"Our intellectual powers are rather geared to master static relations and ... our powers to visualize processes evolving in time are relatively poorly developed. For that reason we should do (as wise programmers aware of our limitations) our utmost to shorten the conceptual gap between the static program and the dynamic process, to make the correspondence between the program (spread out in text space) and the process (spread out in time) as trivial as possible."

As Systems Engineers we're probably better than 99% of the population at visualising the dynamics of the system, and even then we're still pretty bad at it.

Humility in the face of this human limitation helps enormously I find.

* Types (Classes, Structures, ...)

* State management

* Documentation

* Formal models

Have you heard of functional programming?

In distributed systems, it's important to be very intentional about effects, instead of letting them creep into any part of your program.

This is incredibly useful for debugging, as is single assignment style code, although single assignment is not necessarily implied by “functional programming.”

I'm mostly referring to this part of the quote. Pure FP is basically a static program and not a dynamic process. Nothing is changing in FP, nothing is dynamic.

FP makes this gap zero. Outside of FP (the distributed system) is a different story of course.

However in the real world things take time and time flows in one direction, and have a nasty habit of being non linear. FP abstracts away these complications with the notion of 'actions' which are then dealt with by some outside 'runtime system'.

Hence System.Time.getClockTime >>= print

However I literally said for distributed systems this does not apply. This is IO. If you're referring to something like the DOM, the architecture is similar for redux. Within the bounds of IO your program is not dynamic.

This also applies specifically to the problem of lacking "infallible" infrastructure. Because of the largely stateless nature of an Erlang process, they can be killed, migrated to other machines, and quickly scaled up and down to meet changing demands.

A more important and useful thing to understand is that merit is measured by rules that bubble out of social systems.

A mistake you can make is to believe the the rules of merit that you believe are the same ones others believe, that the ones they state are the same ones they actually believe, that the rules don't depend on context, etc.

It's hard for people to accept this because we're taught that merit is an inherent quality, we may internalize the rules of merit we learn, treat them as constants, and then build our self-images based on those rules.

(I'm not suggesting to give up on the idea of merit altogether, but you'll do better to think of it as something you achieve for personal satisfaction and not necessarily expect external rewards.)

BTW, the rules of success (beyond the most basic stuff) are also social constructs, but they are different than the rules of merit. It's a mistake to expect them to necessarily be harmonious or consistent.

One could say that in the work place, success is uncorrelated with merit.

I'm not sure where' you're based, but that's certainly not the case where I live. I once worked for a company that made grading software. I quit after 3 months because they wanted to implement features like, "Teacher wants to be able to change grade to a specific letter, even if student's scores add up to a different letter grade." (In other words, even though this student received an "A" based on test scores, I want them to have a "C" instead. Or vice-versa.)

He still kept his job because majority of the class got 4+'s on those exams, despite at least 1/3 of his class getting D's and F's.

I wouldn't generalize editing letter grades as a way of "cheating the system". There's usually good intentions in every act.

Do you truly believe this? In my career experience, success is highly correlated with merit. Sure, I have seen plenty of incompetence at high positions, and I've seen brilliant people who received little success in their careers.

But overall, I'd say the correlation is very high.

Edit: what a coincidence this is on the front page right now: http://theconversation.com/huge-success-in-business-is-large...

Obviously at the very least some advancements happen due to merit and due to that, there is a correlation.

So, let's cave in to peer pressure or management dictates and continue down the wrong path (technically/socially)?

Strongly disagree with that.

> Peak productivity for most software engineers happens closer to 2 hours a day of work than 8 hours.

Here I mostly agree. The thing is, that you don't know in advance when these hours are going to happen. Also, sometimes it's 2, sometimes 0 and sometimes 8.

> The amount of sleep that you get has a larger impact on your effectiveness than the programming language you use.

(Yawn) Indeed...

Seems like a very unfair restatement of what the author said. I would read that as "it's more important that everyone has a common understanding of what you are building than it is to spend time worrying about whether you have the exactly perfect goal."

Or to phrase it another way: if the understanding of the product isn't clear across the whole team, it doesn't matter if any one individual has a bunch of brilliant ideas for/about the product, because you aren't all working towards the same goal.

The fact is, that unless you have a functioning crystal ball, you don't actually know what the perfect goal is; you only have hazy guesses at best. At some point, extra time spent looking for the perfect goal is wasted, because one hazy guess is no better than the next. It's much better to get something that is well-structured and functioning out the door. If you've done your due diligence, it has as much chance of succeeding (or failing) as the next thing. And to get something well-structured and functional out the door, you need everyone to be working towards the same goal, even if they don't all necessarily agree that that's the perfect goal.

There's an argument that this is how ancient divination worked in practice. You don't know whether you should attack from the north, attack from the south, or hunker down and build defenses. You definitely can't do all three. It's much better to pick one and do it boldly than to dither around in indecision. Divination gets everyone fully behind one option; that option may not be the optimal one, but it's certainly better than "do nothing".

Which makes me wonder if maybe modern product management would be better with some oracle bones...

Having a common vision is critical in team building and in actually building the right/correct/good thing.

That's not alignment. For alignment to happen, everybody should be on the same page. And any party can tank this if they refuse to negotiate.

I read this as getting alignment between all parties is something that leads to successful projects and therefore is something that should require attention and effort to make happen.

I've ruminated on Jeff Bezos/Amazon's "Disagree and commit" leadership philosophy a bit and think it pertains here.

  Leaders are obligated to respectfully challenge decisions when they disagree, even when doing so is 
  uncomfortable or exhausting. Leaders have conviction and are tenacious. They do not compromise for the 
  sake of social cohesion. 
  Once a decision is determined, they commit wholly. [0]

[0]: https://www.amazon.jobs/en/principles

Likewise, I wish "business folks"/product owners/whatever you want to call them would give a little more leeway on technical decisions to their technical team. We shouldn't be discussing choice of database tech or service architecture with a VP Finance.

The junior engineer is probably trying desperately hard to apply something he read in a book somewhere or hacker new the previous day. You will have to invest time to tease out the differences, ensure they feel listened to.

The VP is probably trying to either catch you off foot to make a point he is itching to make to belong OR is trying to ensure you know what you are doing. Good senior folk build knowledge like a tree: Some branches are full and dense, some are bare - but overall they make up the whole tree. The bare branches here would be your core world and once they get a sense of you knowing what you're talking about, usually you should be fine. Bonus if you add to their knowledge without being defensive.

RE time taken for this: I look at it as future investments. If it is a junior dev in my team OR a VP who can actually impact my day to day life, it is worth building that relationship where they get to a trusting spot. If it is a random person, I might just agree / nod my head and move on to wrap up the conversation.

And yes there are bad actors everywhere - tough luck if it is the VP (happens), hopefully you can manage out the junior fella.

Oof. I'm a big supporter of questions not statements in these situations. I've witnessed people with this behavior, where a person makes claims and argues a point but doesn't have a clear understanding of the situation. They don't realize they're ignorant to a certain portion of information which they need to ask questions to learn about. This happens both with those with minimal experience as well as leadership. Though in the latter case I suspect it is not wanting to be perceived as not having grasp of a situation or being perceived as lacking in knowledge. Which is sad, as people who ask smart questions generally are the best leaders.

Ha, amateurs! One of the best techniques for making an argument is to ask a leading question that challenges some unstated assumptions. Allows the other party to provide clarifying information. Or if they don't have a good response, that makes your argument for you far more strongly than directly asserting your position would.

So to further emphasize your point, nothing makes you look smarter than asking a really insightful question.

That's misalignment :)

He didn't say cave in. Your first step in the above scenarios is to get buy in and alignment with management and peers. If you cave in then you aren't in alignment. He is saying the latter event is worse.

You will have bad data in prod. Users will do unexpected things. You won’t always be able to reach S3. And, this is all true even assuming the software is written perfectly to spec.

Knuth has famously said he thinks reusable code isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It’s re-editable code that we ought to all be striving for. There are two aspects to this. First, how often do you get to write entirely new code inside a mature software project? Not often, I would wager, so why not make the job as easy on future you as possible? Second, re-editable code needs to be understood before it can be edited to extend it. This means we need to write code for humans to read, and computers, only incidentally, to execute (I think EWD might have said something to that effect).

Surprisingly this nonsense happens in a discrete setting where we can (in theory, of course) enumerate all possible inputs. Again surprisingly we cannot find effective way to automagically partition input space into equivalence classes to assist us in testing.

Novel works in conjunction with our brains and it is not surprising that there are no definitive rules or “good novel equation”. But programs implement defined algorithms and super predictable. Yet creating them feels like writing a novel.

I agree with your statement but at the same time it feels wrong that we find ourselves in such position.

I do not know the author, but reading these points makes me suspect he/she is an experienced software engineer that has been doing this for many years now.

I expect that especially his first point (about being humble in the face of software systems complexity) will provoke many hubris-filled comments. I fully agree with the author: we are incapable of building complex and correct software systems. This is why I am afraid of the hype behind self-driving vehicles.

TARS: 90 percent.

Cooper: 90 percent?

TARS: Absolute honesty isn't always the most diplomatic nor the safest form of communication with emotional beings.

Cooper: Okay, 90 percent it is.

Usually letting user handle it is more general as long as the failures are rare enough.

Internal correctness is perfectly achievable though. External (correct spec) is not.

There are always some unhandled conditions, due to hardware or external component failures...

The universe is infinite in its desire to mess with your expectations and assumptions of what correctness is! Oh, you thought that was 100% correct? Well, have a look: A platypus.

And yet, a cursory review indicates they are barely out of high school and has never worked on software in a commercial environment. Not casting stones (I agree with some of what they say too, and what I agree with I find insightful. How's that for confirmation bias?), just observing that this is in fact not based on much experience at all.

Also, you're likely not as above average as you think yourself to be.

That doesn't require level 5 self driving cars, only brake assistants.

> Also, you're likely not as above average as you think yourself to be.

That doesn't mean that there aren't above average drivers. I'm not assuming I'm among them, but for them, driving in a self driving car would make matters worse.

The benefit to self-driving cars is not only that they are driving (hopefully) better than humans - it's also that they minimize the risk of completely erratic behavior. People don't have accidents when they're doing average. They have accidents when they're at their worst.

Last example I witnessed: At a traffic light, a car going ~30mph suddenly and without warning pulls into oncoming traffic because for whatever reason they thought "must left turn" - despite left turns being clearly disallowed.

That wasn't just a "below average driver", because that doesn't happen every day. That was somebody who was very clearly way off their game. And that's the main source of accidents, doing something clearly wrong that you likely wouldn't even think about on a good day. Or being distracted.

Taking these things out of the equation is way more important than "driving better than the best human on their best day".

And this will benefit the above-average drivers as well. (Also, the average will likely move up, so "above average human" might suddenly not mean a lot)

All it takes is a moment of confusion, or distraction, or frustration. Or a chemical impairment. Or having a stroke. Or drowsiness.

Braking assistants are good, a self-drive function that has the goal of safely removing the vehicle from traffic--for operators that can suddenly no longer function at speed--would be better. Hitting a panic button and waking up on the shoulder with the hazard lights on is preferable to getting intimate with a pole or guardrail while the cruise control is set to 70 mph.

Our informational machine assistants would also be better with access to vehicle state and sensor data. Your navigation assistant could then tell you, if you are approaching an intersection with your left turn signal on, that left turns are not allowed, before you get there and possibly make a bad snap decision. The nav app on your phone doesn't know that you are signaling left. The GPS signal isn't quite reliable enough to pinpoint which lane you're in. It only knows the positions of vehicles whose operators are currently using the same app.

Obviating snap decisions by drivers should be a goal, because less thinking time means more mistakes. Mobile nav apps have gotten better at this, saying which lane you should be in, and whether destinations are on the left or the right, but they could still do better for in-vehicle improvisation, when the destination changes while enroute, or temporary detours are needed.

So you maybe right in that really good drivers may be safer when in control of the car, but it won't be the case for people who think they are good. And if you leave individual drivers a choice, you can expect to see a lot more of the latter. And, to follow up on groby_b, they are going to ram your car and there will be nothing you can do.

In the end, unless we have a system to reliably select the highest skilled drivers, and making sure they are at the peak of their ability, autonomous cars will be safer for everyone.

Well, they don't have to be absolutely correct. Just a lot more correct than human drivers across a broad range of driving scenarios to justify replacing human drivers.

I would write this as:

Building the right thing wrong is more important than building the wrong thing right.

And I firmly believe that agreeing on _what_ you are builing is more important than _how_ you are building it. Mainly because it is easier to change the _how_ than it is to change the _what_.

I entirely agree with this, but don't think that's what the original point was getting at.

> And I firmly believe that agreeing on _what_ you are building is more important than _how_ you are building it. Mainly because it is easier to change the _how_ than it is to change the _what_.

This seems like it should be true. In practice, I've found that the _how_ is the part that gets embedded in the wet-ware of people/companies and is the hardest to change.

Given an application written in a language with some framework, some datastore, deployed to some cloud, it's actually exceedingly easy to make another that follows that pattern and does a completely different business function. Much more challenging would be to change those parts of an application and keep it doing the same thing.

"Build consensus before you start building any specific implementation".

... the idea being that it is better for a team to collaborate on a compromise solution than any given person pushing into their pet solution because they "know better".

Bullshit. Humans have been sending computers into space for decades, and while yes, some have had programming problems, most worked correctly, for a very specific definition of correctly.

Thing is, NASA (and Russian and Chinese and Indian and ...) space engineers have approached their challenges from the point of view of actual engineering, while modern "software engineering" is all about craftsmanship, and just a sprinkle of actual engineering to make ourselves feel good.

You want a 100% bug-free web browser? OK, so let's define precisely and formally what the browser is supposed to do. Then, you'll sign a very expensive contract, and in 6 months to 1 year, I'll deliver the software, with a formal proof it works as expected. Of course, the requirements won't change during the development process, and any update after delivery will be costly and will take time.

Now, who would want to pay thousands of dollars for a web browser that will be delivered in a year and that will be obsolete as soon as a new fancy web tech will be used everywhere else? I can't really blame the customer/client either.

But the thing is, "agile" requirements rely on craftmanship, not on engineering. You can only engineer durable things. Buildings would crash constantly, too, if they had to be updated each other week, ASAP, and while keeping the costs as low as possible.

If we're going to build something non-trivial that is correct, we first need to specify what a "correct" result would be, in some rigorous, comprehensive, unambiguous form. That in itself is already beyond the vast majority of software development projects, though not necessarily outliers like very high reliability systems.

That is partly because the cost of doing so is prohibitive for most projects. This is a common argument against more widespread use of formal methods.

However, it's also partly because for most projects the desired real world outcomes simply don't have some convenient formalisation. The potential for requirements changing along the way is just one reason for that, though of course it's a particularly common and powerful one. There's also the practical reality that a lot of the time when we build software, we're not exactly sure what we want it to do. What should the correct hyphenation algorithm for a word processor be? How smart do we want the aliens in our game to be when our heroes attempt a flanking manoeuvre? If you're a self-driving car on a road with a 30 legal limit but most drivers around you are doing 40, how fast should you go and why? Once we get into questions of subjective preferences and/or ethical choices, there often isn't one right answer (or sometimes any right answer), so how do we decide what constitutes correct behaviour from the software?

It should do a bunch of really creative things then further new fancy web tech shouldn't exist. Something like: Distribute documents signed by their author in a truly robust way. It should have A review and certification system and It should help monetize publishing in a truly transparent way.

Write it in hardware design language and run it in an emulator. :-)

If it really took a year to make a bug-free browser, we would have 100 of them instead of 0.

I was told that some one had said well this protocol is all very well but we need to build our own slightly different improved version.

Luckily this was stomped on from a great Hight by senior people at BT Labs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs#Space

But who would claim that seriously? That would be obvious hyperbole. The claim is rather that certain teams of engineers have created software/hardware combinations that, for all we know and for all practical purposes, did not have a bug and have not failed due to software error.

The development of high integrity systems is costly, though, so the discussion is a bit moot. Sure it would be possible to develop an Android app that - within the limitations of those devices and the buggy operating systems - would not fail due to a bug in its own program. It's just really expensive, particularly if the software is also formally verified. Generally speaking, it doesn't even make sense to consider "high integrity software" without the accompanying hardware. You can only satisfy real-time constraints for specific hardware anyway, and the certification and evaluation should be for software+hardware.

All humans are capable of unkowingly making mistakes which can have dire consequences. We've yet to see an approach to software development that will, without a shadow of a doubt, erradicate the possibility of bugs.

Project managers constantly change their mind about requirements and then wonder why we're shipping late, although I suspect some of this is not considering failure/bugs when planning. Even when it comes to breaking down and estimating work, if the estimates software engineers produce don't align with the high level schedule they're automatically wrong or people start asking about what we can trim down (which somehow is always testing).

Perhaps it's idealism vs reality, but I find it a bit bizarre.

Devs are expected to have a ticket to track everything they do, so should the product managers. There should also be tickets for meetings so I can track how much time was subtracted from development by useless meetings.

In my experience, this could not be further from the truth. There is simply no awareness that change remains expensive it's just that now the process allows it without any fanfare whereas before a change was a big deal.

Not saying that change requests are the way to go but certainly an understanding that change is not free would go a long way

Maybe there’s not as big a difference as people think, though?

It occurs to me that is actually possible to change the design of a bridge late in the day. The extra dampers to fix resonance problems on London’s Millennium Bridge are a nice example.

(I don’t actually know which it is; maybe it’s both)

I'm not sure what the point is, but it somehow fits into yours...

We can pretend we're building a bridge, but there could be another company, that is more comfortable with changing requirements and may deliver their product later, but more suited to a market.

Ultimately all software becomes very inflexible if you cannot get the source code or especially flash firmware.

Software looks as if it should be more flexible than concrete.

But it really isn't.

You are, of course, absolutely correct. Context is key here: you treat software engineering like "real" engineering when it's appropriate to do so (space flight, aircraft control systems, nuclear power plant monitoring and control, medical devices, and so forth).

However, I think for many organisations - and for much of the time - the engineering aspect is often heavily overplayed, and actually you're trading that off against two key aspects of software that can be used to build a real competitive advantage. Those being (i) speed of implementation, and (ii) malleability. Building software can get you to a solution very quickly. You can also iterate or modify that solution very quickly.

Clearly there are limits to this but for many companies, and most startups, getting something working quickly, and iterating on it quickly is far more important than any engineering merit. Same goes for larger companies introducing a new product: don't overegg the "engineering" because it will slow you down and time may be the only sustainable competitive advantage you have.

There's a time to be an engineer, and there's a time to be a cowboy hacker (and everything in between). The real trick is in knowing where on the spectrum to execute in the context of the customer base you're serving and the software you're building.

Nobody ever asked me about what it takes to ensure it is correct. Nobody asked me to work with them to produce a detailed specification that exhaustively considers all cases that must be accounted for, nobody asked for a formal proof, nobody asked me to run a model checker, not even do something like design by contract. And when I look at job postings, all this stuff is completely absent. I was excited when I found one company that recognized Ada and Spark, and got me into an interview for mentioning them.

Just sprinkle some assert and make a few tests. If shit stick to ceiling, it's cooked. That's how the industry works.

We aren't even trying. It's pretty funny that everyone's making claims about what's possible when nobody is trying.

Yep, I bet there are niches, like in aerospace, where some try, and I'm sure some of them also succeed at correctness. We only hear about the failures.

The notion that most(*) any non-trivial program can be formally specified is a myth that largely exists in educational institutions or research institutions disconnected from the realities of production software engineering, and has no basis in real life. Yes, there are a handful of exceptions for extremely constrained control problems in avionics, and even those turn out to have errors in the specification.

What we like to call "software engineering" isn't actually engineering, and more like a craft than anything. Actual engineering in software is possible.

I take issue with calling our field software engineering. It's a buzzword.

Having now left the field, working on most other software systems and teams tends to basically be "code-til-it-kinda-works" (despite the paeans to "Agile"). It's been amazing how just applying a little bit of the rigor I developed from earlier on in my career from working on embedded flight systems pays incredible dividends later on.

That said, one should have no illusions that NASA is this wonderful hub of innovation and a model for organizations to emulate. Not at all. Definitely not. But there is something to learn from a track record of consistent success flying computers deep in space.

...Got something to share with us?

;)

That doesn't mean incorrectness isn't there. That means the circumstances necessary for any incorrectness to manifest in a measurable way didn't happen.

We know that now, but it's an example of a rule that was not written in blood. Many are. Someone had an intuition and nobody died because of it.

No software is trivial if the author wants to broaden his argument to the human species.

Basically, if you constrain your software to work for your specific use case, in your specific system, it's "100x" easier.

Also you don't know how many bugs, known or unknown exist in software on space probes.

For most applications, is it worth spending several times more time and resources in order to make it "correct"? I don't think so.

Does it correctly handle every possible sequence of inputs? For the vast majority of software in use today, the answer is "no"; The follow up question is "does it matter?" and (luckily or unluckily) the answer for the vast majority of software in the vast majority of use cases, is "no" as well.

But occasionally it does, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 is a famous poster child, and I quote:

>>> The failure occurred only when a particular nonstandard sequence of keystrokes was entered on the VT-100 terminal which controlled the PDP-11 computer: an "X" to (erroneously) select 25 MeV photon mode followed by "cursor up", "E" to (correctly) select 25 MeV Electron mode, then "Enter", all within eight seconds

Software was not obviously correct or incorrect; In fact, it had been acceptable for an earlier model (which had some hardware protections missing from the newer one). Reaching the incorrect state required the race described above to trigger, which did, in fact, happen in practice a handful of times.

You can work very hard to formally prove your implementation, only to find out that the compiler had a bug and makes your software bad. Or the CPU does; Or all the designs are fine, but there's an bit flip due to electro-migration or cosmic rays. Many people consider this "force majeur" - "an act of god" one cannot anticipate, but cosmic rays are in fact an expected -- and hard to avoid -- input to many systems.

You are in control of a logical model which you can, with extra work, do (provably) correctly. But that IS, from experiencce, 10x to 100x more expensive, and unless you go for 10x-100x more expensive hardware, reduces and moves the sloppiness factor around, but does not eliminate it.

I think in that light, most modern software can be built to be robust and easily maintainable rather than correct. Like the difference between building a bridge, where you understand everything in the system, versus building a vehicle engine, where you have multiple dependencies but you still need it to not catastrophically fail should any of them stop being correct (eg: fuel pump fails, engine management detects lower fuel pressure and cuts ignition, saving the engine).

I don't know a single piece of software on my computer right now that doesn't crash, act weird, hang or do something else to annoy me on a daily basis.

Now yes, each infraction might be just a minor niggle, but god it adds up!

By the end of the day, all the bugs that on their own shouldn't be too bad, leave me frustrated as hell and wanting to say fuck everyone and just go live in the woods.

It's especially worse when I know this shit doesn't need to happen.

It's all about tradeoffs. Everybody wants cheap software that works perfectly, but reality dictates that can't happen. Most of the time, cheap/free with minor annoyances is better than perfect but high-cost.

We should be worried about poor development practices in the automotive industry specifically. Looks like many manufacturers approach the tasks the same way any other hardware manufacturer does, i.e. software is secondary in their minds. Software for a car is kind of the same as software for your next "smart fridge". Among other things, it can be outsourced for example.

Whereas, as Bruce Schneier put it, a modern car is a computer on wheels, not the other way around. A computer on wheels is a lot more dangerous (and there are security implications too, it's what Schneier meant actually).

The Mars Rover has specific requirements, is this more trivial than a startups new web-app?

Rephrasing it as something like it's incredibly difficult to write a large piece of software with no bugs makes more sense. And I think for most organisations it may as well be impossible.

Especially with the plethora of stories about fixing bugs in probes mid-mission, crashes due to poorly sanitized inputs, and byzantine failure conditions.

I mean, if correct = 100% uptime, 100% effectiveness, etc., then it's not so much of a software problem, but a hardware one.

BTW, "is it software or hardware?" is exactly what the boss asks first when a customer has a problem.

When author (or most people, I believe) mentions software, it seems it's just apps (like food apps mentioned elsewhere) or web apps, that is just a fraction.

Even if the software was 100% perfect, such a machine is expected to crash once or twice every year or so under full load just from the failure rate of the chips (cosmic radiation / quantum tunnelling effects). Especially RAM seems to have become fairly error-prone nowadays.

My Viaplay app stops streaming and tells me I'm not connected to the internet several times a day (when I'm obviously still connected to the internet.)

Several times a week my phone's Netflix state doesn't match my TV's state, so I'm either not presented with the controls or when I press them they do nothing.

Cosmic bit-flips are rare enough to be newsworthy. https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/05/20/cosmic-rays-flippi...

If the faults were with the hardware, I'd expect the errors to be spread around the software that I use. But Firefox and Gmail always work for me (even if the JavaScript I'm served makes the machine unresponsive), whereas Netflix, Viaplay and HBO constantly misbehave.

This can be done and has been done but is not well known among the javascript boot campers that populate HN.

I don't think it's more complicated than that.

I'd argue that it changed once smaller businesses could afford (and have room for) their own computer. My best guess would be somewhere around the PDP-8 era (late 1960s-early 1970s).

Once things started to move away from large-scale computer rooms and consoles of blinking lights, towards a more "hands-on" and interactive approach, where the programmer didn't have to wait between "batches" of runs to see what their code did (correct or not), that is when (from a software development point of view) so-called "engineering" went out the window.

Most food order apps seem to be more like, eyeball it, slap something together, then it works until it doesn't, at which point you figure out a fix. That works for a while until something else breaks, so you patch a fix into that. Ad infinitum.

And NASA software is not that complex if you think about it; at least it has fixed requirements; once they ship it, it's done. No more changes. This is different from some complex software which require constant changes and adaptation to changing requirements; in this case the code has to be designed to adapt easily; this is difficult to achieve and most developers/companies fail at that or in the case of companies, they only just barely succeed through the development of extremely expensive solutions.

Big companies like Google don't write efficient software; they use their capital to hire as many expensive engineers as possible to brute force the requirements until it works. That's why they keep rewriting projects from scratch every few years over and over; they don't know how to write adaptable software. Their software is somewhat complex, but still simple enough and they have enough capital so that brute forcing solutions are still feasible (for a high cost).

The same cannot be said about more complex tech like blockchain or large-scale machine learning systems; you can't brute force your way to a solution and full rewrites will actually set you back.

Nope, they still make changes. This is a case study for a company that helped debug and fix a low-level C bug on the Mars Curiosity Rover as it was traveling to Mars. https://semmle.com/case-studies/semmle-nasa-landing-curiosit...

I work with high-assurance software in the blockchain space and only recently read a paragraph from some old NASA software quality textbook and thought damn.. this is awesome. It's anything but trivial!

Goodness this is incredibly naive.

It can only be true only if youre working without customers or stakeholders and who the hell works that way other than hobbyists and startups that are indiscriminately wasting other people's money? The vast majority of software I've written (I'm outside the valley) is written for actual paying customers, and it must be "the right thing," ie, exactly what they paid you to build.

Beyond that, if you're, for example, writing an emulator and the emulator works different than the system it's emulating that's a failure no matter how "aligned" your team is. Nobody will buy it and nobody would even use if you gave it away.

Actually it demonstrates hard earned wisdom.

A team which isn't aligned will only produce a mess regardless of whether their end goal was the right thing.

An aligned team may miss the target but they will be in a position to correct themselves and pursue the target.

I don't buy this. I'm not sure these two things should be placed in opposition (or at least tension) in this way. It makes for a nice soundbite but I don't think it withstands scrutiny.

I've seen and worked in teams where alignment was great and we all worked really well together but, at the end of it all, nobody bought the damn product. I.e., we didn't build the right thing. Let's not kid ourselves: aligning and working well together to build the wrong thing is somewhat pointless (granted, you might learn some useful lessons along the way). Now, if you take that team and then assign them to build the right thing you have something really powerful.

If your cross functional team (Product, UX/Design, Eng) are aligned, it doesn't matter if you build the wrong thing initially, because you'll follow a good agile and/or lean process to validate early and thus learn what you should be building earlier.

It's not saying 'being aligned is more important that building valuable things' - but "if you focus on building a team that functions well operationally and strategically, you'll figure out how to build the right thing quicker".

If you are building right thing, but you are not aligned, then you will not build the right thing and you will fail. But if you are aligned, it's easier to steer the ship closer to the right thing.

But I've seen too many dev departments building crap over and over again and feeling pretty good about themselves the whole time.

I'm triggered

If everyone is on the same page, the execution will be great even if the idea/requirements are not perfect. Which is better than a a perfect idea executed poorly.

So you're comparing untrained team with a trained one, and as software is not as reproducible, it is not applicable here.

I'd recon a team of worse programmers following a great plan will produce worse results than a team of great programmers following no plan.

Except if not aligned then the team won't actually build the right things but their own personal conflicting views of the right things.

Alignment and having a team that values the right things are not opposites. However, if a team doesn't value the right thing then trying to force them to won't achieve anything.

Read the remark in context and you'll see that at this point I was talking about a team that is aligned and is building the right thing, and that is really powerful. Sorry if it was expressed clearly enough.

This one is probably the most egregious though, in that great software is created BECAUSE people aren't aligned and those discussions/fights are had.

Knowledge can be divisive because it's often communicated through rigid (black or white) statements and founded on outlier experiences but wisdom is generally not divisive; wisdom usually doesn't get people as excited but it's also harder to refute; wisdom is knowledge without the bias. There are plenty of extremely clever (and extremely biased) developers, but very few wise ones.

I tend to think that upvote/downvote mechanisms (Like on Reddit and HN) are somewhat of a threat to the sharing of wisdom because wise ideas don't create that dopamine rush which clever ideas do (they don't trigger the strong feelings required for upvote/downvote). Wisdom is rarely surprising or controversial.

Even discussing the idea of wisdom seems to be taboo. As if it's some kind of outdated concept; but the irony is that it's more relevant now than ever.

From the original post that inspired this post: https://gist.github.com/stettix/5bb2d99e50fdbbd15dd9622837d1...

What would HN say are the "classics"?

I think it's reasonable to simply assume the entire book is bullshit after that.

Jan and I clearly agree on coding, design and testing, for example.

1. https://gist.github.com/stettix/5bb2d99e50fdbbd15dd9622837d1...

2. http://zen.lk/2019/08/18/Things-I-believe/

Is it possible to improve this by training? For example if I'm productive 2 hours and force myself to be productive 10-30 more minutes each day for a number of days and when I'm comfortable with 2:30 hours of productivity, force myself to be productive for 30 more minutes. Would this eventually lead to 8 productive hours? Or is burnout (or another complication) a more likely outcome? Has anyone tried this?

In same way that sleeping 10 minutes less each day leads to you not needing sleep at all or showering at 1 degree more each day makes you impervious to boiling water. So, no, absolutely not and potentially dangerous to your health.

You can do that in short term, the real problem is usually when I tried that for weeks.

Some amount of downtime is necessary. Now I intentionally take breaks and exercise a bit in between coding. The exercise actually helps. With breaks you gotta measure them a bit tho, else you risk taking too long breaks too often.

- I'm working on something I'm interested in

- I feel like there's upside for me if the project succeeds

- I can work in different places throughout the day, like my desk, my sofa, in another room, etc. Not really possible in an office

- It's a quiet area where I won't have people interrupting my flow state

- I'm not blocked on things I need to know

- I'm working on something that's been de-risked. I know what I need to do and I know how to do it

> - It's a quiet area where I won't have people interrupting my flow state

It's amazing how much an office fights against productivity.

But the office has upside when the task is not well defined or I work on a lot of small stuff. At home, my brain will wander around more easily between context switches.

Thanks for including this one. I think the biggest stresses in my dev career have come from times where I didn't really know what needs to be done or when I was way out of my depth. I believe this reason alone was a huge driver of my procrastination in the past, especially when I was the lone programmer on the project.

An example of this is when you do pair programming, your pair forces you to keep concentrated (and you force him too) - if you are screensharing you won't alt tab to reddit) so it's an example on how you can keep focused for longer periods than normal, at the expense of being more tired at the end of the day.

No matter how much you force yourself you can't just force yourself not to feel exhausted/restless/depressed or whatever else is effecting your productivity, you sure can alleviate these symptoms, but that's improving your well-being generally rather than forcing yourself to be productive.

So it sort of depends what you mean by force, I'm guessing it would just cause you more stress and make you eventually burn out because you're not in reality becoming more productive by focusing more, you're only stressing yourself out further.

I don't think working 8 hours of productive work will get you to burnout. It's more a matter of habit and discipline and interest in the project.

In my experience, what leads to burnout is a bad working environment and/or working a lot for long period of time.

Write test for everything, don't do manual testing. If the test is green my code is good. Don't spend time manually testing your code.

Touch typing was a huge improvement. I'm not a fast touch typer so it wasn't really improved my typing speed. It's more of that I outsourced my typing from my brain to my hand, so while I type I can stay focused on the problem.

The whole point of this is that it's not a binary state, and it's not "writing code". So, tl,dr : no, it's not because you are most likely not the bottleneck. You are not the master of the cognitive overload you operate in for instance.

I think it's worse than this: Defining correctness for any nontrivial system to the level of detail required by software is beyond the capabilities of any human or group of humans operating to a deadline. The only way to get there is to pare down the scope such that physically possible things are defined to be out of said scope, such that the system punts and relies on humans to figure it out.

This has implications for job automation.

> Thinking about things is a massively valuable and underutilized skill. Most people are trained to not apply this skill.

Attempting to prove yourself wrong is a massively valuable and underutilized skill. If you get a theory, develop a test which the theory is vulnerable to, such that if the test comes out a certain way the theory is disproven, and then run that test. Some people seem unable, or unwilling, to think like that.

This has implications for software testing. It has implications for all kinds of testing.

Because developing that test is often even harder than developing theory itself and developing nontrivial theory requires ALL of your mental effort.

It depends. If iterations are quick and the current direction is roughly on the path to finding the right thing yes, otherwise no unless you are choosing to redefine software engineering.

For me this is not true. The type system has a bigger impact on me. If I use a language with static types + IDE, I am quite productive even while chronically not getting enough sleep (currently looking after a newborn). Probably much more productive compared to writing in a dynamic language while getting enough sleep.

And of course, that does not mean that sleep is not a huge factor. It most definitely is.

This is life in general, no? Aside from maybe professional sports, where it's forced to be that way by design.

That's a strange claim. It could be, but there are large evidences that we discover most of the fundamental things immediately up to the 80s, and then the other improvements are kinda really incremental, a program from 1970 is not alien today. Technology of computing progressed a lot more than CS itself, a computer of 1970 kinda is alien, and a toy.

It's important to define the terms here. Does "important" mean important to you or the company? I could understand the former, but how are you ever going to build the "right thing" if you can't agree as a team what you're building?

This is an interesting one. I first took it to mean 'current testing practices are inadequate', which isn't an extreme opinion, and one I bet 99% of HN agrees with. It's 'common wisdom' that teams should be doing more testing, TDD, etc.

But now that I read it again, it's specifically saying that current testing practices are 'ineffective', not 'inadequate', which would indicate we should be doing less or even none of it. 'ineffective' to me means worse than nothing, since testing, like anything, has a cost. (time wasted, more code to maintain, lower morale etc)

I'm not sure which the author meant. But I do think the latter is a hot take, and I get the feeling I'm in the minority in agreeing with it.

I'm reminded of this PG quote (obviously written a while ago):

"Indeed, these statistics about Cobol or Java being the most popular language can be misleading. What we ought to look at, if we want to know what tools are best, is what hackers choose when they can choose freely-- that is, in projects of their own. When you ask that question, you find that open source operating systems already have a dominant market share, and the number one language is probably Perl."

If I think about what I've written unit tests for at home, that'd be a bunch of maths-y stuff that I was having trouble debugging, and a few functions here and there that I consider 'tricky' and want a bit of extra peace of mind for.

When I'm building web apps at home though, like I always do at work, how much of it do I write unit tests for? Zero. I can't quantify why. I just know intrinsically that they're useless and it's a waste of time. I just know that 95% of my code works and I know what the 5% I'm unsure about is and what manual testing or browser testing I need to do to clarify it.

If anyone on my team at work ever said that, everyone would look at them like they just took a shit on the carpet (including me, because I'm happy to smile and nod for the right salary).

Then there's this, from the same essay:

"One difference I've noticed between great hackers and smart people in general is that hackers are more politically incorrect. To the extent there is a secret handshake among good hackers, it's when they know one another well enough to express opinions that would get them stoned to death by the general public. And I can see why political incorrectness would be a useful quality in programming. Programs are very complex and, at least in the hands of good programmers, very fluid. In such situations it's helpful to have a habit of questioning assumptions."

I definitely know a few coders I've worked with who I'd be comfortable raising my views on testing with. We might differ on the details (I quite like browser tests, don't find a lot of value in snapshot testing most of the time, we might unit test a different tiny subset of the app etc), but by and large we'd agree that most common testing is a crock. And coincidentally, they're all the devs that I think write fantastic code, and that I'd happily build a startup with.

Anyway, that's my Thing I Believe About Software Engineering, with a bit more clarification than OP's ones.

I'm with you 100% here. I would even go one step further:

Unit tests, where Bob is writing code to test that the code that Bob writes does what Bob wants it to (that's a mouthful), are pointless. They don't test Bob's assumptions, they don't test for correctness, and they don't test for robustness beyond the corner cases Bob can come up with (if Bob bothers to test robustness beyond ensuring that the coverage metrics hit 100%).

Even if Bob comes back in to refactor the code later, the unit tests begin to fail solely because the code has changed locality. That changed locality means that the unit tests have to change as well, invaliding any usefulness of the original unit tests.

I think this is all based on experience. You know when the tests are going to give you value, because you know when you’ve been burned by a lack of tests in the past. You put tests where you’re worried about bugs appearing.

I write tests when 1) they help me bring up code (you’re gonna do some interactive test/debug cycles in the beginning, might as well do that with tests), or 2) I can’t sleep at night because the code is subtle or complex and I worry about its continued correctness, or 3) there’s a bug and it’s easy to write a regression test for it.

Sometimes writing code without tests is like putting sand into a pile: it works fine for a while, but as soon as you start overloading it, whole faces suddenly shear off. You can shore it up with your hands, but above a certain scale you’re battling to prevent collapse. Tests are like scaffolding you put in place to keep the sand from sliding away.

Serious, not-loaded question for you BigJono:

At work, do you (or your team) primarily write unit tests or integration tests?

Until my current job, I spent the first 5 years of my career writing unit tests in OOP systems where I injected mocks of dependencies. I realized in hindsight that these are basically useless. You end up proving very little about the code.

At my current position, we do primarily integration tests. (Have a test DB, essentially run code "end to end" minus the HTML UI.) These tests are _very_ helpful. Have stopped me from creating bugs dozens to hundreds of times. (Over a few years.) Same with other co-workers.

It's worth mentioning the product is a large monolith though.

I will write "unit tests" but they will be at the level of a whole module or assembly, and so often blur the lines with integration tests (particularly because spinning up a test data store is often easier than buggering around with mocks).

"Real" integration tests look at multiple modules or systems.

You catch a lot of bugs this way, have far fewer tests to maintain, and have the freedom to make internal changes without worrying that you're then going to have to fix up 100 tests to get your build working again. And you still get the coverage you need.

It's a better world.

Tbh, I find writing a tests at the class or method level only to be absolutely ridiculous except for cases where I'm dealing with a method that does something particularly tricky or esoteric.

Again, for all this context is key. As developers we should be thinking about what we're doing and the trade-offs inherent in that, not just blindly following a set of rules that say "You should do X; you should unit test; you should write tests for every method of every class."

Surely if you were, for example, writing an automated trading system, or something that handles money, or anything that actually impacts the running of a business in a bigger way than the website being down you would see the value in writing tests, right? Even in the situation that the website is the product, don't you see the value of having tests to make sure that future changes don't break existing behavior without having to run through an exponentially expanding manual test regime?

For me tests are about catching regressions and verifying behavior, e.g.;

* I can visually see by reading the code that if someone submits an order that breaches a risk limit, it's rejected. Still, I wouldn't feel comfortable letting that system trade until I had verified with both a unit test that handles the generic 'reject a number > risk limit' _and_ an integration test that verifies 'I send N different types of orders into the system, where N/2 are above the risk limit. Which orders pass the risk check?'

* I've done some refactoring to some low level connection logic to handle some rare condition that last happened on Friday at 2300. I wouldn't release the code with the refactoring until I can verify with a test that both the new condition is handled, and all of expected unchanged behavior is unchanged. Without a test suite, I would have to spend a day setting up environments and testing each invariant, which is a waste of time for something that I can automate and have more confidence in. Also, without a test suite, how would I know that a change in the future wouldn't result in me having to come online at 2300 on a Friday because of a regression that someone didn't catch in their manual testing?

* Someone has submitted a PR that modifies how often our log files get rolled - without a test suite to verify the failure modes, I would never let that get to production. Why would I want to risk losing log files, at the cost of spending 30 minutes writing a test for the failure modes (at least, the ones I know about, which is still better than none because testing isn't a zero-sum game)?

Having the "it's going to fail anyway, and I already know where" attitude is a terrible way to approach risk management (which is, ultimately, what testing represents) IMO. It might be fine in certain domains, but in others its a quick way to tank a company.

I definitely agree that it's not worth testing everything (e.g. CI scripts - if they work, they work!), but for actual business logic or infrastructure not writing tests is straight up negligent. Even if you're certain that the code does what it says and you can keep all of the failure modes in your head at once as you make changes, I guarantee that someone else on your team (this could be you in six months) doesn't, or can't.

Lemme go back to the same PG article, again, cause it's that good.

"A couple years ago a venture capitalist friend told me about a new startup he was involved with. It sounded promising. But the next time I talked to him, he said they'd decided to build their software on Windows NT, and had just hired a very experienced NT developer to be their chief technical officer. When I heard this, I thought, these guys are doomed."

If I walk into an interview at a startup, and they have 100% unit test code coverage with a nice suite of integration and end-to-end tests, snapshot testing, nice contract tests, the absolute works, all for their 50 customers generating $5k monthly revenue, my first thought is they're probably fucked. It might be a really nice place to work, but if I want job security I'd be going somewhere bigger, and if I want shares I'd much rather be in the share house down the road with the guys that polished off 3x as many features in a couple of weekends of hacking.

Pfft. Prove it.

People are very different and work best in different ways. I don't mind pair programming for specific reasons but as a the "normal" way of working? You can keep it.

Pair programming performed relentlessly selects for certain personality types. I, for example, didn't get into programming because I wanted to sit around talking all day. Far from it.

Programming is a creative endeavour, kind of like songwriting. Some people are great solo songwriters, some people work well together, people often struggle to cross that divide and, even if they collaborate well, may struggle to collaborate well with everyone.

I can work effectively in a team but under most circumstances I cannot program at my best with somebody hovering around or buzzing in my ear all time. And, believe me, I am by no means unusual in that regard.

Mandatory pair programming is one of those things that, I think, seems like a good idea to third rate management who don't want to take the time to understand how the people on their teams can work together most effectively.

People are different. The core bunch came from Pivotal which performed pair-programming interviews so were self selected. That accounted for about half the engineering staff so the other half didn't undergo this process. I myself have always been a solo developer so pairing was very unnatural at first and I didn't pair well with everyone. We rotated pairs every week (sometimes two) so that wasn't a big problem.

There are times when solitary deep thought is useful and breaks for that activity could be taken at will while the other pair works on maintenance tasks etc. Most of the time the work isn't of this type and more often less complex requiring light whiteboarding or on-screen prototyping which both work well when pairing.

The style of code that comes out of pairing tends to be more plain than when working solo. There is incremental progress in both implementations and design refinements when pairing. When working solo there tends to be grander designs with a moment where it all comes together or not. I enjoy the latter but find the former higher by average throughput. Pairing tends to eliminate more of the 'might need soon' or 'will need in the future anyway' implementations.

After pairing with someone a few times, verbal communication becomes very terse and fluid. An unexpected benefit was the ability to immediately resume context after interruptions or breaks.

The biggest advantage of pair-programming that doesn't get mentioned much is the organic spread of good practices and conventions. With approximately 20 devs it's not really worth writing and maintaining standards documentation and conventions for handing new cases that keep appearing. With rotating pairs this discovery of what works well and normalization upon it is natural. Minor tips and tricks aside from the source code can also be invaluable power-ups when learned by others.

Pair programming isn't about maximizing 'your own productivity' it's about maximizing the productivity, quality, and consistency across all dev teams.

Within that period we also tried full-stack dev pairing. This was much more challenging and didn't work nearly as well. We didn't stick with it long enough to know if it could become more beneficial because basically people self-selected into front or back-end development and liked it that way.

These are my findings from being both a solo and pair-programming developer. If you're curious and have an opportunity I highly recommend trying to stick with it for a while and see what your findings are.

> Writing non-trivial software that is correct (for any meaningful definition of correct) is beyond the current capabilities of the human species.

This is the one point I somewhat disagree with, and it leads to one of the things I believe about SE - it's all about perceived risk. Mission-critical systems work well because the risk is well-defined, and it's usually "people will die". In business, managers are happy to break rules when the perceived risk of it biting them in the ass is low. Small budget? Skip the tests, click around on deploy to see if it works, and ship it. Not enough time? Deliver a minimal product and build the rest later when we have the budget.

There are two examples I often use for this - Panera Bread and Pipdig. The former leaked millions of customer records, ignored the press for a few days, and got off with zero consequences. Pipdig did even worse, they did backdoors and DDoS code to attack competitors in their WP themes/plugins, and when called out they lied, hid the evidence, and then went back to selling themes to unsuspecting bloggers with zero consequences.

Both sides likely knew what they were doing was wrong, but the risk of getting caught was minimal, so why not break the rules? It probably saved them a ton of money in the long run.

> Being aligned with teammates on what you're building is more important than building the right thing.

I've no idea why so many of you are up in arms about this. It isn't about bowing to managers, or being a punching bag for others. It's about making concessions as a group to define what you need to build, and the best way of doing it.

> Peak productivity for most software engineers happens closer to 2 hours a day of work than 8 hours.

I'd stretch this to say that "on average". Some days I'll get 30 minutes of stuff done, some days I'll fly through work for a solid 8 hours.

> Thinking about things is a massively valuable and underutilized skill. Most people are trained to not apply this skill.

This is so true it hurts. I'm currently working on a project in an agile structure, and it's going like many agile projects I've worked on in the past. Agile is used as a buzzword for "fuck planning, just write user stories and be done with it", all while team mates bitch and moan about spending too long in "planning" meetings. The second we took the time to actually have these meetings and plan out our backlog, we made key decisions and discoveries about how things work, what edge cases we need to think about, what doesn't work from a user perspective, etc.

> How kind your teammates are has a larger impact on your effectiveness than the programming language you use.

Over the years, I've always believed that empathy is the best skill you can have in software, and that is often paired together with kindness. An empathetic team is often a kind team, and when empathy is a core part of a team it highlights areas where certain stakeholders don't share that trait.

> Writing non-trivial software that is correct (for any meaningful definition of correct) is beyond the current capabilities of the human species.

   Perhaps, but this is a worthless distinction, especially if the author does not define correctness. If it is mathematically correctness he is after I think experience has shown a program does not to be correct to be very very useful, and except for extremely critical situations is not a consideration. The same way a road does not need to be perfect.

   Hell no! Every leader would prefer to go in the right direction at 50% of maximum speed, that going 100% in the wrong direction.

   True, but trivial. The same thing can be said about every theoretical branch of science like math and logic, and even for many experimental branches.

  Perhaps, but if you work the other 4-6 hours at 25% of your peak you still would do more than double during the day. Besides, the 2-hour figure, although reasonable strikes me as anecdotic at best. If anyone knows about a study I would love to read it.

  Without a definition of merit, this is worthless. And for that matter, a definition of success is also needed.

  Really? Thinking is a valuable skill?, who would have thought?

  Or perhaps reaching that "effective" threshold is beyond human capacity. I think this claim is pretty insulting to the software industry in general too.

  Perhaps? It is not that straightforward. Doing a CRUD app with Ruby in a team full of assholes will have a "larger impact" than doing in on assembler with a bunch of goodie-goodies.

  Perhaps? Without further qualifying it is worthless.

And if that applies to you: Kick those amphetamines and get more sleep instead.

You can say this about any tech field. Heck you can say this about social domains as well. And yet world marches over with progress being made.

"<Being aligned with teammates on what you're building is more important than building the right thing.>"

Because yeah, building the wrong thing was always good and had nothing to do with economic failures, right? Tell this also to NASA teams that build the moon race, is littered with teams doing different stuff and not being aligned. My favorite story for that is the one about how they made the suit.

"<There are many fundamental discoveries in computer science that are yet to be found.">

There are many fundamental discoveries in all fields that are yet to be found, CS is no more special then Psychology for example, it only pays better these days.

"<Peak productivity for most software engineers happens closer to 2 hours a day of work than 8 hours.">

Peak productivity depends on each individual and within each individual there are seasons. I can be productive at nights or during day time, and when I am productive during certain hours for the life of me I would not be able to be productive on other hours. Procrastination is perception of individuals during their non-productive hours.

"<Most measures of success are almost entirely uncorrelated with merit.">

Finally, the single statement in this otherwise useless article that I can agree with.

"<Thinking about things is a massively valuable and underutilized skill. Most people are trained to not apply this skill.">

That depends on what your education/how your parents raised you. As for how much value this has in current society, well just ask Trump (he's still a billionaire). Also, in that regard see previous point.

"<The fact that current testing practices are considered "effective" is an indictment of the incredibly low standards of the software industry.">

Actually the standards are quite high, you should've seen them 40 years ago when Ford preferred to allocate 200M USD for paying victims than rather improve its safety when building the chassis, because that would've eaten their profits ten fold.

<"How kind your teammates are has a larger impact on your effectiveness than the programming language you use.">

Become freelancer, be your own boss and you couldn't care less about teammates. One man show where you call all the shots is awesome.

"<The amount of sleep that you get has a larger impact on your effectiveness than the programming language you use.">

This point goes hand in hand with above one about productivity, it all boils down to each individual.