Michael Vanier: LFM and LFSP(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
Michael Vanier: LFM and LFSP
http://www.paulgraham.com/vanlfsp.html
25 comments
Interestingly, this is almost identical to our language decisions. Our engine is C++, the webservices are a wrapper in Java and the stuff on the fringes is a mix of scripting languages. Instead of OCaml, I've been eyeing Scala as the thing I might use to rip out the Java.
Before doing our webservices in Java, I'd never done much of it and assumed it to be a closer cousin to C++. Using it at length, at a time when I find myself frustrated with some of the lack of abstractions in C++ (notably missing lambda), it's whetted my appetite to drop in a slicker language at the medium level of our stack.
Before doing our webservices in Java, I'd never done much of it and assumed it to be a closer cousin to C++. Using it at length, at a time when I find myself frustrated with some of the lack of abstractions in C++ (notably missing lambda), it's whetted my appetite to drop in a slicker language at the medium level of our stack.
I agree Java is verbose and old and should rarely be used on new projects.
But this thing about smart people makes me cynical. You ever debug a terse Perl program written by a really "smart" person?
What about maintenance? What about the dangers of over engineering? These things should not be overlooked.
But this thing about smart people makes me cynical. You ever debug a terse Perl program written by a really "smart" person?
What about maintenance? What about the dangers of over engineering? These things should not be overlooked.
You ever debug a terse Perl program written by a really "smart" person?
Actually, yes I have. And I've found it an absolute joy. Oh, line for line it can take more work to understand. (Though often it is set up so that you can ignore most lines.) But compared to what the same code would have been written out in a more "straightforward" and repetitive fashion?
However there are a lot of people who THINK they are smart but aren't. Working with their stuff can be a nightmare. The difference is painfully obvious once you dive into the code. If you're experienced in Perl, it is usually obvious at a glance.
Actually, yes I have. And I've found it an absolute joy. Oh, line for line it can take more work to understand. (Though often it is set up so that you can ignore most lines.) But compared to what the same code would have been written out in a more "straightforward" and repetitive fashion?
However there are a lot of people who THINK they are smart but aren't. Working with their stuff can be a nightmare. The difference is painfully obvious once you dive into the code. If you're experienced in Perl, it is usually obvious at a glance.
The problem is that most of the people who think that Java is too constraining are in that very group who think they are smarter than they are. (This is not to say that there aren't people who can be more productive with a language less constraining than Java.)
Indeed, most people who think they are smart, aren't, including myself.
Indeed, most people who think they are smart, aren't, including myself.
Well, I think lots of people feel smarter with a better programming language. For instance, my ability to come up with better solutions is better when programming with Clojure than with PHP. It's like that saying, that perspective is worth 80 IQ points.
(Of course, I don't put any stock in IQ; it's just a saying.)
So maybe a more charitable view is that these people (who think Java is too constraining) wish to be smarter than than they currently are. And anyway, who wouldn't get a little frustrated with all the childproofing features in their everyday tools?
(Of course, I don't put any stock in IQ; it's just a saying.)
So maybe a more charitable view is that these people (who think Java is too constraining) wish to be smarter than than they currently are. And anyway, who wouldn't get a little frustrated with all the childproofing features in their everyday tools?
I suspect that you are "smart", you may just not be "the smartest." Indeed, if you're lucky your intelligence is only average in your peer group.
It's very easy to lose sight of where you fit in the larger scheme of things on the great bell curve of humanity. But I assure you, it's almost certain that if you can post to Hacker News you're smarter, richer, luckier than at least a billion people.
It's very easy to lose sight of where you fit in the larger scheme of things on the great bell curve of humanity. But I assure you, it's almost certain that if you can post to Hacker News you're smarter, richer, luckier than at least a billion people.
"You ever debug a terse Perl program written by a really "smart" person?"
If the program is terse beyond readability then the person who wrote it is not smart. Power has actually few things to do with terseness, and more with readability/ expressivity.
If the program is terse beyond readability then the person who wrote it is not smart. Power has actually few things to do with terseness, and more with readability/ expressivity.
Smart != Wise.
I used to try to cram more stuff onto a line because I thought it was elegant. Now, depending on the circumstance, sometimes I'll deliberately split up something that I originally wrote as a 1-liner because, at second pass, it looks like it'll be hard to read for the next person.
Just having the intermediate variable name makes your code more self-documenting in some situations.
I used to try to cram more stuff onto a line because I thought it was elegant. Now, depending on the circumstance, sometimes I'll deliberately split up something that I originally wrote as a 1-liner because, at second pass, it looks like it'll be hard to read for the next person.
Just having the intermediate variable name makes your code more self-documenting in some situations.
A previous discussion (from 2007): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33246
This means that there is a glass ceiling of abstraction; your designs can only get this abstract and no more. This is reassuring to Joe Average, because he knows that he isn't going to see any code he can't understand.
That's the intention, but the reality is quite different. When smart people really need to write more abstract code in a weak language they will go to great lengths, including on the fly byte code manipulation and all kinds of weird proxying hacks. Or look what they do with CSS.
So, the abstractions are always possible, albeit in a way that is even more complex and definitely more brittle than if they had been implemented in a more powerful language.
That's the intention, but the reality is quite different. When smart people really need to write more abstract code in a weak language they will go to great lengths, including on the fly byte code manipulation and all kinds of weird proxying hacks. Or look what they do with CSS.
So, the abstractions are always possible, albeit in a way that is even more complex and definitely more brittle than if they had been implemented in a more powerful language.
I introduced a bunch of Java developers today to applying predicates and mapping functions using the google-collections lib.
Question that was asked the most was: "Will other java developers that do/will work on my project(s) understand this code?"
How do you un-teach people the for () { if ... if .. if .. } for () { ... } ...
Question that was asked the most was: "Will other java developers that do/will work on my project(s) understand this code?"
How do you un-teach people the for () { if ... if .. if .. } for () { ... } ...
In the short term? You don't.
In the medium term? Companies and groups using the most productive tools will be more successful. If there are real, scalable advantages to assembling a team of great developers and using powerful techniques, then those will shine through over time. If you want to be in on this, you should probably open your mind to learning new things.
In the long term? Once the effective techniques are proven, the developers who only know the old ways eventually die and are replaced by younger ones who have learned the better ones. Rinse and repeat.
In the medium term? Companies and groups using the most productive tools will be more successful. If there are real, scalable advantages to assembling a team of great developers and using powerful techniques, then those will shine through over time. If you want to be in on this, you should probably open your mind to learning new things.
In the long term? Once the effective techniques are proven, the developers who only know the old ways eventually die and are replaced by younger ones who have learned the better ones. Rinse and repeat.
That's exactly right, and you can see it in history with the introduction of high-level languages (vs. assembly languages), structured programming, and object-oriented programming.
Google collections is used fairly extensively where I work now. At first, I didn't quite "get" it. A couple weeks later I started reading SICP and now I try my darnest to use predicates, maps, and filters as much as possible. When you've been working in a language like Java sometimes you stop trying to look for the higher abstraction.
I'm not sure if languages can be classified so easily. For example, is C++ a LFM or a LFSP? What about Javascript?
> It's pretty clear that the core simulation objects have to be written in C++. C is too painful, and anything else is going to give an unacceptable hit in speed
The author lost me right here. C is too painful, and C++ is materially better? OOP is nice and all, but it's no panacea. I've worked plenty in both languages and find that both score roughly equally in 'pain quotient.'
Interestingly, the "LFSP" theory breaks down when you consider memory management and pointers. Those two features of "LFM's" cause far more difficulty for average developers, IMO, than the abstractions available in "LFSP's."
The author lost me right here. C is too painful, and C++ is materially better? OOP is nice and all, but it's no panacea. I've worked plenty in both languages and find that both score roughly equally in 'pain quotient.'
Interestingly, the "LFSP" theory breaks down when you consider memory management and pointers. Those two features of "LFM's" cause far more difficulty for average developers, IMO, than the abstractions available in "LFSP's."
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the program, so if you write the program as cleverly as you can, by definition, you won't be clever enough to debug it." - Kernighan's law
(In reality I think that many smarter languages make debugging easier, not harder, but the point stands that the most interesting or fun solution isn't necessarily the best solution. A good, stable project often needs non-sexy infrastructure, and no language can completely abstract that out.)
(In reality I think that many smarter languages make debugging easier, not harder, but the point stands that the most interesting or fun solution isn't necessarily the best solution. A good, stable project often needs non-sexy infrastructure, and no language can completely abstract that out.)
Well, I wouldn't want to get in the way of anyone telling themselves that they're smart, but take a look at any startup with scaling problems and what do you see?
The web team's doing shopping carts and drill-down tables in Ruby.
The platform team's doing ultra-low-latency, distributed, redundant key-value stores in Java, and build scripts in Ruby or whatever, possibly an ETL or two using hadoop to boot.
Who're the smart people, again?
The web team's doing shopping carts and drill-down tables in Ruby.
The platform team's doing ultra-low-latency, distributed, redundant key-value stores in Java, and build scripts in Ruby or whatever, possibly an ETL or two using hadoop to boot.
Who're the smart people, again?
Not to be a crank - rails is better for web development than any of the 500 java web frameworks, and if you try to write a one-off script in Java, you're insane. I learned to program with Scheme just like a lot of people and it's a beautiful and elegant language.
But Java has a lot of strengths, and the fact that it's the most popular language for enterprise development doesn't mean it's for "the masses" while the rest of us are "beautiful unique snowflakes". It's a tool to be used for its strengths like anything else.
But Java has a lot of strengths, and the fact that it's the most popular language for enterprise development doesn't mean it's for "the masses" while the rest of us are "beautiful unique snowflakes". It's a tool to be used for its strengths like anything else.
While this seems to be an almost constant (and needless) discussion on this site for the last few months, I wonder how presence of LFSP on the JVM/CLR (Scala/F# for ML-style programming, Clojure for Lisp-style programming) going to change the picture)?
I like the LFLP = languages for lazy people.
Great little article. Thanks.
As for the distinction between LFM and LFSP itself, I believe it's fundamental -- or rather, the distinction between M and SP is fundamental. It explains important facts about the software industry that can't be explained any other way ("if X is so good then how come blah blah blah"). I think M vs. SP is fundamental because of a demographic fact: the population of SP is an order of magnitude smaller (at least) than the population of M. Combine that with the economic fact that the demand for software exceeds the supply of SP, and our world begins to make some sense.
The only thing I'd change is that the terms "smart people" and "masses" are too judgmental. What we mean by "SP" is people with a high tolerance for abstraction. There are many individuals in M (i.e. who have a low tolerance for abstraction) who are plenty smart. Still, this is a venial flaw, because capacity for abstraction is a big part of being a smart programmer.