From: Karl.Glazebrook@durham.ac.uk (Karl Glazebrook)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Real Programmers
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:02:07 GMT
Reply-To: Karl.Glazebrook@durham.ac.uk
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Durham

In article Anv@newcastle.ac.uk, Karl.Glazebrook@durham.ac.uk (Karl Glazebrook) writes:
>
>In article I29@newcastle.ac.uk, Karl.Glazebrook@durham.ac.uk (Karl Glazebrook) writes:
>>Anybody know where I can get the full text of this extract from my Cookies file ? :
>>Some quotes from "Real Programmers Don't Use PASCAL" by Ed Post:                
>>
>
>Thanks everybody for the response - I now have it. Anybody
>who wants a copy please mail me.
>

Since the demand is so overwhelming and I'm leaving town tomorrow for a week
I'm posting it here and to hell with the network traffic.

If you mail me please consider yourself replied too!

Thanks everybody,

Karl

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From mbvg@nl.tno.bouw.sparc-31 Fri Dec 11 09:54:02 1992
From: mbvg@nl.tno.bouw.sparc-31 (Martin van Gijzen)
Subject: Real Programmers
To: Karl.Glazebrook@uk.ac.durham
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 10:06:00 MET
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Content-Length: 24342
Status: RO
X-Lines: 505




                "Real Programmers Don't Use PASCAL"


                                  Ed Post

                         Graphic Software Systems
                               P.O. Box 673
                            25117 S.W. Parkway
                           Wilsonville, OR 97070

                            Copyright (c) 1982

 (decvax | ucbvax | cbosg | pur-ee | lbl-unix)!teklabs!ogcvax!gss1144!evp

        Back in the good old days -- the "Golden Era" of computers, it was easy
to separate the men from the boys (sometimes called "Real Men" and "Quiche
Eaters" in the literature). During this period, the Real Men were the ones that
understood computer programming, and the Quiche Eaters were the ones that
didn't.  A real computer programmer said things like "DO 10 I=1,10" and "ABEND"
(they actually talked in capital letters, you understand), and the rest of the
world said things like "computers are too complicated for me" and "I can't
relate to computers -- they're so impersonal". (A previous work [1] points out
that Real Men don't "relate" to anything, and aren't afraid of being
impersonal.)

        But, as usual, times change. We are faced today with a world in which
little old ladies can get computers in their microwave ovens, 12-year-old kids
can blow Real Men out of the water playing Asteroids and Pac-Man, and anyone
can buy and even understand their very own Personal Computer.  The Real
Programmer is in danger of becoming extinct, of being replaced by high-school
students with TRASH-80's.

        There is a clear need to point out the differences between the typical
high-school junior Pac-Man player and a Real Programmer. If this difference is
made clear, it will give these kids something to aspire to -- a role model, a
Father Figure. It will also help explain to the employers of Real Programmers
why it would be a mistake to replace the Real Programmers on their staff with
12-year-old Pac-Man players (at a considerable salary savings).


                         LANGUAGES
                         ---------

        The easiest way to tell a Real Programmer from the crowd is by the
programming language he (or she) uses. Real Programmers use FORTRAN.  Quiche
Eaters use PASCAL. Nicklaus Wirth, the designer of PASCAL, gave a talk once at
which he was asked "How do you pronounce your name?". He replied, "You can
either call me by name, pronouncing it 'Veert', or call me by value, 'Worth'."
One can tell immediately from this comment that Nicklaus Wirth is a Quiche
Eater. The only parameter passing mechanism endorsed by Real Programmers is
call-by-value-return, as implemented in the IBM\370 FORTRAN-G and H compilers.
Real programmers don't need all these abstract concepts to get their jobs done
-- they are perfectly happy with a keypunch, a FORTRAN IV compiler, and a beer.

   *  Real Programmers do List Processing in FORTRAN.

   *  Real Programmers do String Manipulation in FORTRAN.

   *  Real Programmers do Accounting (if they do it at all) in FORTRAN.

   *  Real Programmers do Artificial Intelligence programs in FORTRAN.

If you can't do it in FORTRAN, do it in assembly language.  If you can't do it
in assembly language, it isn't worth doing.





                   STRUCTURED PROGRAMMING
                   ----------------------

        The academics in computer science have gotten into the "structured
programming" rut over the past several years. They claim that programs are more
easily understood if the programmer uses some special language constructs and
techniques. They don't all agree on exactly which constructs, of course, and
the examples they use to show their particular point of view invariably fit on
a single page of some obscure journal or another -- clearly not enough of an
example to convince anyone. When I got out of school, I thought I was the best
programmer in the world. I could write an unbeatable tic-tac-toe program, use
five different computer languages, and create 1000-line programs that WORKED.
(Really!) Then I got out into the Real World. My first task in the Real World
was to read and understand a 200,000-line FORTRAN program, then speed it up by
a factor of two. Any Real Programmer will tell you that all the Structured
Coding in the world won't help you solve a problem like that -- it takes actual
talent. Some quick observations on Real Programmers and Structured Programming:

   *  Real Programmers aren't afraid to use GOTO's.

   *  Real Programmers can write five-page-long DO loops without
      getting confused.

   *  Real Programmers like Arithmetic IF statements -- they make the
      code more interesting.

   *  Real Programmers write self-modifying code, especially if they can
      save 20 nanoseconds in the middle of a tight loop.

   *  Real Programmers don't need comments -- the code is obvious.

   *  Since FORTRAN doesn't have a structured IF, REPEAT ... UNTIL, or
      CASE statement, Real Programmers don't have to worry about not
      using them. Besides, they can be simulated when necessary using
      assigned GOTO's.

        Data Structures have also gotten a lot of press lately. Abstract Data
Types, Structures, Pointers, Lists, and Strings have become popular in certain
circles. Wirth (the above-mentioned Quiche Eater) actually wrote an entire book
[2] contending that you could write a program based on data structures, instead
of the other way around. As all Real Programmers know, the only useful data
structure is the Array. Strings, lists, structures, sets -- these are all
special cases of arrays and can be treated that way just as easily without
messing up your programing language with all sorts of complications. The worst
thing about fancy data types is that you have to declare them, and Real
Programming Languages, as we all know, have implicit typing based on the first
letter of the (six character) variable name.








                     OPERATING SYSTEMS
                     -----------------

        What kind of operating system is used by a Real Programmer?  CP/M? God
forbid -- CP/M, after all, is basically a toy operating system.  Even little
old ladies and grade school students can understand and use CP/M.

        Unix is a lot more complicated of course -- the typical Unix hacker
never can remember what the PRINT command is called this week -- but when it
gets right down to it, Unix is a glorified video game.  People don't do Serious
Work on Unix systems: they send jokes around the world on UUCP-net and write
adventure games and research papers.

        No, your Real Programmer uses OS\370. A good programmer can find and
understand the description of the IJK305I error he just got in his JCL manual.
A great programmer can write JCL without referring to the manual at all.  A
truly outstanding programmer can find bugs buried in a 6 megabyte core dump
without using a hex calculator.  (I have actually seen this done.)

        OS is a truly remarkable operating system. It's possible to destroy
days of work with a single misplaced space, so alertness in the programming
staff is encouraged. The best way to approach the system is through a keypunch.
Some people claim there is a Time Sharing system that runs on OS\370, but after
careful study I have come to the conclusion that they were mistaken.


                     PROGRAMMING TOOLS
                      ----------------

        What kind of tools does a Real Programmer use? In theory, a Real
Programmer could run his programs by keying them into the front panel of the
computer.  Back in the days when computers had front panels, this was actually
done occasionally.  Your typical Real Programmer knew the entire bootstrap
loader by memory in hex, and toggled it in whenever it got destroyed by his
program. (Back then, memory was memory -- it didn't go away when the power went
off.  Today, memory either forgets things when you don't want it to, or
remembers things long after they're better forgotten.) Legend has it that
Seymore Cray, inventor of the Cray I supercomputer and most of Control Data's
computers, actually toggled the first operating system for the CDC7600 in on
the front panel from memory when it was first powered on.  Seymore, needless to
say, is a Real Programmer.

        One of my favorite Real Programmers was a systems programmer for Texas
Instruments.  One day he got a long distance call from a user whose system had
crashed in the middle of saving some important work. Jim was able to repair the
damage over the phone, getting the user to toggle in disk I/O instructions at
the front panel, repairing system tables in hex, reading register contents back
over the phone.  The moral of this story: while a Real Programmer usually
includes a keypunch and lineprinter in his toolkit, he can get along with just
a front panel and a telephone in emergencies.







        In some companies, text editing no longer consists of ten engineers
standing in line to use an 029 keypunch. In fact, the building I work in
doesn't contain a single keypunch. The Real Programmer in this situation has to
do his work with a "text editor" program.  Most systems supply several text
editors to select from, and the Real Programmer must be careful to pick one
that reflects his personal style.  Many people believe that the best text
editors in the world were written at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center for use on
their Alto and Dorado computers [3].  Unfortunately, no Real Programmer would
ever use a computer whose operating system is called SmallTalk, and would
certainly not talk to the computer with a mouse.

        Some of the concepts in these Xerox editors have been incorporated into
editors running on more reasonably named operating systems -- EMACS and VI
being two.  The problem with these editors is that Real Programmers consider
"what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as
it is in women.  No the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it"
text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. TECO, to
be precise.

        It has been observed that a TECO command sequence more closely
resembles transmission line noise than readable text [4].  One of the more
entertaining games to play with TECO is to type your name in as a command line
and try to guess what it does.  Just about any possible typing error while
talking with TECO will probably destroy your program, or even worse --
introduce subtle and mysterious bugs in a once working subroutine.

        For this reason, Real Programmers are reluctant to actually edit a
program that is close to working.  They find it much easier to just patch the
binary object code directly, using a wonderful program called SUPERZAP (or its
equivalent on non-IBM machines).  This works so well that many working programs
on IBM systems bear no relation to the original FORTRAN code.  In many cases,
the original source code is no longer available.  When it comes time to fix a
program like this, no manager would even think of sending anything less than a
Real Programmer to do the job -- no Quiche Eating structured programmer would
even know where to start.  This is called "job security".

        Some programming tools NOT used by Real Programmers:

   *  FORTRAN preprocessors like MORTRAN and RATFOR. The Cuisinarts of
      programming -- great for making Quiche. See comments above on
      structured programming.

   *  Source language debuggers. Real Programmers can read core dumps.

   *  Compilers with array bounds checking. They stifle creativity, destroy
      most of the interesting uses for EQUIVALENCE, and make it impossible
      to modify the operating system code with negative subscripts. Worst of
      all, bounds checking is inefficient.

   *  Source code maintenance systems. A Real Programmer keeps his code
      locked up in a card file, because it implies that its owner cannot
      leave his important programs unguarded [5].







                THE REAL PROGRAMMER AT WORK
                ---------------------------

        Where does the typical Real Programmer work? What kind of programs are
worthy of the efforts of so talented an individual?  You can be sure that no
Real Programmer would be caught dead writing accounts-receivable programs in
COBOL, or sorting mailing lists for People magazine.  A Real Programmer wants
tasks of earth-shaking importance (literally!).

   *  Real  Programmers work for Los Alamos National Laboratory, writing
      atomic bomb simulations to run on Cray I supercomputers.

   *  Real Programmers work for the National Security Agency, decoding
      Russian transmissions.

   *  It was largely due to the efforts of thousands of Real Programmers
      working for NASA that our boys got to the moon and back before
      the Russkies.

   *  Real Programmers are at work for Boeing  designing the operating
      systems for cruise missiles.

        Some of the most awesome Real Programmers of all work at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in California. Many of them know the entire operating
system of the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft by heart.  With a combination of
large ground-based FORTRAN programs and small spacecraft-based assembly
language programs, they are able to do incredible feats of navigation and
improvisation -- hitting ten-kilometer wide windows at Saturn after six years
in space, repairing or bypassing damaged sensor platforms, radios, and
batteries.  Allegedly, one Real Programmer managed to tuck a pattern-matching
program into a few hundred bytes of unused memory in a Voyager spacecraft that
searched for, located, and photographed a new moon of Jupiter.

        The current plan for the Galileo spacecraft is to use a gravity assist
trajectory past Mars on the way to Jupiter.  This trajectory passes within 80
+/-3 kilometers of the surface of Mars.  Nobody is going to trust a PASCAL
program (or a PASCAL programmer) for navigation to these tolerances.

        As you can tell, many of the world's Real Programmers work for the U.S.
Government -- mainly the Defense Department.  This is as it should be.
Recently, however, a black cloud has formed on the Real Programmer horizon.  It
seems that some highly placed Quiche Eaters at the Defense Department decided
that all Defense programs should be written in some grand unified language
called "ADA" ((C), DoD).  For a while, it seemed that ADA was destined to
become a language that went against all the precepts of Real Programming -- a
language with structure, a language with data types, strong typing, and
semicolons.  In short, a language designed to cripple the creativity of the
typical Real Programmer.  Fortunately, the language adopted by DoD has enough
interesting features to make it approachable -- it's incredibly complex,
includes methods for messing with the operating system and rearranging memory,
and Edsgar Dijkstra doesn't like it [6].  (Dijkstra, as I'm sure you know, was
the author of "GoTos Considered Harmful" -- a landmark work in programming
methodology, applauded by PASCAL programmers and Quiche Eaters alike.) Besides,
the determined Real Programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language.







        The Real Programmer might compromise his principles and work on
something slightly more trivial than the destruction of life as we know it,
providing there's enough money in it. There are several Real Programmers
building video games at Atari, for example. (But not playing them -- a Real
Programmer knows how to beat the machine every time: no challenge in that.)
Everyone working at LucasFilm is a Real Programmer.  (It would be crazy to turn
down the money of fifty million Star Trek fans.)  The proportion of Real
Programmers in Computer Graphics is somewhat lower than the norm, mostly
because nobody has found a use for computer graphics yet.  On the other hand,
all computer graphics is done in FORTRAN, so there are a fair number of people
doing graphics in order to avoid having to write COBOL programs.

                                                 Real Programmers...  p. 7


                THE REAL PROGRAMMER AT PLAY
                ---------------------------

        Generally, the Real Programmer plays the same way he works -- with
computers. He is constantly amazed that his employer actually pays him to do
what he would be doing for fun anyway (although he is careful not to express
this opinion out loud).  Occasionally, the Real Programmer does step out of the
office for a breath of fresh air and a beer or two.  Some tips on recognizing
Real Programmers away from the computer room:

   *  At a party, the Real Programmers are the ones in the corner talking
      about operating system security and how to get around it.

   *  At a football game, the Real Programmer is the one comparing the plays
      against his simulations printed on 11 by 14 fanfold paper.

   *  At the beach, the Real Programmer is the one drawing flowcharts in
      the sand.

   *  At a funeral, the Real Programmer is the one saying "Poor George. And he
      almost had the sort routine working before the coronary."

   *  In a grocery store, the Real Programmer is the one who insists on running
      the cans past the laser checkout scanner himself, because he never could
      trust keypunch operators to get it right the first time.






           THE REAL PROGRAMMER'S NATURAL HABITAT
           -------------------------------------

        What sort of environment does the Real Programmer function best in?
This is an important question for the managers of Real Programmers. Considering
the amount of money it costs to keep one on the staff, it's best to put him (or
her) in an environment where he can get his work done.

        The typical Real Programmer lives in front of a computer terminal.
Surrounding this terminal are:

   *  Listings of all programs the Real Programmer has ever worked on, piled in
      roughly chronological order on every flat surface in the office.

   *  Some half-dozen or so partly filled cups of cold coffee. Occasionally,
      there will be cigarette butts floating in the coffee. In some cases,
      the cups will contain Orange Crush.

   *  Unless he is very good, there will be copies of the OS JCL manual and the
      Principles of Operation open to some particularly interesting pages.

   *  Taped to the wall is a line-printer Snoopy calendar for the year 1969.

   *  Strewn about the floor are several wrappers for peanut butter filled
      cheese bars -- the type that are made pre-stale at the bakery so they
      can't get any worse while waiting in the vending machine.

   *  Hiding in the top left-hand drawer of the desk is a stash of double-stuff
      Oreos for special occasions.

   *  Underneath the Oreos is a flowcharting template, left there by the
      previous occupant of the office.  (Real Programmers write programs, not
      documentation. Leave that to the maintenance people.)


        The Real Programmer is capable of working 30, 40, even 50 hours at a
stretch, under intense pressure. In fact, he prefers it that way.  Bad response
time doesn't bother the Real Programmer -- it gives him a chance to catch a
little sleep between compiles.  If there is not enough schedule pressure on the
Real Programmer, he tends to make things more challenging by working on some
small but interesting part of the problem for the first nine weeks, then
finishing the rest in the last week, in two or three 50-hour marathons.  This
not only impresses the hell out of his manager, who was despairing of ever
getting the project done on time, but creates a convenient excuse for not doing
the documentation.  In general:

   *  No Real Programmer works 9 to 5 (unless it's the ones at night).

   *  Real Programmers don't wear neckties.

   *  Real Programmers don't wear high-heeled shoes.

   *  Real Programmers arrive at work in time for lunch [9].

   *  A Real Programmer might or might not know his wife's name. He does,
      however, know the entire ASCII (or EBCDIC) code table.

   *  Real Programmers don't know how to cook.  Grocery stores aren't open at
      three in the morning.  Real Programmers survive on Twinkies and coffee.







                         THE FUTURE
                         ----------

        What of the future?  It is a matter of some concern to Real Programmers
that the latest generation of computer programmers are not being brought up
with the same outlook on life as their elders.  Many of them have never seen a
computer with a front panel.  Hardly anyone graduating from school these days
can do hex arithmetic without a calculator.  College graduates these days are
soft -- protected from the realities of programming by source level debuggers,
text editors that count parentheses, and "user friendly" operating systems.
Worst of all, some of these alleged "computer scientists" manage to get degrees
without ever learning FORTRAN!  Are we destined to become an industry of Unix
hackers and PASCAL programmers?

        From my experience, I can only report that the future is bright for
Real Programmers everywhere. Neither OS\370 nor FORTRAN show any signs of dying
out, despite all the efforts of PASCAL programmers the world over.  Even more
subtle tricks, like adding structured coding constructs to FORTRAN have failed.
Oh sure, some computer vendors have come out with FORTRAN 77 compilers, but
every one of them has a way of converting itself back into a FORTRAN 66
compiler at the drop of an option card -- to compile DO loops like God meant
them to be.

        Even Unix might not be as bad on Real Programmers as it once was.  The
latest release of Unix has the potential of an operating system worthy of any
Real Programmer -- two different and subtly incompatible user interfaces, an
arcane and complicated teletype driver, virtual memory.  If you ignore the fact
that it's "structured", even 'C' programming can be appreciated by the Real
Programmer: after all, there's no type checking, variable names are seven (ten?
eight?) characters long, and the added bonus of the Pointer data type is thrown
in -- like having the best parts of FORTRAN and assembly language in one place.
(Not to mention some of the more creative uses for #define.)

        No, the future isn't all that bad.  Why, in the past few years, the
popular press has even commented on the bright new crop of computer nerds and
hackers ([7] and [8]) leaving places like Stanford and M.I.T. for the Real
World.  From all evidence, the spirit of Real Programming lives on in these
young men and women.  As long as there are ill-defined goals, bizarre bugs,
and unrealistic schedules, there will be Real Programmers willing to jump in
and Solve The Problem, saving the documentation for later.  Long live FORTRAN!


                       ACKNOWLEGEMENT
                       --------------

        I would like to thank Jan E., Dave S., Rich G., Rich E., for their help
in characterizing the Real Programmer, Heather B. for the illustration, Kathy
E. for putting up with it, and atd!avsdS:mark for the initial inspiration.







                         REFERENCES
                         ----------

    [1]  Feirstein, B., "Real Men  don't  Eat  Quiche",  New
         York, Pocket Books, 1982.

    [2]  Wirth,  N.,  "Algorithms  +   Data   Structures   =
         Programs", Prentice Hall, 1976.

    [3]  Ilson, R., "Recent Research  in  Text  Processing",
         IEEE  Trans.   Prof.  Commun., Vol.  PC-23, No.  4,
         Dec.  4, 1980.

    [4]  Finseth, C., "Theory and Practice of  Text  Editors
         -- or -- a Cookbook for  an  EMACS",  B.S.  Thesis,
         MIT/LCS/TM-165,    Massachusetts    Institute    of
         Technology, May 1980.

    [5]  Weinberg,   G.,   "The   Psychology   of   Computer
         Programming",  New  York,  Van  Nostrand  Reinhold,
         1971, p.  110.

    [6]  Dijkstra, E., "On the GREEN language  submitted  to
         the  DoD",  Sigplan  notices,  Vol. 3  No.  10, Oct
         1978.

    [7]  Rose, Frank, "Joy of Hacking", Science 82, Vol.   3
         No.  9, Nov 82, pp.  58-66.

    [8]  "The Hacker Papers", Psychology Today, August 1980.

    [9]  sdcarl!lin, "Real Programmers", UUCP-net,  Thu  Oct
         21 16:55:16 1982


From shue@edu.mit.ll Fri Dec 11 14:08:11 1992
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 08:59:54 -0500
From: David Shue <shue@edu.mit.ll>
To: Karl.Glazebrook@uk.ac.durham
Subject: Real Programmer's - Part 2
Content-Length: 4392
Status: RO
X-Lines: 101

==================================================================
- Real programmers don't write specs.  Users should consider
  themselves lucky to get any programs at all and take what they get.

- Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to
  write, it should be hard to read.
- Real programmers don't write application programs, they pro-
  gram right down on the bare metal. Application programming
  is for feebs who can't do systems programming.

- Real programmers don't eat quiche.  Real programmers don't even know how to
  spell quiche.  They eat Twinkies, Coke and palate-scorching Szechwan food.

- Real programmers don't draw flowcharts.  Flowcharts are, after all, the
  illiterate's form of documentation.  Cavemen drew flowcharts; look how
  much it did for them.

- Real programmers don't read manuals.  Reliance on a reference is a hallmark
  of the novice and the coward.

- Real programmers programs never work right the first time.
  But if you throw them on the machine they can be patched
  into working in only a few 30-hours debugging sessions.

- Real programmers don't use Fortran.  Fortran is for wimpy engineers who
  wear white socks, pipe stress freaks, and crystallography weenies.  They
  get excited over finite state analysis and nuclear reactor simulation.

- Real programmers don't use COBOL.  COBOL is for wimpy application
  programmers.

- Real programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
  are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.

- Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no program-
  mers write in BASIC, after the age of 12.

- Real programmers don't document. Documentation is for simps
  who can't read the listings or the object deck.

- Real programmers don't write in Pascal, or Bliss, or Ada, or
  any of those pinko computer science languages. Strong typing
  is for people with weak memories.

- Real programmers know better than the users what they need.

- Real programmers think structured programming is a communist
  plot.

- Real programmers don't use schedules. Schedules are for man-
  ager's toadies. Real programmers like to keep their manager
  in suspense.

- Real programmers think better when playing adventure.

- Real programmers don't use PL/I.  PL/I is for insecure momma's boys
  who can't choose between COBOL and Fortran.

- Real programmers don't use APL, unless the whole program can be written
  on one line.

- Real programmers don't use LISP.  Only effeminate programmers use more
  parentheses than actual code.

- Real programmers disdain structured programming.  Structured programming
  is for compulsive, prematurely toilet-trained neurotics who wear neckties
  and carefully line up sharpened pencils on an otherwise uncluttered desk.

- Real programmers don't like the team programming concept.  Unless, of
  course, they are the Chief Programmer.

- Real programmers have no use for managers.  Managers are a necessary evil.
  Managers are for dealing with personnel bozos, bean counters, senior
  planners and other mental defectives.

- Real programmers scorn floating point arithmetic.  The decimal point was
  invented for pansy bedwetters who are unable to "think big."

- Real programmers don't drive clapped-out Mavericks.  They prefer BMWs,
  Lincolns or pick-up trucks with floor shifts.  Fast motorcycles are
  highly regarded.

- Real programmers don't believe in schedules.  Planners make up schedules.
  Managers "firm up" schedules.  Frightened coders strive to meet schedules.
  Real programmers ignore schedules.

- Real programmers like vending machine popcorn.  Coders pop it in the
  microwave oven.  Real programmers use the heat given off by the cpu.
  They can tell what job is running just by listening to the rate of popping.

- Real programmers know every nuance of every instruction and use them all
  in every real program.  Puppy architects won't allow execute instructions
  to address another execute as the target instruction.  Real programmers
  despise such petty restrictions.
- Real programmers don't bring brown bag lunches to work.  If the vending
  machine sells it, they eat it.  If the vending machine doesn't sell it,
  they don't eat it.  Vending machines don't sell quiche.
- Real programmers know that the word is disk, not disc.  Disc is
  a definite commie plot put forth by blubbering quiche eaters.



From shue@edu.mit.ll Fri Dec 11 14:09:01 1992
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 09:00:03 -0500
From: David Shue <shue@edu.mit.ll>
To: Karl.Glazebrook@uk.ac.durham
Subject: More Amusing Stuff
Content-Length: 15573
Status: RO
X-Lines: 303

                   T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  

VNS TECHNOLOGY WATCH:                           [Mike Taylor, VNS Correspondent
]
=====================                           [Littleton, MA, USA            
]

COMPUTERWORLD 1 April

                     CREATORS ADMIT UNIX, C HOAX

    In an announcement that has stunned the computer industry, Ken Thompson,
    Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan admitted that the Unix operating
    system and C programming language created by them is an elaborate April
    Fools prank kept alive for over 20 years.  Speaking at the recent
    UnixWorld Software Development Forum, Thompson revealed the following:

    "In 1969, AT&T had just terminated their work with the GE/Honeywell/AT&T 
    Multics project. Brian and I had just started working with an early
    release of Pascal from Professor Nichlaus Wirth's ETH labs in
    Switzerland and we were impressed with its elegant simplicity and
    power. Dennis had just finished reading 'Bored of the Rings', a
    hilarious National Lampoon parody of the great Tolkien 'Lord of the
    Rings' trilogy. As a lark, we decided to do parodies of the Multics
    environment and Pascal. Dennis and I were responsible for the operating
    environment. We looked at Multics and designed the new system to be as
    complex and cryptic as possible to maximize casual users' frustration
    levels, calling it Unix as a parody of Multics, as well as other more
    risque allusions. Then Dennis and Brian worked on a truly warped
    version of Pascal, called 'A'. When we found others were actually
    trying to create real programs with A, we quickly added additional
    cryptic features and evolved into B, BCPL and finally C. We stopped
    when we got a clean compile on the following syntax:

    for(;P("\n"),R-;P("|"))for(e=C;e-;P("_"+(*u++/8)%2))P("| "+(*u/4)%2);

    To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that
    allowed such a statement was beyond our comprehension!  We actually
    thought of selling this to the Soviets to set their computer science
    progress back 20 or more years. Imagine our surprise when AT&T and
    other US corporations actually began trying to use Unix and C!  It has
    taken them 20 years to develop enough expertise to generate even
    marginally useful applications using this 1960's technological parody,
    but we are impressed with the tenacity (if not common sense) of the
    general Unix and C programmer.  In any event, Brian, Dennis and I have
    been working exclusively in Pascal on the Apple Macintosh for the past
    few years and feel really guilty about the chaos, confusion and truly
    bad programming that have resulted from our silly prank so long ago."

    Major Unix and C vendors and customers, including AT&T, Microsoft,
    Hewlett-Packard, GTE, NCR, and DEC have refused comment at this time. 
    Borland International, a leading vendor of Pascal and C tools,
    including the popular Turbo Pascal, Turbo C and Turbo C++, stated they
    had suspected this for a number of years and would continue to enhance
    their Pascal products and halt further efforts to develop C.  An IBM
    spokesman broke into uncontrolled laughter and had to postpone a
    hastily convened news conference concerning the fate of the RS-6000,
    merely stating 'VM will be available Real Soon Now'.  In a cryptic
    statement, Professor Wirth of the ETH institute and father of the
    Pascal, Modula 2 and Oberon structured languages, merely stated that P.
    T. Barnum was correct.

    In a related late-breaking story, usually reliable sources are stating
    that a similar confession may be forthcoming from William Gates
    concerning the MS-DOS and Windows operating environments.  And IBM
    spokesman have begun denying that the Virtual Machine (VM) product is
    an internal prank gone awry.
    {COMPUTERWORLD 1 April}
    {contributed by Bernard L. Hayes}

<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 2336     Tuesday  4-Jun-1991   <><><><><><><><>

        Real Computer Scientists Don't Write Code 

                Real Computer Scientists don't write code.  They occasionally 
        tinker with programming systems,  but those are so  high  level  that 
        they  hardly  count  (and  rarely count accurately,  precision is for 
        applications).  

                Real  Computer  Scientists  don't  comment  their  code.  The 
        identifiers are so long they can't afford the disk space.  

                Real Computer Scientists don't write the user interface, they 
        merely argue about what they should look like.  

                Real Computer Scientists don't eat quiche. They shun Schezuan 
        food since the hackers discovered it.  Many Real Computer  Scientists 
        consider eating an implementation detail.  (Others break down and eat 
        with the hackers, but only if they can have ice cream for dessert).  

                If it doesn't have a programming  environment  complete  with 
        interactive  debugger,  structure  editor  and extensive cross module 
        type checking,  Real Computer Scientists won't be seen tinkering with 
        it. They may have to use it to balance their checkbooks, as their own 
        systems can't.  

                Real  Computer  Scientists  don't program in assembler.  They 
        don't write in anything less portable than a number two pencil.  

                Real  Computer  Scientists   don't   debug   programs,   they 
        dynamically modify them.  This is safer,  since no one has invented a 
        way to do anything dynamic to FORTRAN, COBOL or BASIC.  

                Real Computer Scientists like C's structured constructs,  but 
        they  are suspicious of it because it's compiled.  (Only Batch Freaks 
        and Efficiency Weirdos  bother  with  compilers,  they're  soooo  un-
        dynamic).  

                Real  Computer Scientists play Go.  They have nothing against 
        the concept of mountain climbing,  but  the  actual  climbing  is  an 
        implementation detail best left to programmers.  

                Real  Computer  Scientists  admire  ADA  for its overwhelming 
        esthetic value, but they find it difficult to actually program in, as 
        it is much too large to implement.  Most  Computer  Scientists  don't 
        notice  this  because they are still arguing over what else to add to 
        ADA.  

                Real Computer Scientists work from  5  pm  to  9  am  because 
        that's the only time they can get the 8 megabytes of main memory they 
        need  to  edit specs.  (Real work starts around 2 am when enough MIPS 
        are free for their dynamic systems). Real Computer Scientists find it 
        hard to share 3081s when they are doing 'REAL' work.  

                Real Computer Scientists only write specs for languages  that 
        might  run on future hardware.  Nobody trusts them to write specs for 
        anything Homo Sapiens will ever be able to fit on a single planet.  

                Real Computer Scientists like planning their own environments 
        to use bit mapped graphics.  Bit mapped graphics is great because  no 
        one can afford it, so their systems can be experimental.  

                Real Computer Scientists regret the existence of PL/1, PASCAL 
        and  LISP.  ADA is getting there,  but it still allows people to make 
        mistakes.  

                Real Computer Scientists love the concept of users. Users are 
        always real impressed by the stuff computer  scientists  are  talking 
        about;  it sure sounds better than the stuff they are being forced to 
        use now.  

                Real Computer Scientists despise the idea of actual hardware.  
        Hardware has limitations,  software doesn't.  It's a real shame  that 
        Turing machines are so poor at I/O.  

                Real Computer Scientists love conventions. No one is expected 
        to lug a 3081 attached to a bit map screen to a convention, so no one 
        will ever know how slow their systems run.


        Real Software Engineers Don't Read Dumps

                Real Software Engineers don't read dumps. They never generate 
        them,  and on the rare occasions that they come across them, they are 
        vaguely amused.  

                Real  Software  Engineers  don't  comment  their  code.   The 
        identifiers are so mnemonic they don't have to.  

                Real  Software  Engineers  don't write applications programs, 
        they implement algorithms.  If someone has an  application  that  the 
        algorithm might help with,  that's nice.  Don't ask them to write the 
        user interface, though.  

                Real Software Engineers eat quiche.  

                If it doesn't have recursive function  calls,  Real  Software 
        Engineers don't program in it.  

                Real  Software  Engineers  don't  program in assembler.  They 
        become queasy at the very thought.  

                Real Software Engineers don't  debug  programs,  they  verify 
        correctness.  This  process  doesn't  necessarily  involve  executing 
        anything on a computer, except perhaps a Correctness Verification Aid 
        package.  

                Real Software Engineers like C's structured  constructs,  but 
        they  are  suspicious  of it because they have heard that it lets you 
        get "close to the machine." 

                Real Software Engineers play tennis.  In general,  they don't 
        like  any  sport  that involves getting hot and sweaty and gross when 
        out of range of a shower. (Thus mountain climbing is Right Out). They 
        will occasionally wear their tennis togs to work,  but only  on  very 
        sunny days.  

                Real  Software Engineers admire PASCAL for its discipline and 
        Spartan purity,  but they find it difficult to actually  program  in.  
        They  don't  tell  this to their friends,  because they are afraid it 
        means they are somehow Unworthy.  

                Real Software Engineers work from 9 to 5, because that is the 
        way the job is described in the formal spec.  Working late would feel 
        like using an undocumented external procedure.  

                Real  Software  Engineers  write  in  languages that have not 
        actually been implemented for any machine,  and for  which  only  the 
        formal  spec  (in  BNF) is available.  This keeps them from having to 
        take any machine dependencies into account. Machine dependencies make 
        Real Software Engineers very uneasy.  

                Real Software Engineers  don't  write  in  ADA,  because  the 
        standards bodies have not quite decided on a formal spec yet.  

                Real  Software  Engineers  like  writing their own compilers, 
        preferably in PROLOG (they also like writing  them  in  unimplemented 
        languages, but it turns out to be difficult to actually RUN these).  

                Real  Software  Engineers  regret  the  existence  of  COBOL, 
        FORTRAN and BASIC;  PL/1 is getting  there,  but  it  is  not  nearly 
        disciplined enough; far too much built-in function.  

                Real  Software Engineers aren't too happy about the existence 
        of users, either. Users always seem to have the wrong idea about what 
        the implementation and verification of algorithms is all about.  

                Real  Software  Engineers  don't  like  the  idea   of   some 
        inexplicable  and  greasy  hardware several aisles away that may stop 
        working at any moment. They have a great distrust of hardware people, 
        and wish that systems could be virtual at ALL levels. They would like 
        personal computers (you know no one's going to  trip  over  something 
        and kill your DFA in mid-transit),  execpt that they need 8 megabytes 
        to run their Correctness Verification Aid packages.  

                Real Software Engineers think better while  playing  WFF  'N' 
        PROOF.  

        Real Programmers Don't Write Specs.

                Real  Programmers  don't write specs -- users should consider 
        themselves lucky to get any programs at all and take what they get.  

                Real Programmers don't comment their code.  If it was hard to 
        write, it should be hard to understand.  

                Real  Programmers  don't  write  application  programs,  they 
        program down to the bare metal.  Application programming is for feebs 
        who can't do systems programming.  

                Real  Programmers  don't eat quiche.  They eat Twinkies,  and 
        Szechwan food.  

                Real Programmers don't write in COBOL.  COBOL  is  for  wimpy 
        applications programmers.  

                Real Programmers' programs never work right the  first  time.  
        But if you throw them on the machine they can be patched into working 
        in "only a few" 30-hour debugging sessions.  

                Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN.  FORTRAN is for pipe 
        stress freaks and crystallography weenies.  

                Real  Programmers don't work 9 to 5.  If any Real Programmers 
        are around at 9 AM, it's because they were up all night.  

                Real  Programmers  don't  write  in   BASIC.   Actually,   no 
        programmers write in BASIC, after the age of 12.  

                Real Programmers don't write in PL/1. PL/1 is for programmers 
        who can't decide whether to write in COBOL or FORTRAN.  

                Real Programmers don't write in APL.  Any fool can be obscure 
        in APL.  

                Real Programmers don't play tennis,  or any other sport  that 
        requires  you  to change clothes.  Mountain climbing is OK,  and Real 
        Programmers wear their climbing boots to  work  in  case  a  mountain 
        should suddenly spring up in the middle of the machine room.  

                Real Programmers don't write in PASCAL,  or BLISS, or ADA, or 
        any of those pinko computer science languages.  Strong typing is  for 
        people with weak memories.  

                Real Programmers know better than the users what they need.  

                Real  Programmers think structured programming is a communist 
        plot.  

                Real Programmers  don't  use  schedules.  Schedules  are  for 
        manager's  toadies.  Real  Programmers like to keep their managers in 
        suspense.  

                Real Programmers think better while playing ADVENTURE.  

                Real Programmers do it middle-out.  

                Real Programmers enjoy machine coding  PASCAL  compilers  for 
        their micros which they improve but never use.  
                or
                Real Programmers enjoy getting CP/M to work on  370  machines 
        and MVS on their ZX81s.  

                Real  Programmers  write their own assemblers,  preferably in 
        LISP.  

                Real Programmers never get annoyed by security systems,  they 
        turn  off  the  RACF bits and leave unsigned messages in the security 
        data sets.  

                Real Programmers never update the source to reflect the ZAPs, 
        after all, it will have changed again tomorrow.  





---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Karl Glazebrook,      | INTERNET:   Karl.Glazebrook@durham.ac.uk           |
| Dept. of Physics,     |    JANET:   KARL.GLAZEBROOK@UK.AC.DURHAM           |
| Univ. of Durham,      |     SPAN:   19463::DUVAD::KGB                      |
| United Kingdom.       |      FAX:   091-374-3749                           |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------