This article (The 'Anti-Java' Professor and the Jobless Programmers) has really annoyed me. Not because of its content, but because the professor being interview is so narrowly focused that he is completely out of it.
Let us take this quote:
“Furthermore, Java is mainly used in Web applications that are mostly fairly trivial,” Dewar says, with his characteristic candor. “If all we do is train students to be able to do simple Web programming in Java, they won't get jobs, since those are the jobs that can be easily outsourced. What we need are software engineers who understand how to build complex systems.”
You know what, I might agree with this, trivial web programming is something that doesn't require highly skilled worker. But the context in which he says this makes all the difference in the world. Here is the next statement:
“By the way Java has almost no presence in such systems. At least as of a few months ago, there was not a single line of safety-critical Java flying in commercial or military aircraft. I recently talked to a customer who had a medium-sized application in Java, which was to be adapted to be part of a safety-critical avionics system. They immediately decided that this meant it would have to be recoded in a suitable language, probably either C or Ada.”
So, if it is not aircraft code, it is "simple Web programming"? Excuse me?!
Leaving aside the part about Java's license not being suitable for life critical systems, it annoys me that this is the only criteria that he think is worth mentioning. His bank is running Java, as well as the stock exchange, it is likely that the payroll system in his university as well. Relegating Java to "simple Web programming" is a huge mistake. Java sweet spot is building complex systems, where a lot of the design decisions that make it hard to do the simple stuff pay off tremendously.
I can think of quite a few mission critical (people life on the balance) that are written in C# (for the purpose of this post, equivalent to Java). That is not to say that aircraft systems shouldn't be written in Ada or C, I never written one, so I won't comment, but to say that this is the only field of any complexity is showing a remarkable amount of ignorance and bigotry.
There was another part that caught my eye, this professor interviewing's technique:
Dewar says that if he were interviewing applicants for a development job, he would quickly eliminate the under-trained by asking the following questions:
1.) You begin to suspect that a problem you are having is due to the compiler generating incorrect code. How would you track this down? How would you prepare a bug report for the compiler vendor? How would you work around the problem?
2.) You begin to suspect that a problem you are having is due to a hardware problem, where the processor is not conforming to its specification. How would you track this down? How would you prepare a bug report for the chip manufacturer, and how would you work around the problem?
“I am afraid I would be met by blank stares from most recent CS graduates, many of whom have never seen assembly or machine language!” he says
I can tell quite a lot about what he is doing, just by the questions he ask, but let me try answering them.
1) Well, I would start by creating an isolated test case, seeing if I can still see the odd behavior. I would remove all code that is even half way smart, trying to reduce the amount of work that the compiler has to do. I would get the language spec and pore over it, trying to make sure that I am not relying on unspecified behavior or misunderstanding the spec. Hopefully, I have a decompiler as well, since that would be an independent corroboration that there is or isn't an issue. Then I would take the output and verify disassemble it, comparing it to what is supposed to happen. I will take that info and submit to the compiler vendor. Working around this issue... by now I have some understanding on what triggers it, so I would change the code accordingly, simplifying it, removing any smart tricks, etc. I'll also leave a big comment about why this is done.
2) Try it on a different machine with the same processor, try it on another machine with a different processor. That rules problems with a specific machine and problems with my code, respectively. Reduce the problem to the smallest thing that can repro it, go over the spec, verify understanding. Eventually I should have a small program that demonstrate the issue. This can be incredibly hard to do if you run into something like memory barriers do not work in some scenario on SMP machines, for example. Work around it... depending on context...