6 ms·

Thus spake the Master Programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." Sounds like the Master Programmer has never worked at

Thus spake the Master Programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." Sounds like the Master Programmer has never worked at a company that crunched you for 80 hour weeks, for weeks. 8.4 Hardware met Software on the road to Changtse. Software said: "You are Yin and I am Yang. If we travel together, we will become famous and earn vast sums of money." And so they set forth together, thinking to conquer the world. Presently, they met Firmware, who was dressed in tattered rags and hobbled along propped on a thorny stick. Firmware said to them: "The Tao lies beyond Yin and Yang. It is silent and still as a pool of water. It does not seek fame; therefore, nobody knows its presence. It does not seek fortune, for it is complete within itself. It exists beyond space and time." Software and Hardware, ashamed, returned to their homes. I don't understand this one. Apple seems like the embodiment of hardware and software earning vast sums of money. It's worked out well for them. Maybe they're saying that firmware is an important design consideration that requires careful attention.

pling 12y ago
> Sounds like the Master Programmer has never worked at a company that crunched you for 80 hour weeks, for weeks. Nor has the master programmer worked for a company populated by utter morons who leave a large minefield in every task where all one-day estimates turn into one week ones the moment you start sharpening your tools... (that's reality in corporate land) Too bad I'm sitting here reading HN and playing my piano for a bit between emails...
CmonDev 12y ago
"Sounds like the Master Programmer has never worked at a company that crunched you for 80 hour weeks, for weeks" - I guess Master Programmer is smart enough to avoid such workplaces.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Nor do they have people depending on them to put food on their table. When you have to provide, you don't have too much freedom in where you work. It's rare to move your entire family across country, for example. So maybe you're stuck in some backwater city, because your kid goes to school there and you don't want to ruin their social life by uprooting them just because you're facing some crunch time. Is it impossible for you to be a master programmer in that situation? Certainly not. The point is, it's not a good idea to take our freedom for granted. We're kind of spoiled right now, because the job market is literally figuratively on fire. Once the job market saturates within a decade, people will hopefully realize how rare it was for us to have such freedom of choice in where we were able to choose to work.
  - TodPunk 12y ago
    You say you do not have freedom in where you work, and that basically is the reason it is true for you. The biggest limitations are the ones we build for ourselves. I'd suggest instead of thinking of it like a job, think of it like it is: a business arrangement exchanging time and effort for a certain set of compensation. If you wish to avoid working with a bad arrangement on one end, find another vendor you an barter with. If you feel trapped by bills or something, that's a separate problem but still one largely set up by your mind. Obviously lots of nuances to this exist and there are a large number of factors we don't control, but make no mistake, you do control where you work. If you want to maintain the "spoiled freedom" I would suggest you become more valuable in your trade.
  - crpatino 12y ago
    When I was pivoting away from my failed academic career - and the ripples of the Dot Com bubble were still fresh in most employers' minds - I had a job interview that went more or less like this: HR Clerk> Why should I pay you [for a full time position] more than what you are currently making [at your current, unsustainable, part time gig]. Crpatino> Because I'd rather scrub toilets and sell potatoes by the road before giving away my skills for nothing. HR Clerk> I am sorry, I did not intend to offend you, but you must realize this is a question every employer is going to ask... The interview went more or less uphill from there, though I did not end up getting the position. But what I want to point out is that you are not required to just take whatever X employer is offering you. You must remember that this is a game with asymmetric information. They are trained to low-ball you every time they have a chance, expecting that you will push back and negotiate. And if you do not negotiate, they just shrug their shoulders and pocket the difference. I am aware that it is different when you already have a job. But it is not the only way to "put food on the table", no matter how much it looks like. There are other jobs, and there are other industries. And you always have the option to create a job for yourself if all else fails. You may need to take it as it is for some limited time while you put your ducks in line, but you don't have to do that forever.
azernik 12y ago
Sounds like the Master Programmer has never worked at a company that crunched you for 80 hour weeks, for weeks. No, that's just a separate problem: Why are programmers non-productive? Because their time is wasted in meetings. Why are programmers rebellious? Because the management interferes too much. Why are the programmers resigning one by one? Because they are burnt out. Having worked for poor management, they no longer value their jobs.
teddyh 12y ago
My commentary to verse 8.4 is as follows: To make a hard distinction between hardware and software, and thinking that all problems can be solved by using strictly one or the other, is a mistake. Master Joel wrote¹ that all abstractions are leaky, and so it is with any working system – any system needs to be a meld between hardware and software, where neither can keep its identity wholly intact. (Writers of) Firmware know this well. Therefore, the Tao cannot exist in either hardware or software, purely by themselves. 1) http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm...
weland 12y ago
Firmware is a subtle body,with elements from both worlds ("hardware" and "software"), and a computing system is harmonious when "software" and "hardware" do not step over each others' abstractions, but build a coherent, meaningful system, making the distinction between them relevant in terms of taxonomy, but not disonant in terms of code. Sadly, there are relatively few well-known examples of this nowadays. I struggle to build such systems every day, but I think I fail most of the time :-).
- d23 12y ago
  I'd be curious to hear your examples in real world terms :-)
  - weland 12y ago
    There are good examples to see in well-written device drivers. I don't have specific code at hand, but there are bits and pieces that stuck to me. For example, there was this driver that could do pattern-matching on button presses, written by an ex-colleague of mine. The way this is done by most developers is to hardcode some state machines (there's a limited set of patterns that have to be matched anyway) and populate an array of callbacks for each. This one did something rather different (hopefully, I can remember what; it's been a few years since I've seen that code). The patterns it had to recognize were arbitrary combinations of short and long button press or hold sequence, double presses and triple presses. Instead of having the state machines hardcoded, the programmer would define a state machine by defining an array of press patterns (e.g. button_event_t events[] = {BTN_CLICK, BTN_HOLD, BTN_DBL_CLICK, BTN_SEQ_END}) and register it with the driver, which added it into a list of patterns to match against. Each pattern could also have as many callbacks to be launched as needed. The button driver itself had absolutely no idea about all this pattern crap, all it did was receive interrupts from GPIO ports and place them in a queue. An "event" matcher would munch on that queue, interpret elementary events (like button was pressed, button was depressed, button was held etc.) and put these in another queue that was pushed to the "action" matcher. Each time there was an interaction with it, it would start a new pattern matching drill; it would walk the list of events it knew about, "add" those whose first step matched the current one to a temporarily-used list (it was only adding pointers, of course, not copying the actual event) and "remove" the first press pattern (it would actually increment an index counter so as not to start copying bytes around). If nothing happened before a certain amount of time passed, the list would be disposed of. If it did, however, the temporary list would be walked again, removing those elements whose new first step didn't match the current one, and so on until the list would be brought down to one element. The callbacks would then be scheduled to run (these were actually delayed jobs, not blocking function calls), the one-element list disposed of and so on. This was beautifully structured in every possible way: 1. The button driver, that did the GPIO magic, only worked with GPIO interrupts. 2. Recognizing specific user presses was done by another subsystem, and 3. Recognizing specific sequences of user presses was done by another subsystem None of these had to do anything foreign to them: the button driver (which encompassed roughly #1 and #2 with nice separation between them) only did button stuff. Matching sequences of button actions superficially sounds like "button stuff" which is why it's routinely mashed in the same soup, with horrible results, but this one wasn't. It had the further advantage that now automatic testing of anything was blatantly trivial (background: each sequence of presses would trigger actions that could potentially take up to one hour), since events like BUTTON_PRESSED or BUTTON_HOLD didn't have to come from actual interaction, they could be pushed in there by a test routine communicating with a PC through a serial port. Extending the range of possible actions or redefining them was trivial, since all that had to be done was edit arrays. It was also trivial to allow customization of these sequences by end-users. But this is also aesthetically pleasing: there's no conflict of abstraction between "software"and "hardware". There is one module that abstracts only what is relevantly abstracted in hardware, and produces purely software-abstractions, that are meaningful only to humans, not silicon, such as BUTTON_HOLD events (silicon only knows about signals it translates into a bit flip which we like to call an interrupt). It didn't push non-silicon stuff into software that spoke to silicon, nor did it push silicon stuff high up there where there should only be software stuff. Oh yeah: this was on a microcontroller that had 4K of RAM, and the software also included a communication stack for some weird-ass protocol, a flash driver, a temperature sensor, energy metering, LED signaling, toggling an array of relays, driving a buzzer, a firmware upgrade mechanism, a sort of application settings manager, a clock (the kind that shows the hour) with multiple alarms and the rest of the OS, pretty much all of it written by us. This guy was a guru though. The parts written by me sucked.

pling 12y ago

> Sounds like the Master Programmer has never worked at a company that crunched you for 80 hour weeks, for weeks. Nor has the master programmer worked for a company populated by utter morons who leave a large minefield in every task where all one-day estimates turn into one week ones the moment you start sharpening your tools... (that's reality in corporate land) Too bad I'm sitting here reading HN and playing my piano for a bit between emails...

CmonDev 12y ago

"Sounds like the Master Programmer has never worked at a company that crunched you for 80 hour weeks, for weeks" - I guess Master Programmer is smart enough to avoid such workplaces.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
Nor do they have people depending on them to put food on their table. When you have to provide, you don't have too much freedom in where you work. It's rare to move your entire family across country, for example. So maybe you're stuck in some backwater city, because your kid goes to school there and you don't want to ruin their social life by uprooting them just because you're facing some crunch time. Is it impossible for you to be a master programmer in that situation? Certainly not. The point is, it's not a good idea to take our freedom for granted. We're kind of spoiled right now, because the job market is literally figuratively on fire. Once the job market saturates within a decade, people will hopefully realize how rare it was for us to have such freedom of choice in where we were able to choose to work.
- TodPunk 12y ago
  You say you do not have freedom in where you work, and that basically is the reason it is true for you. The biggest limitations are the ones we build for ourselves. I'd suggest instead of thinking of it like a job, think of it like it is: a business arrangement exchanging time and effort for a certain set of compensation. If you wish to avoid working with a bad arrangement on one end, find another vendor you an barter with. If you feel trapped by bills or something, that's a separate problem but still one largely set up by your mind. Obviously lots of nuances to this exist and there are a large number of factors we don't control, but make no mistake, you do control where you work. If you want to maintain the "spoiled freedom" I would suggest you become more valuable in your trade.
- crpatino 12y ago
  When I was pivoting away from my failed academic career - and the ripples of the Dot Com bubble were still fresh in most employers' minds - I had a job interview that went more or less like this: HR Clerk> Why should I pay you [for a full time position] more than what you are currently making [at your current, unsustainable, part time gig]. Crpatino> Because I'd rather scrub toilets and sell potatoes by the road before giving away my skills for nothing. HR Clerk> I am sorry, I did not intend to offend you, but you must realize this is a question every employer is going to ask... The interview went more or less uphill from there, though I did not end up getting the position. But what I want to point out is that you are not required to just take whatever X employer is offering you. You must remember that this is a game with asymmetric information. They are trained to low-ball you every time they have a chance, expecting that you will push back and negotiate. And if you do not negotiate, they just shrug their shoulders and pocket the difference. I am aware that it is different when you already have a job. But it is not the only way to "put food on the table", no matter how much it looks like. There are other jobs, and there are other industries. And you always have the option to create a job for yourself if all else fails. You may need to take it as it is for some limited time while you put your ducks in line, but you don't have to do that forever.

azernik 12y ago

Sounds like the Master Programmer has never worked at a company that crunched you for 80 hour weeks, for weeks. No, that's just a separate problem: Why are programmers non-productive? Because their time is wasted in meetings. Why are programmers rebellious? Because the management interferes too much. Why are the programmers resigning one by one? Because they are burnt out. Having worked for poor management, they no longer value their jobs.

teddyh 12y ago

My commentary to verse 8.4 is as follows: To make a hard distinction between hardware and software, and thinking that all problems can be solved by using strictly one or the other, is a mistake. Master Joel wrote¹ that all abstractions are leaky, and so it is with any working system – any system needs to be a meld between hardware and software, where neither can keep its identity wholly intact. (Writers of) Firmware know this well. Therefore, the Tao cannot exist in either hardware or software, purely by themselves. 1) http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm...

weland 12y ago

Firmware is a subtle body,with elements from both worlds ("hardware" and "software"), and a computing system is harmonious when "software" and "hardware" do not step over each others' abstractions, but build a coherent, meaningful system, making the distinction between them relevant in terms of taxonomy, but not disonant in terms of code. Sadly, there are relatively few well-known examples of this nowadays. I struggle to build such systems every day, but I think I fail most of the time :-).

d23 12y ago
I'd be curious to hear your examples in real world terms :-)
- weland 12y ago
  There are good examples to see in well-written device drivers. I don't have specific code at hand, but there are bits and pieces that stuck to me. For example, there was this driver that could do pattern-matching on button presses, written by an ex-colleague of mine. The way this is done by most developers is to hardcode some state machines (there's a limited set of patterns that have to be matched anyway) and populate an array of callbacks for each. This one did something rather different (hopefully, I can remember what; it's been a few years since I've seen that code). The patterns it had to recognize were arbitrary combinations of short and long button press or hold sequence, double presses and triple presses. Instead of having the state machines hardcoded, the programmer would define a state machine by defining an array of press patterns (e.g. button_event_t events[] = {BTN_CLICK, BTN_HOLD, BTN_DBL_CLICK, BTN_SEQ_END}) and register it with the driver, which added it into a list of patterns to match against. Each pattern could also have as many callbacks to be launched as needed. The button driver itself had absolutely no idea about all this pattern crap, all it did was receive interrupts from GPIO ports and place them in a queue. An "event" matcher would munch on that queue, interpret elementary events (like button was pressed, button was depressed, button was held etc.) and put these in another queue that was pushed to the "action" matcher. Each time there was an interaction with it, it would start a new pattern matching drill; it would walk the list of events it knew about, "add" those whose first step matched the current one to a temporarily-used list (it was only adding pointers, of course, not copying the actual event) and "remove" the first press pattern (it would actually increment an index counter so as not to start copying bytes around). If nothing happened before a certain amount of time passed, the list would be disposed of. If it did, however, the temporary list would be walked again, removing those elements whose new first step didn't match the current one, and so on until the list would be brought down to one element. The callbacks would then be scheduled to run (these were actually delayed jobs, not blocking function calls), the one-element list disposed of and so on. This was beautifully structured in every possible way: 1. The button driver, that did the GPIO magic, only worked with GPIO interrupts. 2. Recognizing specific user presses was done by another subsystem, and 3. Recognizing specific sequences of user presses was done by another subsystem None of these had to do anything foreign to them: the button driver (which encompassed roughly #1 and #2 with nice separation between them) only did button stuff. Matching sequences of button actions superficially sounds like "button stuff" which is why it's routinely mashed in the same soup, with horrible results, but this one wasn't. It had the further advantage that now automatic testing of anything was blatantly trivial (background: each sequence of presses would trigger actions that could potentially take up to one hour), since events like BUTTON_PRESSED or BUTTON_HOLD didn't have to come from actual interaction, they could be pushed in there by a test routine communicating with a PC through a serial port. Extending the range of possible actions or redefining them was trivial, since all that had to be done was edit arrays. It was also trivial to allow customization of these sequences by end-users. But this is also aesthetically pleasing: there's no conflict of abstraction between "software"and "hardware". There is one module that abstracts only what is relevantly abstracted in hardware, and produces purely software-abstractions, that are meaningful only to humans, not silicon, such as BUTTON_HOLD events (silicon only knows about signals it translates into a bit flip which we like to call an interrupt). It didn't push non-silicon stuff into software that spoke to silicon, nor did it push silicon stuff high up there where there should only be software stuff. Oh yeah: this was on a microcontroller that had 4K of RAM, and the software also included a communication stack for some weird-ass protocol, a flash driver, a temperature sensor, energy metering, LED signaling, toggling an array of relays, driving a buzzer, a firmware upgrade mechanism, a sort of application settings manager, a clock (the kind that shows the hour) with multiple alarms and the rest of the OS, pretty much all of it written by us. This guy was a guru though. The parts written by me sucked.