You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com> on 1998/02/13 23:45:25 UTC
(fwd) Shocking Bjarne Stroustrup interview
This has got to be a joke. I'm sure Dean is going to LOOOOOVE this.
>>>>>
>>>>> > "I Did It For You All..."
>>>>> > ______________________________________________________________
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 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.
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
specialization is for insects brian@organic.com
Re: (fwd) Shocking Bjarne Stroustrup interview
Posted by Alexei Kosut <ak...@leland.Stanford.EDU>.
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> This has got to be a joke.
Either that, or Douglas Adams was right about the absurdity of the
universe.
But on a completely unrelated, off-topic note, this message reminded me of
something:
> >>>>> > Interviewer: Last I heard, a really top guy is worth $70 - $80 an
> >>>>> > hour.
Anyway, I've been thinking about what it is I want to do this summer; for
the past two years, I've worked for Brian at Organic, and so thinking that
the Apache Group might not be a bad way to find a job after all, I was
wondering if there were any Bay Area-based firms around here that might be
interested in possibly hiring me as an intern this summer. I figure it's
worth a shot.
(Hey, wait... I've got an idea. Let's rewrite Apache 2.0 in DOS shell)
-- Alexei Kosut <ak...@stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org> *