Yes, It's Nonsense.

No doubt profitable nonsense. What follows is a reply to a comment by one Andrew Webb on an InfoQ.com sales-pitch-as-technical-"journalism" puff piece. The piece was "reporting" on a study by Dr Donnie Berkholz of InfoQ.com. This kind of hucksterism is one of the most formidable barriers blocking our craft of software development from ever becoming a professional engineering discipline but, well, read on if you will.

Why here rather than on InfoQ? Simple: even though their reply-entry form states that <a> is an accepted HTML element in comments, it refused to accept any of the links I had in this post. Shoddy "journalism", neet shoddy Web development.

---

Worse than nonsense; this was written for PHBs, likely as a tool to sell consulting hours training teams in the "more expressive" languages. Anybody who remembers Java's transition from a language and VM into a marketing platform, circa 1997-1998, has seen this done before and better.

Note that I am not talking about Dr Berkholz' original study, the link to which was buried in this puff piece. But there appears to be a real problem with the data that the study was based on from Ohloh. From what I've been able to see, the data covers a period of at least 15 years (late 1990s-present). Subversion(!) was used for 53 percent of the projects in the data set; when you add in now-Palaeolithic CVS, the share rises to nearly 2/3 of the projects covered by the data set.

Let me beat that timeframe to death one more time: In the last 20 years, we've gone through at least two major revolutions in the techniques mainstream developers use. Twenty years ago, if you mentioned "OOP" in half the corporate development centres in North America or Asia, the response would have been "what's wrong?" We as a craft, we were just beginning to get our minds wrapped around object-oriented software development, moving it out of its metaphorical Bronze Age, when the larger revolution which that enabled, BDD/TDD/whatever your flavour of Agile, hit like a silver tsunami. Twenty years ago, I was writing "C/C++", Fortran and Ada code, using various odd bits of version control (anybody else remember how good SourceSafe was before Microsoft bought it?), and checking in massive commits, because centralised SCM systems like SourceSafe, CVS and RCS are a pain; seen less as a design/team-support tool than an insurance policy against Raj's hard drive being wiped by some virus or other. Network connectivity was not as omnipresent, reliable or fast as it is today, by several orders of magnitude.

Nowadays, regardless of what language you're in, you're (hopefully) using some form of agile process. You're strongly encouraged to tunnel in, specifying the smallest change that could possibly fail, and then implement just enough code to make that spec pass. You're not going to check in thousands (or even hundreds) of lines of code at one go; you're going to build that feature you're working on over several commits, on a branch of your SCM tree, and then merge it back into the mainline when it's done. The last ten PHP projects I worked on, over a six-year period, averaged less than 50 lines per commit – in one of the most overly verbose languages since ALGOL 68 and COBOL.

Changes in development practices, and tools, will hopelessly skew that data set unless additional controls are applied, and I could find no description of any. That, to me, says that this is, at best, an enjoyable-in-the-moment bit of data-mining with all the relevance to day-to-day developers' lives of the Magic 8-Ball.

This article was even worse; no examination of assumptions, no discussion of changing trends in the craft and industry, just a vacuous puff piece. An insult to the intelligence of the readers and, despite the possible flaws in the original study, to Dr Berkholz' work as well. If my mind could go take a hot shower to wash the oily residue off, it would. I used to think ZDNet was the bottom of the barrel for this sort of thing. I was wrong.

---

NOTE: Earlier, I'd previously written "Twenty years ago, I was writing "C/C++", Fortran and Ada code, using Subversion", which is an anachronism, of course. Subversion came out in 2000, and I was not in a time warp in 1994. It just feels like I'd been using (used by?) it for that long.

I thought OSS was supposed to break down walls, not build them.

Silly me. I've only been using, evangelizing and otherwise involved in open source software for 15 or 20 years, so what do I know?

In reaction to the latest feature article in DistroWatch Weekly, I'm angry. I'm sad. Most of all, I feel sorry for those losers who would rather keep their pristine little world free of outside involvement, especially when that involvement is with the express intent of not making it easy for non-übergeeks to use open source software — in this case, OpenBSD. OpenBSD, like its cousins FreeBSD and NetBSD, is one of the (current) "major" base versions of BSD Unix. While the latter two have had numerous other projects that have taken their software as a base, fewer have branched from "Open" BSD, as can be seen in this comparison on Wikipedia. Recently, two OpenBSD enthusiasts have attempted to address this, only to be flamed mercilessly for their trouble.

The DistroWatch feature previously mentioned concerns GNOBSD, a project created by Stefan Rinkes, whose goal plainly was to make this highly stable and secure operating system, with a lineage that long predates Linux, accessible to a wider audience (who don't use Mac OS X - based (indirectly) on both FreeBSD and NetBSD).

For his troubles, Mr. Rinkes was the subject of repeated, extreme, egregiously elitist flaming, this thread being but one example. He was eventually forced to withdraw public access to the GNOBSD disc image, and adding a post stating that he did not "want to be an enemy of the OpenBSD Project."

Reading along the thread on the openbsd-misc mailing list brings one to a post by one "FRLinux", linking to another screaming flamewar summarized here, with the most directly relevant thread starting with a message titled "ComixWall terminated. Another hard worker with the intent of creating an OpenBSD-based operating system that was easy for "ordinary people" to use, promptly incurred the wrath of the leader of the OpenBSD effort, Theo de Raadt, with numerous other "worthies" piling on.

WTF?!?

OK, I get it. The OpenBSD folks don't want anyone playing in their sandbox providing access to the OpenBSD software (itself supposedly completely open source, free software) that might in any way compete with "official" OpenBSD downloads or DVD/CD sales. They especially don't want any possibility of the Great Unwashed Masses™ — i.e., anyone other than self-professed, officially-blessed übergeeks — from playing with "their" toys.

OK, fine. It has been a large part of my business and passion to evangelize open source and otherwise free software as an enabler for the use of open data standards by individuals and businesses. I have supported and/or led the migration, in whole or in part, of several dozen small to midsize businesses from a completely closed, proprietary software stack (usually Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office for Windows) to a mix of other (open and proprietary) operating systems and applications. OpenBSD has historically been high on my list of candidates for clients' server OS needs; if you can manage a Windows Server cluster with acceptable performance and stability, your life will be easier managing almost anything else — provided that you're not locked in to proprietary Windows-only applications and services. In these days of "cloud" computing and "software as a service", the arguments against Ye Olde Standarde are becoming much more compelling.

I just won't be making those arguments using OpenBSD anymore. And to my two clients who've expressed interest in BSD on the desktop for their "power" developers over the next couple of years, I'll be pitching other solutions to them...and explaining precisely why.

Because, out here in the real world, people don't like dealing with self-indulgent assholes. That's a lesson that took this recovering geek (in the vein of "recovering alcoholic") far too many years to learn. And people especially don't like trusting their business or their personal data to such people if they have any choice at all.

And, last I checked, that was the whole point of open standards, open source, and free software: giving people choices that allow them to exercise whatever degree of control they wish over their computing activities. I'd really hate to think that I've spent roughly half my adult life chasing a myth. Too many people have put too much hard work into far too many projects to let things like this get in our way.

( C/C++ != C) && (C/C++ != C++)

A thought which ran through my mind as I was browsing some job requirements recently... Why are recruiters still hung up on "C/C++", years after even Microsoft got around to shipping a reasonably compliant compiler (depending on your prejudices and code needs, anywhere from Visual Studio 6 in 1998 to VS.NET 2003)? "C/C++" started life (or zombiehood) as a Microsoft marketing term back in the late 1980s with the release of Version 7 of their C compiler, which included "some C++ features". MSC 7 wasn't a "real" C++ compiler, but companies such as Borland (now CodeGear), Watcom (now part of Sybase), IBM and others, were shipping compilers that implemented the bulk of the (then-) Draft Standard in a (largely) portable, consistent fashion, so Microsoft was able to muddy the waters by calling their product "C/C++", secure in the knowledge that many of their customers had too little C++ experience to see through the marketing. Incidentally, this (non-Microsoft) competitive innovation spurred numerous advances, such as Alexander Stepanov's (of AT&T, later at HP) Standard Template Library (STL). Microsoft, in response, introduced a "Container Class Library" which was in practice quite inferior (since it required contained objects to be derived from the Microsoft Foundation Class library's CObject class and (if memory serves) did not support either multiple inheritance or thread safety. Since Microsoft's compilers at the time did not properly support important Standard C++ features such as templates and runtime type information (RTTI) that were needed for the STL, the compiler defects created market opportunities for companies like Rogue Wave and Dinkumware to create products with similar but not identical function. Timewise, this was really when Microsoft was starting to really push developer lock-in - the practice of introducting non-standard and/or proprietary "features" which were made central to the development process. Despite the existence of numerous superior (in design, function and in productivity) class libraries such as Borland's ObjectWindows Library, Inmark's zApp library, the previously-mentioned Rogue Wave toolkits, and others, Microsoft's MFC carved out huge market share and mindshare, largely because:

• it was bundled with the Microsoft C ("C/C++") compiler;
• its limitations and defects mapped most closely to those of the underlying compiler;
• it came with a primitive but usable GUI builder, for "click-and-drool" development; and
• it was relentlessly praised by the Microsoft-beholden tech press of the day.

That last point should never be underestimated; publishers of less-than-laudatory articles, such as C Users Journal and Will Zachmann (when he was writing for PC Magazine) would find themselves cut off from Microsoft's press briefings, rumor mil and other means of "keeping up with the competition". This was meant as punitive, to "hurt" the "offenders"...who promptly wrote up the entire sordid affair, built a certain amount of loyal sympathy from the industry grass-roots, and survived quite well, thank you very much. Getting back to "C/C++"... the term was a marketing fix to a technical problem which rapidly gained "mindshare" with its intended audience: marginally to non-technical people (senior managers, HR people, etc.) who wanted or needed to sound technically knowledgeable. Microsoft was able to play on their lack of real language knowledge coupled with follow-the-herd instincts to help force adoption in enterprises, from the top down. While this helped to increase sales, and helped preserve Windows' market share and lock-in in the enterprise for nearly two decades, it seriously retarded the take-up of standard, portable C++ in the industry (as intended). It also gave companies like ParcPlace (with Smalltalk) and NeXT, later Apple (with Objective-C) incentives to use "alternative" languages, either to gain some "control over their own destiny" independent of a competitor, or simply because C++ at the time was not up to the tasks which they wanted to accomplish. In any event, by around 2000 (plus or minus a half-decade), Microsoft had caught up with where the rest of the industry had been for a decade or so (bringing serious, proprietary backward-compatibility baggage along with them). The marketing need for the 'C/C++' Newspeak was gone - but the corporate world that had learned the newfangled technical language back in the day was still in place, bound only by the Peter Principle (whose bar, thanks to the new technology throughout the enterprise, had been set depressingly high). Consequently, you still run across job ads with text like this (from the Singapore Straits Times of 13 August 2008):

C/C++ EMBEDDED SOFTWARE Engr. Contract. Call 6xxx7085

Truly informative about the needs; at first blush, seemingly written by a completely non-technical HR person. (I didn't follow up the advertisement to actually verify this, however). What's the point of this whole rambling rant? To try to impress upon you, my half-dozen Loyal Readers, a technical truism that has been around as long as there have been technical gadgets: "80% of what you know will be obsolete in n months; the other 20% will never be obsolete. Using that 80% beyond its shelf life just makes you look silly." Or, if not 'silly', then at least 'locked in to an out-of-date technology or idea.' And that, with very high likelihood, does not deliver a competitive advantage to your organization.