Author: Don Dailey
Date: 10:57:21 02/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
This was hillarious. I've always like this kind of humor too. Who is the actual author of this fake interview? - Don On February 12, 1998 at 00:58:16, Kai Middleton wrote: >Here is a rather incredible e-mail message I received from a friend of >mine who is a contract systems administrator for Unix systems at a >company in Boston. I was a C programmer some years ago but have little >experience with C++ beyond one class I took. The only part of the story >I can confirm is that the size of an executable for a small program (not >much more complicated than "Hello World") is in fact half a megabyte >using the unix g++ compiler. I'm curious as to what C/C++ >implementations people are using for their chess programs, and what >people think of the veracity of Stroustrup's supposed comments here. > > >>On the 1st of January, 1998, Bjarne Stroustrup gave an interview to >>the >>IEEE's 'Computer' magazine. >> >>Naturally, the editors thought he would be giving a retrospective view >>of >>seven years of object-oriented design, using the language he created. >> >>By the end of the interview, the interviewer got more than he had >>bargained >>for and, subsequently, the editor decided to suppress its contents, >>'for the >>good of the industry' but, as with many of these things, there was a >>leak. >> >>Here is a complete transcript of what was was said, unedited, and >>unrehearsed, so it isn't as neat as planned interviews. >> >>You will find it interesting... >> >>__________________________________________________________________ >> >>Interviewer: Well, it's been a few years since you changed the >> world of software design, how does it feel, looking back? >> >>Stroustrup: Actually, I was thinking about those days, just before >> you arrived. Do you remember? Everyone was writing 'C' >> and, the trouble was, they were pretty damn good at it. >> Universities got pretty good at teaching it, too. They were >> turning out competent - I stress the word 'competent' - >> graduates at a phenomenal rate. That's what caused the >> problem. >> >>Interviewer: Problem? >> >>Stroustrup: Yes, problem. Remember when everyone wrote Cobol? >> >>Interviewer: Of course, I did too >> >>Stroustrup: Well, in the beginning, these guys were like demi-gods. >> Their salaries were high, and they were treated like royalty. >> >>Interviewer: Those were the days, eh? >> >>Stroustrup: Right. So what happened? IBM got sick of it, and >> invested millions in training programmers, till they were a >> dime a dozen. >> >>Interviewer: That's why I got out. Salaries dropped within a year, >> to the point where being a journalist actually paid better. >> >>Stroustrup: Exactly. Well, the same happened with 'C' programmers. >> >>Interviewer: I see, but what's the point? >> >>Stroustrup: Well, one day, when I was sitting in my office, I >> thought of this little scheme, which would redress the >> balance a little. I thought 'I wonder what would happen, if >> there were a language so complicated, so difficult to learn, >> that nobody would ever be able to swamp the market with >> programmers? Actually, I got some of the ideas from X10, >> you know, X windows. That was such a bitch of a graphics >> system, that it only just ran on those Sun 3/60 things. >> They had all the ingredients for what I wanted. A really >> ridiculously complex syntax, obscure functions, and >> pseudo-OO structure. Even now, nobody writes raw X-windows >> code. Motif is the only way to go if you want to retain >> your sanity. >> >>Interviewer: You're kidding...? >> >>Stroustrup: Not a bit of it. In fact, there was another problem. >> Unix was written in 'C', which meant that any 'C' programmer >> could very easily become a systems programmer. Remember >> what a mainframe systems programmer used to earn? >> >>Interviewer: You bet I do, that's what I used to do. >> >>Stroustrup: OK, so this new language had to divorce itself from >> Unix, by hiding all the system calls that bound the two >> together so nicely. This would enable guys who only knew >> about DOS to earn a decent living too. >> >>Interviewer: I don't believe you said that... >> >>Stroustrup: Well, it's been long enough, now, and I believe most >> people have figured out for themselves that C++ is a waste >> of time but, I must say, it's taken them a lot longer than I >> thought it would. >> >>Interviewer: So how exactly did you do it? >> >>Stroustrup: It was only supposed to be a joke, I never thought >> people would take the book seriously. Anyone with half a >> brain can see that object-oriented programming is >> counter-intuitive, illogical and inefficient. >> >>Interviewer: What? >> >>Stroustrup: And as for 're-useable code' - when did you ever hear >> of a company re-using its code? >> >>Interviewer: Well, never, actually, but... >> >>Stroustrup: There you are then. Mind you, a few tried, in the >> early days. There was this Oregon company - Mentor >> Graphics, I think they were called - really caught a cold >> trying to rewrite everything in C++ in about '90 or '91. I >> felt sorry for them really, but I thought people would learn >> from their mistakes. >> >>Interviewer: Obviously, they didn't? >> >>Stroustrup: Not in the slightest. Trouble is, most companies >> hush-up all their major blunders, and explaining a $30 >> million loss to the shareholders would have been difficult. >> Give them their due, though, they made it work in the end. >> >>Interviewer: They did? Well, there you are then, it proves O-O >>works. >> >>Stroustrup: Well, almost. The executable was so huge, it took >> five minutes to load, on an HP workstation, with 128MB of >> RAM. Then it ran like treacle. Actually, I thought this >> would be a major stumbling-block, and I'd get found out >> within a week, but nobody cared. Sun and HP were only too >> glad to sell enormously powerful boxes, with huge resources >> just to run trivial programs. You know, when we had our >> first C++ compiler, at AT&T, I compiled 'Hello World', and >> couldn't believe the size of the executable. 2.1MB >> >>Interviewer: What? Well, compilers have come a long way, since then. >> >>Stroustrup: They have? Try it on the latest version of g++ - you >> won't get much change out of half a megabyte. Also, there >> are several quite recent examples for you, from all over the >> world. British Telecom had a major disaster on their hands >> but, luckily, managed to scrap the whole thing and start >> again. They were luckier than Australian Telecom. Now I >> hear that Siemens is building a dinosaur, and getting more >> and more worried as the size of the hardware gets bigger, to >> accommodate the executables. Isn't multiple inheritance a joy? >> >>Interviewer: Yes, but C++ is basically a sound language. >> >>Stroustrup: You really believe that, don't you? Have you ever sat >> down and worked on a C++ project? Here's what happens: >> First, I've put in enough pitfalls to make sure that only >> the most trivial projects will work first time. Take >> operator overloading. At the end of the project, almost >> every module has it, usually, because guys feel they really >> should do it, as it was in their training course. The same >> operator then means something totally different in every >> module. Try pulling that lot together, when you have a >> hundred or so modules. And as for data hiding. God, I >> sometimes can't help laughing when I hear about the problems >> companies have making their modules talk to each other. I >> think the word 'synergistic' was specially invented to twist >> the knife in a project manager's ribs. >> >>Interviewer: I have to say, I'm beginning to be quite appalled at >> all this. You say you did it to raise programmers' >> salaries? That's obscene. >> >>Stroustrup: Not really. Everyone has a choice. I didn't expect >> the thing to get so much out of hand. Anyway, I basically >> succeeded. C++ is dying off now, but programmers still get >> high salaries - especially those poor devils who have to >> maintain all this crap. You do realise, it's impossible to >> maintain a large C++ software module if you didn't actually >> write it? >> >>Interviewer: How come? >> >>Stroustrup: You are out of touch, aren't you? Remember the typedef? >> >>Interviewer: Yes, of course. >> >>Stroustrup: Remember how long it took to grope through the header >> files only to find that 'RoofRaised' was a double precision >> number? Well, imagine how long it takes to find all the >> implicit typedefs in all the Classes in a major project. >> >>Interviewer: So how do you reckon you've succeeded? >> >>Stroustrup: Remember the length of the average-sized 'C' project? >> About 6 months. Not nearly long enough for a guy with a >> wife and kids to earn enough to have a decent standard of >> living. Take the same project, design it in C++ and what do >> you get? I'll tell you. One to two years. Isn't that >> great? All that job security, just through one mistake of >> judgement. And another thing. The universities haven't >> been teaching 'C' for such a long time, there's now a >> shortage of decent 'C' programmers. Especially those who >> know anything about Unix systems programming. How many guys >> would know what to do with 'malloc', when they've used 'new' >> all these years - and never bothered to check the return >> code. In fact, most C++ programmers throw away their return >> codes. Whatever happened to good ol' '-1'? At least you >> knew you had an error, without bogging the thing down in all >> that 'throw' 'catch' 'try' stuff. >> >>Interviewer: But, surely, inheritance does save a lot of time? >> >>Stroustrup: Does it? Have you ever noticed the difference between >> a 'C' project plan, and a C++ project plan? The planning >> stage for a C++ project is three times as long. Precisely >> to make sure that everything which should be inherited is, >> and what shouldn't isn't. Then, they still get it wrong. >> Whoever heard of memory leaks in a 'C' program? Now finding >> them is a major industry. Most companies give up, and send >> the product out, knowing it leaks like a sieve, simply to >> avoid the expense of tracking them all down. >> >>Interviewer: There are tools... >> >>Stroustrup: Most of which were written in C++. >> >>Interviewer: If we publish this, you'll probably get lynched, you >> do realise that? >> >>Stroustrup: I doubt it. As I said, C++ is way past its peak now, >> and no company in its right mind would start a C++ project >> without a pilot trial. That should convince them that it's >> the road to disaster. If not, they deserve all they get. You >> know, I tried to convince Dennis Ritchie to rewrite Unix in >>C++. >> >>Interviewer: Oh my God. What did he say? >> >>Stroustrup: Well, luckily, he has a good sense of humor. I think >> both he and Brian figured out what I was doing, in the early >> days, but never let on. He said he'd help me write a C++ >> version of DOS, if I was interested. >> >>Interviewer: Were you? >> >>Stroustrup: Actually, I did write DOS in C++, I'll give you a demo >> when we're through. I have it running on a Sparc 20 in the >> computer room. Goes like a rocket on 4 CPU's, and only >> takes up 70 megs of disk. >> >>Interviewer: What's it like on a PC? >> >>Stroustrup: Now you're kidding. Haven't you ever seen Windows '95? >> I think of that as my biggest success. Nearly blew the game >> before I was ready, though. >> >>Interviewer: You know, that idea of a Unix++ has really got me >> thinking. Somewhere out there, there's a guy going to try it. >> >>Stroustrup: Not after they read this interview. >> >>Interviewer: I'm sorry, but I don't see us being able to publish >> any of this. >> >>Stroustrup: But it's the story of the century. I only want to be >> remembered by my fellow programmers, for what I've done for >> them. You know how much a C++ guy can get these days? >> >>Interviewer: Last I heard, a really top guy is worth $70 - $80 an >> hour. >> >>Stroustrup: See? And I bet he earns it. Keeping track of all the >> gotchas I put into C++ is no easy job. And, as I said >> before, every C++ programmer feels bound by some mystic >> promise to use every damn element of the language on every >> project. Actually, that really annoys me sometimes, even >> though it serves my original purpose. I almost like the >> language after all this time. >> >>Interviewer: You mean you didn't before? >> >>Stroustrup: Hated it. It even looks clumsy, don't you agree? But >> when the book royalties started to come in... well, you get >> the picture. >> >>Interviewer: Just a minute. What about references? You must >> admit, you improved on 'C' pointers. >> >>Stroustrup: Hmm. I've always wondered about that. Originally, I >> thought I had. Then, one day I was discussing this with a >> guy who'd written C++ from the beginning. He said he could >> never remember whether his variables were referenced or >> dereferenced, so he always used pointers. He said the >> little asterisk always reminded him. >> >>Interviewer: Well, at this point, I usually say 'thank you very >> much' but it hardly seems adequate. >> >>Stroustrup: Promise me you'll publish this. My conscience is >> getting the better of me these days. >> >>Interviewer: I'll let you know, but I think I know what my editor >> will say. >> >>Stroustrup: Who'd believe it anyway? Although, can you send me a >> copy of that tape? >> >>Interviewer: I can do that. >> >>
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.