[erlang-questions] Fear and Loathing in Programming La La Land
Thu Mar 29 09:32:33 CEST 2012
I'm to the Psychology of Programming Interest Group mailing list.
In a discussion of naming, reference was made to a body of work
Usability Implications of Requiring Parameters
in Objects' Constructors
by Jeffrey Stylos of CMU
and Steven Clarke of Microsoft
The abstract reads
The usability of APIs is increasingly important to programmer
productivity. Based on experience with usability studies of
specific APIs, techniques were explored for studying the usability
of design choices common to many APIs. A comparative study was
performed to assess how professional programmers use APIs with
required parameters in objects’ constructors as opposed to
parameterless “default” constructors. It was hypothesized that
required parameters would create more usable and self-documenting
APIs by guiding programmers toward the correct use of objects and
preventing errors. However, in the study, it was found that,
contrary to expectations, programmers strongly preferred and
were more effective with APIs that did not require constructor
parameters. Participants’ behavior was analyzed using the
cognitive dimensions framework, and revealing that required
constructor parameters interfere with common learning strategies,
causing undesirable premature commitment.
The study was done in 2005.
We're talking about the difference between
fs = new FileReader("foo/bar.txt", Sharing.NONE);
ln = fs.ReadLine();
fs = new FileReader();
ln = fs.ReadLine();
I think this is worth bringing up here because if functional programming
is about anything at all, it's certainly about NOT setting up a value one
field at a time!
Their sample was carefully chosen to include three kinds of programmers:
* OPPORTUNISITC programmers are more concerned with productivity
than control or understanding. For these programmers objects
that required constructor parameters were unfamiliar and
unexpected, and even after repeated exposure these programmers
had difficulty with these objects.
That is, they just didn't "get" the idea of constructors having
* PRAGMATIC programmers balance productivity with control and
understanding. These programmers also did not expect objects
with required constructors, and while pragmatic programmers
were more effective than opportunistic programmers at using
these objects, the objects still provided a minor stumbling
block and these programmers preferred the flexibility offered
by objects that used the create-set-call pattern.
Remember, this was all about .NET. Failing to expect
constructors with parameters in C# is like failing to expect
assignment statements in C.
* SYSTEMATIC programmers program defensively and these are the
programmers for whom low-level APIs are targeted. These programmers
were effective at using all of the objects; however, they preferred
create-set-call because of the finer granularity of control it
offered by allowing objects to be initialized one piece at a time.
The purpose of the study was to provide guidelines for API designers at
Microsoft: apparently they now recommend create-set-call. Remember,
that's the idea where you create an object without saying *anything* about
what you want it to be and then successively kick it into shape.
They later say
[Systematic programmers] want not just to get their code working,
but to understand why it works, what assumptions it makes
and when it might fail. They are rare, and prefer languages that
give them the most detailed control such as C++, C and assembly.
I'd like to think of myself as a systematic programmer. I certainly like
to understand all those things. But if I preferred assembly I would not
be writing in the Erlang mailing list! The basic conclusion seems to be
that you should not design APIs for such rare animals.
I made what I thought were three obvious points:
(1) There is a confounding factor in the study: the create-set-call style
lets you *name* the information going into an object, while at that
time the full-initialisation style did not. There are constructors
for System.IO.FileStream with six arguments; maybe more. It seemed at
least *possible* that if the subjects had been given a third choice,
constructors with *named* parameters, they might have preferred that.
Because the study didn't include such a choice, we certainly cannot
use it to argue *against* that style.
(2) C# 4.0 has named (and optional) parameters, so the study is no longer
adequate to tell us about good API design in C#.
(3) If there are programmers out there who *don't* care much about
understanding what they are doing, I certainly don't want them writing
anything that might in any way affect me or anyone I care about.
If they just don't "get" constructors with parameters, that's really
A lengthy discussion has followed in which I've felt rather lonely.
I'm being beaten about the head for not noticing things in the study
that I did notice, and for being rather elitist. One quote:
We don’t have the luxury of dismissing these types of programmers.
While it might strike you with terror that these programmers exist,
It doesn't frighten me that they _exist_,
it frightens me that they are _programming_.
they are successfully building applications in many different domains.
They may work differently to you and many other programmers but that
doesn’t necessarily mean that the code they create is worthless.
Within the Visual Studio team at Microsoft we’ve devoted efforts to
attempting to make them successful by adapting to their workstyles
I find myself wondering just how "successful" their applications really are.
Oh no! I hope they're not writing climate modelling code! That would
explain so much... (Yes, I've looked at the code in the ClimateGate dump.)
Frankly, I've turned here for a bit of comfort. If anyone likes completely
initialising things rather than smacking one field at a time, surely I will
find such people here.
Am I wrong? Would *you* be happy opening a file in C by doing
FILE *f = malloc(sizeof f);
More information about the erlang-questions