's more to engineering than building bridges. Would you discredit electrical engineers, for example, because PCBs aren't hydroelectric dams? While I generally agree with your rhetoric that software engineering is perhaps not as disciplined, it is still a legitimate engineering discipline, imo.
    - throwaway676565 10y ago
      Right, I wouldn't discredit electrical engineers. I can reasonably expect my house not to burn to the ground due to an electrical fire, and my washing machine/fridge will probably fail safe as well. Hardware engineers mostly get a pass in my book, too (when was the last time your CPU hung?). Meanwhile, Toyota is allowed to ship buggy, untested, unauditable ECUs[0]. How can SE be considered a legitimate engineering discipline when such examples abound? The "Software engineer" title ought to be reserved for those doing formal verification or at least aiming for high code coverage and otherwise employing proper design and testing methods. Think programmers of NASA shuttle avionics or airplane autopilots. It's not for your run-of-the-mill startup coder (which includes me). [0]: https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_slides.pdf https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_...
      - hga 10y ago
        Meanwhile, Toyota is allowed to ship buggy, untested, unauditable ECUs[0]. How can SE be considered a legitimate engineering discipline when such examples abound? In the bad old days, steam boilers would blow up a lot; check your state and maybe local laws and you'll likely see a section to regulate this. Bridges were also prone to failing, and still do due to design errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge#Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge... (and even then, the bridge was sufficiently over-engineered that it lasted a long time before failure) As for the EE examples you give, it just so happens I'm about to personally totally rewire a house I just bought that was built in 1910. Relevant things I've noticed include: The National Electrical Code is drafted and revised in an open fashion, is thoroughly sane, and anyone can buy a copy. My city also makes copies available for free for perusal, and at the counter were you apply for permits and such there was a copy of the combined complete code for residential housing (1-3 stories, 1-2 or 3 families). That version is also online: http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2012/index.htm http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2012/index.htm (that's one revision behind the current, many cities like mine prefer to not be at the bleeding edge). Then there's the permitting and inspection process: while it's obviously ignored a lot, by law you're required to apply for a permit, including plans of what you propose to do. Upon approval, you post the permit at the work site, and call in city inspectors for "rough in" inspection(s), where they will check whatever will eventually be hidden, and they do a single final inspection when all is done. So there's enforcement of the code (at the very least backstopped by insurance companies who will look askance if your unpermitted work results in a loss), in a rather open way, and the city's top dog for this, the Building Official, certainly knew the electrical code when I asked him about the interpretation of one detail. All car makers, by comparison ... well, there's not even a PE system for this field (https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/what-pe https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/what-pe), it's too new, and and there's no consensus on even the most fundamental of things. Everything they do is in secret, with no outside oversight mechanisms, and one company we though really had their act together, such that we'd trust their code with our lives, turned out to be utterly unworthy of our trust, that is Toyoda, of course. My take on this is that this sad state of affairs will continue until a software error kills 4-6 figures of people, and of course there are many domains of software where the rigor that's in theory demanded of embedded systems like cars isn't required. Like, say, this social media site we're using right now.
  - mac01021 10y ago
    From Wikipedia: Engineers design materials, structures, and systems while considering the limitations imposed by practicality, regulation, safety, and cost. Perhaps many programmers don't do this, but many do.
    - tribaal 10y ago
      As it's been said several times on hacker news (sorry for repeating it one more time here): In some countries calling yourself an engineer without having an appropriate degree issued by an engineering school is a crime (although, seldom enforced in software). Whether the school should have a software department at all was a big discussion at my school at the time. They decided to keep it. EDIT: Sorry, to be clear, we agree: it's just adding a bit more information to your point.
      - jean_claude 10y ago
        I earned a B.S. in an ABET accredited Computer Science program taught by the College of Science and Mathematics at a state University. Before that, I designed electrical control systems and software for industrial machinery, and I still don't consider myself an engineer. That said, I think 'Software Engineer' is an acceptable title, and is more representative of the work we do in the profession than simply 'Computer Programmer'.
        tribaal 10y ago
        My point is that "Engineer" (software or otherwise) is a legally protected term in many countries (Canada, Switzerland,...) How much you consider yourself an engineer is irrelevant in this case: you either are one because you have a degree from an engineering school (not a university!), or you don't (it's a civilian title in Switzerland's case at least, "Eng." similarly to "Dr.") Calling yourself a "software engineer" in Switzerland (and according to wikipedia, in a slew of other countries [1]) if you have a university degree is technically illegal - although of course, seldom enforced. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer
  - IkmoIkmo 10y ago
    > Shocking in his case as he was a true programmer (computer scientist). How was that shocking? Someone has to be the first to introduce or pioneer a distinct profession to the rest of the world, he was pretty much among that select group. It's like saying you're a 3d printer in the past few years, without anyone having a clue this was an actual profession people spent their days on. And that's today, in a world where we're more educated and more open to the notion of rapidly changing professions. If you want to know, the people who work those desks at the municipality usually have only a high school degree, the mandatory minimum (not for the job, but as a person raised in the Netherlands). And in the 1950s that minimum was only six years of education, i.e. primary school only. None of this strikes me as shocking in this full context, unless you're shocked by the notion there had to be someone to pioneer a profession for the first time in their municipality and we happen to be talking about him and his anecdote.
  - peferron 10y ago
    You say that you "know because you get paid to code", but that's only half of the picture. To really know you would need to work on the other side, in what you call "real" engineering. An insider is much more likely to see the flaws in their own discipline. I worked for 3 years in power plants all over the world, including dams, and there were delays, cost overruns, structural defects, flouted safety measures, etc. Not really the civil engineering utopia that HN raves about. Note that I'm not saying that it's OK for software engineering to suck because civil engineering also sucks. Both should try to improve.
- labrador 10y ago
  I doubt the local authority was making a blanket statement that there was no such thing as a programmer in the universe. More likely there was no such listing in the official guide to acceptable job titles.
kevindeasis 10y ago
It's interesting to imagine what Djikstra would've accomplished if he instead decided to focus on theoretical physics. Conversely, imagine what we would've lost if we didn't have Djikstra as a programmer. I'd like to point out that Dijkstra's writing might arguably the best writing I've seen from a programmer. English is not my first language and his writing is inspiring; if possible I'd like to request if anyone can point me to a resource (apps, software, etc) so I can learn to write, speak, and converse like Dijkstra in this lecture?
- f_allwein 10y ago
  For writing, The Elements of Style by Strunk/ White is a classic I still found useful. Plus, as has been said, read a lot of good prose. Similarly for public speaking, practice makes perfect. Check out Toastmasters International - a nonprofit that is running clubs all over the world where members can improve their public speaking skills in a supportive environment. Worked for me. http://www.toastmasters.org http://www.toastmasters.org
  - kevindeasis 10y ago
    Fascinating, I wasn't even aware there were lots of toastmaster clubs in my city. Thanks for the heads up, I'll check them out!
    - f_allwein 10y ago
      Yes, they're a bit of an open secret in that many people who would love them never even hear about them.
- stdbrouw 10y ago
  > if possible I'd like to request if anyone can point me to a resource (apps, software, etc) so I can learn to write, speak, and converse like Dijkstra in this lecture? Practice makes perfect, that's really all there is to it. A good book on writing style can help, but only if you use it. The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker and Revising Prose by Richard Lanham are my two favorites.
samfisher83 10y ago
Here is the last line in his essay: intrinsic limitations of the human mind and approach the task as Very Humble Programmers. The ironic thing was he was not very humble. He was pretty mean to a lot of people. He had a pretty massive ego.
- Joeri 10y ago
  He was not humble towards people, he was humble towards programming. Recognizing that you can never be more than an apprentice at programming is essential to becoming good at it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
euske 10y ago
"I don't need to waste my time with a computer just because I am a computer scientist." - http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD13xx/EWD1305.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD13xx/EW...
peter303 10y ago
Computer Science is still an early disciple. I am more jealous of what capabilities people will have 50 years from now than 50 years ago.
charlieflowers 10y ago
My quick summary -- The main limitation in programming complex solutions is the limit of complexity each individual can hold in his/her head. So if we shape our tools, processes and disciplines to acknowledge that, the software development industry can become an order of magnitude.
- charlieflowers 10y ago
  ... more effective.
majewsky 10y ago
Favorite quotes: > I pray daily that more of my fellow-programmers may find the means of freeing themselves from the curse of compatibility. > Society is getting dissatisfied with the performance of programmers and of their products. > [Program] testing can be a very effective way to show the presence of bugs, but is hopelessly inadequate for showing their absence. > The purpose of abstracting is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise. > The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague. It's fascinating to see what he expected to be the biggest problems in programming. His discussion of more efficient programming techniques focuses on theorem provers, automated checking of loop invariants and the like, whereas today, the biggest problems typically occur during integration of software components with each other. But maybe he actually did foresee that: > I now suggest that we confine ourselves to the design and implementation of intellectually manageable programs. Regarding provably correct programs: I'm torn here. On the one hand, if we required all programs to carry proofs of their correctness, that would exclude a huge number of current programmers who lack the formal education etc. to carry out these proofs. On the other hand, if all programs that we need would have proofs of their correctness (and thus carry a bunch of helpful invariants and formal specifications), it might be easier to combine all these programs, hence obliterating the need for most programming tasks that are just concerned with integrating multiple programs with each other. I'll close with the most insightful paragraph from this whole piece: > There may also be political impediments. Even if we know how to educate tomorrow’s professional programmer, it is not certain that the society we are living in will allow us to do so. The first effect of teaching a methodology —rather than disseminating knowledge— is that of enhancing the capacities of the already capable, thus magnifying the difference in intelligence. In a society in which the educational system is used as an instrument for the establishment of a homogenized culture, in which the cream is prevented from rising to the top, the education of competent programmers could be politically impalatable. This is fascinating because right now, a lot of people lament that our students are only being stuffed with facts, but not equipped with the methodological knowledge required for their professions.
dang 10y ago
Many previous submissions: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Humble%20Programmer&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Humble%20Programmer&sort=byDat.... Reposts are ok unless the story has had major attention in the last year or so (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). In this case there has: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10014530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10014530.

124 points by mrzool 10y ago

isseu 10y ago

> I married and Dutch marriage rites require you to state your profession and I stated that I was a programmer. But the municipal authorities of the town of Amsterdam did not accept it on the grounds that there was no such profession. wow

throwaway676565 10y ago
Shocking in his case as he was a true programmer (computer scientist). Today, people say they're "software engineers" with a straight face, which is a disservice to real engineers. I know because I get paid to code. If bridges were built like software is...
- Xophmeister 10y ago
  There's more to engineering than building bridges. Would you discredit electrical engineers, for example, because PCBs aren't hydroelectric dams? While I generally agree with your rhetoric that software engineering is perhaps not as disciplined, it is still a legitimate engineering discipline, imo.
  - throwaway676565 10y ago
    Right, I wouldn't discredit electrical engineers. I can reasonably expect my house not to burn to the ground due to an electrical fire, and my washing machine/fridge will probably fail safe as well. Hardware engineers mostly get a pass in my book, too (when was the last time your CPU hung?). Meanwhile, Toyota is allowed to ship buggy, untested, unauditable ECUs[0]. How can SE be considered a legitimate engineering discipline when such examples abound? The "Software engineer" title ought to be reserved for those doing formal verification or at least aiming for high code coverage and otherwise employing proper design and testing methods. Think programmers of NASA shuttle avionics or airplane autopilots. It's not for your run-of-the-mill startup coder (which includes me). [0]: https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_slides.pdf https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_...
    - hga 10y ago
      Meanwhile, Toyota is allowed to ship buggy, untested, unauditable ECUs[0]. How can SE be considered a legitimate engineering discipline when such examples abound? In the bad old days, steam boilers would blow up a lot; check your state and maybe local laws and you'll likely see a section to regulate this. Bridges were also prone to failing, and still do due to design errors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge#Investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge... (and even then, the bridge was sufficiently over-engineered that it lasted a long time before failure) As for the EE examples you give, it just so happens I'm about to personally totally rewire a house I just bought that was built in 1910. Relevant things I've noticed include: The National Electrical Code is drafted and revised in an open fashion, is thoroughly sane, and anyone can buy a copy. My city also makes copies available for free for perusal, and at the counter were you apply for permits and such there was a copy of the combined complete code for residential housing (1-3 stories, 1-2 or 3 families). That version is also online: http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2012/index.htm http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2012/index.htm (that's one revision behind the current, many cities like mine prefer to not be at the bleeding edge). Then there's the permitting and inspection process: while it's obviously ignored a lot, by law you're required to apply for a permit, including plans of what you propose to do. Upon approval, you post the permit at the work site, and call in city inspectors for "rough in" inspection(s), where they will check whatever will eventually be hidden, and they do a single final inspection when all is done. So there's enforcement of the code (at the very least backstopped by insurance companies who will look askance if your unpermitted work results in a loss), in a rather open way, and the city's top dog for this, the Building Official, certainly knew the electrical code when I asked him about the interpretation of one detail. All car makers, by comparison ... well, there's not even a PE system for this field (https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/what-pe https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/what-pe), it's too new, and and there's no consensus on even the most fundamental of things. Everything they do is in secret, with no outside oversight mechanisms, and one company we though really had their act together, such that we'd trust their code with our lives, turned out to be utterly unworthy of our trust, that is Toyoda, of course. My take on this is that this sad state of affairs will continue until a software error kills 4-6 figures of people, and of course there are many domains of software where the rigor that's in theory demanded of embedded systems like cars isn't required. Like, say, this social media site we're using right now.
- mac01021 10y ago
  From Wikipedia: Engineers design materials, structures, and systems while considering the limitations imposed by practicality, regulation, safety, and cost. Perhaps many programmers don't do this, but many do.
  - tribaal 10y ago
    As it's been said several times on hacker news (sorry for repeating it one more time here): In some countries calling yourself an engineer without having an appropriate degree issued by an engineering school is a crime (although, seldom enforced in software). Whether the school should have a software department at all was a big discussion at my school at the time. They decided to keep it. EDIT: Sorry, to be clear, we agree: it's just adding a bit more information to your point.
    - jean_claude 10y ago
      I earned a B.S. in an ABET accredited Computer Science program taught by the College of Science and Mathematics at a state University. Before that, I designed electrical control systems and software for industrial machinery, and I still don't consider myself an engineer. That said, I think 'Software Engineer' is an acceptable title, and is more representative of the work we do in the profession than simply 'Computer Programmer'.
      - tribaal 10y ago
        My point is that "Engineer" (software or otherwise) is a legally protected term in many countries (Canada, Switzerland,...) How much you consider yourself an engineer is irrelevant in this case: you either are one because you have a degree from an engineering school (not a university!), or you don't (it's a civilian title in Switzerland's case at least, "Eng." similarly to "Dr.") Calling yourself a "software engineer" in Switzerland (and according to wikipedia, in a slew of other countries [1]) if you have a university degree is technically illegal - although of course, seldom enforced. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer
- IkmoIkmo 10y ago
  > Shocking in his case as he was a true programmer (computer scientist). How was that shocking? Someone has to be the first to introduce or pioneer a distinct profession to the rest of the world, he was pretty much among that select group. It's like saying you're a 3d printer in the past few years, without anyone having a clue this was an actual profession people spent their days on. And that's today, in a world where we're more educated and more open to the notion of rapidly changing professions. If you want to know, the people who work those desks at the municipality usually have only a high school degree, the mandatory minimum (not for the job, but as a person raised in the Netherlands). And in the 1950s that minimum was only six years of education, i.e. primary school only. None of this strikes me as shocking in this full context, unless you're shocked by the notion there had to be someone to pioneer a profession for the first time in their municipality and we happen to be talking about him and his anecdote.
- peferron 10y ago
  You say that you "know because you get paid to code", but that's only half of the picture. To really know you would need to work on the other side, in what you call "real" engineering. An insider is much more likely to see the flaws in their own discipline. I worked for 3 years in power plants all over the world, including dams, and there were delays, cost overruns, structural defects, flouted safety measures, etc. Not really the civil engineering utopia that HN raves about. Note that I'm not saying that it's OK for software engineering to suck because civil engineering also sucks. Both should try to improve.
labrador 10y ago
I doubt the local authority was making a blanket statement that there was no such thing as a programmer in the universe. More likely there was no such listing in the official guide to acceptable job titles.

kevindeasis 10y ago

It's interesting to imagine what Djikstra would've accomplished if he instead decided to focus on theoretical physics. Conversely, imagine what we would've lost if we didn't have Djikstra as a programmer. I'd like to point out that Dijkstra's writing might arguably the best writing I've seen from a programmer. English is not my first language and his writing is inspiring; if possible I'd like to request if anyone can point me to a resource (apps, software, etc) so I can learn to write, speak, and converse like Dijkstra in this lecture?

f_allwein 10y ago
For writing, The Elements of Style by Strunk/ White is a classic I still found useful. Plus, as has been said, read a lot of good prose. Similarly for public speaking, practice makes perfect. Check out Toastmasters International - a nonprofit that is running clubs all over the world where members can improve their public speaking skills in a supportive environment. Worked for me. http://www.toastmasters.org http://www.toastmasters.org
- kevindeasis 10y ago
  Fascinating, I wasn't even aware there were lots of toastmaster clubs in my city. Thanks for the heads up, I'll check them out!
  - f_allwein 10y ago
    Yes, they're a bit of an open secret in that many people who would love them never even hear about them.
stdbrouw 10y ago
> if possible I'd like to request if anyone can point me to a resource (apps, software, etc) so I can learn to write, speak, and converse like Dijkstra in this lecture? Practice makes perfect, that's really all there is to it. A good book on writing style can help, but only if you use it. The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker and Revising Prose by Richard Lanham are my two favorites.

samfisher83 10y ago

Here is the last line in his essay: intrinsic limitations of the human mind and approach the task as Very Humble Programmers. The ironic thing was he was not very humble. He was pretty mean to a lot of people. He had a pretty massive ego.

Joeri 10y ago
He was not humble towards people, he was humble towards programming. Recognizing that you can never be more than an apprentice at programming is essential to becoming good at it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

euske 10y ago

"I don't need to waste my time with a computer just because I am a computer scientist." - http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD13xx/EWD1305.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD13xx/EW...

peter303 10y ago

Computer Science is still an early disciple. I am more jealous of what capabilities people will have 50 years from now than 50 years ago.

charlieflowers 10y ago

My quick summary -- The main limitation in programming complex solutions is the limit of complexity each individual can hold in his/her head. So if we shape our tools, processes and disciplines to acknowledge that, the software development industry can become an order of magnitude.

charlieflowers 10y ago
... more effective.

majewsky 10y ago

Favorite quotes: > I pray daily that more of my fellow-programmers may find the means of freeing themselves from the curse of compatibility. > Society is getting dissatisfied with the performance of programmers and of their products. > [Program] testing can be a very effective way to show the presence of bugs, but is hopelessly inadequate for showing their absence. > The purpose of abstracting is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise. > The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague. It's fascinating to see what he expected to be the biggest problems in programming. His discussion of more efficient programming techniques focuses on theorem provers, automated checking of loop invariants and the like, whereas today, the biggest problems typically occur during integration of software components with each other. But maybe he actually did foresee that: > I now suggest that we confine ourselves to the design and implementation of intellectually manageable programs. Regarding provably correct programs: I'm torn here. On the one hand, if we required all programs to carry proofs of their correctness, that would exclude a huge number of current programmers who lack the formal education etc. to carry out these proofs. On the other hand, if all programs that we need would have proofs of their correctness (and thus carry a bunch of helpful invariants and formal specifications), it might be easier to combine all these programs, hence obliterating the need for most programming tasks that are just concerned with integrating multiple programs with each other. I'll close with the most insightful paragraph from this whole piece: > There may also be political impediments. Even if we know how to educate tomorrow’s professional programmer, it is not certain that the society we are living in will allow us to do so. The first effect of teaching a methodology —rather than disseminating knowledge— is that of enhancing the capacities of the already capable, thus magnifying the difference in intelligence. In a society in which the educational system is used as an instrument for the establishment of a homogenized culture, in which the cream is prevented from rising to the top, the education of competent programmers could be politically impalatable. This is fascinating because right now, a lot of people lament that our students are only being stuffed with facts, but not equipped with the methodological knowledge required for their professions.

dang 10y ago

Many previous submissions: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Humble%20Programmer&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Humble%20Programmer&sort=byDat.... Reposts are ok unless the story has had major attention in the last year or so (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). In this case there has: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10014530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10014530.