3 ms·

13. Most programmers think they know what they're doing but actually are "incompetent". (There are Usenet posts going back to 80's documenting this fact.) How

13. Most programmers think they know what they're doing but actually are "incompetent". (There are Usenet posts going back to 80's documenting this fact.) How am I defining "incompetent"? In my definition it means writing software that any reasonably skilled hacker can cause to "malfunction", i.e. not perform as expected by the programmer, which depending on the program may or may not present a security risk. The number of "competent" programmers i.e. those whose programs are immune to the acts of reasonably skilled hackers, is very small. They are a rare commodity. In sum, there's lots of reasonably skilled hackers and very few competent pogrammers. There is no licensing body for programmers. Anyone can call themselves a "professional programmer". Note: If a programmer only writes programs for her own use, "competency", as defined above, is all but irrelevent. Whatever works. Controversial, but true.

cruise02 14y ago
If you go through the answers on Stack Overflow, the point that "most programmers are incompetent" was made quite frequently. Those that made an effort to support their opinion were highly upvoted (so not that controversial), but many others didn't so they just sat at 0-1 upvotes.
- smartkids 14y ago
  I hate writing what I just wrote because I know it might offend some people. I'm OK with the "incompetence" (I'm sure I qualify myself), but it's the fact that many of these programmers think they know what they're doing that bugs me. And they are writing software that will be used by other people. They don't want to admit their mistakes or that someone else might understand things they don't. They actually think they are being smart when they are really being stupid. Certainly not looking for "votes" with this one. Although I did get an upvote immediately, then a downvote from, who would have guessed, a closed source developer. I'm not a fan of StackOverflow. There is a lot of stupidity and herd mentality there. It's not where I would look for "competent programmers". Like finding a needle in a haystack.
prodigal_erik 14y ago
Knuth's code has bugs. NASA's code has bugs. I don't think our species has produced even one nontrivial correct program, much less a programmer who's competent (which I take to mean a large portion of their work is 100% correct). Our profession is passing through the mercury-and-leeches phase medicine once went through. Someday our descendants will look back from their error monad formal proofs or something and cringe at everything we did.
- smartkids 14y ago
  Yes. This is why I defined "incompetence" quite carefully. Finding bugs in Knuth's or NASA's code might be beyond "a reasonably skilled hacker". To find bugs in that code you would likely have to be "highly skilled", above average. Everyone makes mistakes. Even professionals who are licensed. The idea is to minimise them to achieve a reasonable, expected level of "correctness". Competent does not mean "perfect". It means no stupid mistakes. In my biased opinion, there's a high tolerance for stupid mistakes in software.
- pilgrim689 14y ago
  >I don't think our species has produced even one nontrivial correct program Off the top of my head: seL4, a correct microkernel...pretty nontrivial!
  - prodigal_erik 14y ago
    Wow, I'm pleased to see that's no longer totally beyond us, though the price is still very high (LtU says fifty dev-years!)
    - pilgrim689 14y ago
      It was actually about 28 py, but that number would come down to 10 if they were to do it again. source: http://ertos.nicta.com.au/research/l4.verified/numbers.pml http://ertos.nicta.com.au/research/l4.verified/numbers.pml
      - 14y ago
suresk 14y ago
I agree with the assertion that few (probably close to 0) programmers routinely write bug-free code, but I think "incompetent" is a bit harsh - "imperfect" is more apt, I think. Very, very few non-trivial pieces of code are completely bug-free, and building anything interesting under normal time constraints is really difficult and expensive to prove 100% correct. So, I guess that point is true, but ultimately not very useful.
tikhonj 14y ago
This is a narrow view of what software is supposed to do. Are styrofoam cups inferior or are their designers "incompetent" because they break easily? No! That's the whole point--they are cheap and disposable. The same is true about most software people write--it is also cheap and disposable. Often, having something that works well enough now is better than having something that works well tomorrow. I'm not even talking about being impervious to skilled hackers; even breaking under normal use is not necessarily bad. Sure, if your software would kill people or destroy things, you have an issue. If your software is very critical and usually above suspicion (like a compiler, say) this would also be a problem. But if you're just writing a web app to share cat pictures or some internal tools or really most any other type of software? It's most often better to be cheap and fragile than good and solid. My laptop is probably my single most important possession. (Yeah, I'm a student so I don't really have much else :P.) Do I have a Tough Book which is nigh unbreakable? Nope. I have a laptop which is actually fairly easy to mess up. And it is in every practical sense the better choice. This is, coincidentally, why I think the cynical view of "planned obsolescence" is somewhat shortsighted. Sure, in a sense it's bad that electronic gadgets fall apart after a couple of years. But there's no cynical force behind all this: the simple fact that you wouldn't pay twice as much for a phone which is only more sturdy--but not more capable--is what drives the markets. If you were really worried about it, you would have bought a purpose-built device that would hold up better; instead you bought something cheaper which will break sooner. And this is a perfectly reasonable compromise to make!
- smartkids 14y ago
  Toughbook is hardware not software. Get an old Thinkpad. It's durable. I take the opposite view. I like durable software. And that's how I build my systems. If they get trashed, they can be restored in minutes. I'd rather spend my effort preparing simple durable systems that can be restored easily than building complex, fragile systems that would be difficult to reconstruct if something goes wrong. I've heard that sometimes things can go wrong.

cruise02 14y ago

If you go through the answers on Stack Overflow, the point that "most programmers are incompetent" was made quite frequently. Those that made an effort to support their opinion were highly upvoted (so not that controversial), but many others didn't so they just sat at 0-1 upvotes.

smartkids 14y ago
I hate writing what I just wrote because I know it might offend some people. I'm OK with the "incompetence" (I'm sure I qualify myself), but it's the fact that many of these programmers think they know what they're doing that bugs me. And they are writing software that will be used by other people. They don't want to admit their mistakes or that someone else might understand things they don't. They actually think they are being smart when they are really being stupid. Certainly not looking for "votes" with this one. Although I did get an upvote immediately, then a downvote from, who would have guessed, a closed source developer. I'm not a fan of StackOverflow. There is a lot of stupidity and herd mentality there. It's not where I would look for "competent programmers". Like finding a needle in a haystack.

prodigal_erik 14y ago

Knuth's code has bugs. NASA's code has bugs. I don't think our species has produced even one nontrivial correct program, much less a programmer who's competent (which I take to mean a large portion of their work is 100% correct). Our profession is passing through the mercury-and-leeches phase medicine once went through. Someday our descendants will look back from their error monad formal proofs or something and cringe at everything we did.

smartkids 14y ago
Yes. This is why I defined "incompetence" quite carefully. Finding bugs in Knuth's or NASA's code might be beyond "a reasonably skilled hacker". To find bugs in that code you would likely have to be "highly skilled", above average. Everyone makes mistakes. Even professionals who are licensed. The idea is to minimise them to achieve a reasonable, expected level of "correctness". Competent does not mean "perfect". It means no stupid mistakes. In my biased opinion, there's a high tolerance for stupid mistakes in software.
pilgrim689 14y ago
>I don't think our species has produced even one nontrivial correct program Off the top of my head: seL4, a correct microkernel...pretty nontrivial!
- prodigal_erik 14y ago
  Wow, I'm pleased to see that's no longer totally beyond us, though the price is still very high (LtU says fifty dev-years!)
  - pilgrim689 14y ago
    It was actually about 28 py, but that number would come down to 10 if they were to do it again. source: http://ertos.nicta.com.au/research/l4.verified/numbers.pml http://ertos.nicta.com.au/research/l4.verified/numbers.pml
    - 14y ago

suresk 14y ago

I agree with the assertion that few (probably close to 0) programmers routinely write bug-free code, but I think "incompetent" is a bit harsh - "imperfect" is more apt, I think. Very, very few non-trivial pieces of code are completely bug-free, and building anything interesting under normal time constraints is really difficult and expensive to prove 100% correct. So, I guess that point is true, but ultimately not very useful.

tikhonj 14y ago

This is a narrow view of what software is supposed to do. Are styrofoam cups inferior or are their designers "incompetent" because they break easily? No! That's the whole point--they are cheap and disposable. The same is true about most software people write--it is also cheap and disposable. Often, having something that works well enough now is better than having something that works well tomorrow. I'm not even talking about being impervious to skilled hackers; even breaking under normal use is not necessarily bad. Sure, if your software would kill people or destroy things, you have an issue. If your software is very critical and usually above suspicion (like a compiler, say) this would also be a problem. But if you're just writing a web app to share cat pictures or some internal tools or really most any other type of software? It's most often better to be cheap and fragile than good and solid. My laptop is probably my single most important possession. (Yeah, I'm a student so I don't really have much else :P.) Do I have a Tough Book which is nigh unbreakable? Nope. I have a laptop which is actually fairly easy to mess up. And it is in every practical sense the better choice. This is, coincidentally, why I think the cynical view of "planned obsolescence" is somewhat shortsighted. Sure, in a sense it's bad that electronic gadgets fall apart after a couple of years. But there's no cynical force behind all this: the simple fact that you wouldn't pay twice as much for a phone which is only more sturdy--but not more capable--is what drives the markets. If you were really worried about it, you would have bought a purpose-built device that would hold up better; instead you bought something cheaper which will break sooner. And this is a perfectly reasonable compromise to make!

smartkids 14y ago
Toughbook is hardware not software. Get an old Thinkpad. It's durable. I take the opposite view. I like durable software. And that's how I build my systems. If they get trashed, they can be restored in minutes. I'd rather spend my effort preparing simple durable systems that can be restored easily than building complex, fragile systems that would be difficult to reconstruct if something goes wrong. I've heard that sometimes things can go wrong.