Alan’s blog

I’m starting to use shortcodes heavily in WordPress¹ as we are using it internally on the DEPtH project to coordinate our new TouchIT book.  There was minor bug which meant that HTML tags came out unbalanced (e.g. “<p></div></p”).

I’ve just been fixing it and posting a patch², interestingly the bug was partly due to the fact that back-references in regular expressions count from the beginning of the regular expression, making it impossible to use them if the expression may be ‘glued’ into a larger one … lack of referential transparency!

For anyone having similar problems, full details and patch below (all WP and PHP techie stuff).

(more…)

1. see section “using dynamic binding” in What’s wrong with dynamic binding? [back]
2. TRAC ticket #10490 [back]

Last week I was giving a keynote at the annual workshop PPIG2008 of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group.   Before I went I was politely pronouncing this pee-pee-eye-gee … however, when I got there I found the accepted pronunciation was pee-pig … hence the logo!

My own keynote at PPIG2008 was “as we may code: the art (and craft) of computer programming in the 21st century” and was an exploration of the changes in coding from 1968 when Knuth published the first of his books on “the art of computer programming“.  On the web site for the talk I’ve made a relatively unstructured list of some of the distinctions I’ve noticed between 20th and 21st Century coding (C20 vs. C21); and in my slides I have started to add some more structure.  In general we have a move from more mathematical, analytic, problem solving approach, to something more akin to a search task, finding the right bits to fit together with a greater need for information management and social skills. Both this characterisation and the list are, of course, a gross simplification, but seem to capture some of the change of spirit.  These changes suggest different cognitive issues to be explored and maybe different personality types involved – as one of the attendees, David Greathead, pointed out, rather like the judging vs. perceiving personality distinction in Myers-Briggs¹.

One interesting comment on this was from Marian Petre, who has studied many professional programmers.  Her impression, and echoed by others, was that the heavy-hitters were the more experienced programmers who had adapted to newer styles of programming, whereas  the younger programmers found it harder to adapt the other way when they hit difficult problems.  Another attendee suggested that perhaps I was focused more on application coding and that system coding and system programmers were still operating in the C20 mode.

The social nature of modern coding came out in several papers about agile methods and pair programming.  As well as being an important phenomena in its own right, pair programming gives a level of think-aloud  ‘for free’, so maybe this will also cast light on individual coding.

Margaret-Anne Storey gave a fascinating keynote about the use of comments and annotations in code and again this picks up the social nature of code as she was studying open-source coding where comments are often for other people in the community, maybe explaining actions, or suggesting improvements.  She reviewed a lot of material in the area and I was especially interested in one result that showed that novice programmers with small pieces of code found method comments more useful than class comments.  Given my own frequent complaint that code is inadequately documented at the class or higher level, this appeared to disagree with my own impressions.  However, in discussion it seemed that this was probably accounted for by differences in context: novice vs. expert programmers, small vs large code, internal comments vs. external documentation.  One of the big problems I find is that the way different classes work together to produce effects is particularly poorly documented.  Margaret-Anne described one system her group had worked on² that allowed you to write a tour of your code opening windows, highlighting sections, etc.

I sadly missed some of the presentations as I had to go to other meetings (the danger of a conference at your home site!), but I did get to some and  was particularly fascinated by the more theoretical/philosophical session including one paper addressing the psychological origins of the notions of objects and another focused on (the dangers of) abstraction.

The latter, presented by Luke Church, critiqued  Jeanette Wing’s 2006 CACM paper on Computational Thinking.  This is evidently a ‘big thing’ with loads of funding and hype … but one that I had entirely missed :-/ Basically the idea is to translate the ways that one thinks about computation to problems other than computers – nerds rule OK. The tenet’s of computational thinking seem to overlap a lot with management thinking and also reminded me of the way my own HCI community and also parts of the Design (with capital D) community in different ways are trying to say they we/they are the universal discipline  … well if we don’t say it about our own discipline who will …the physicists have been getting away with it for years

Luke (and his co-authors) argument is that abstraction can be dangerous (although of course it is also powerful).  It would be interesting perhaps rather than Wing’s paper to look at this argument alongside  Jeff Kramer’s 2007 CACM article “Is abstraction the key to computing?“, which I recall liking because it says computer scientists ought to know more mathematics

I also sadly missed some of Adrian Mackenzie’s closing keynote … although this time not due to competing meetings but because I had been up since 4:30am reading a PhD thesis and after lunch on a Friday had begin to flag!  However, this was no reflection an Adrian’s talk and the bits I heard were fascinating looking at the way bio-tech is using the language of software engineering.  This sparked a debate relating back to the overuse of abstraction, especially in the case of the genome where interactions between parts are strong and so the software component analogy weak.  It also reminded me of yet another relatively recent paper³ on the way computation can be seen in many phenomena and should not be construed solely as a science of computers.

As well as the academic content it was great to be with the PPIG crowd they are a small but very welcoming and accepting community – I don’t recall anything but constructive and friendly debate … and next year they have PPIG09 in Limerick – PPIG and Guiness what could be better!

1. David has done some really interesting work on the relationship between personality types and different kinds of programming tasks.  I’ve seen him present before about debugging and unfortunately had to miss his talk at PPIG on comprehension.  Given his work has has shown clearly that there are strong correlations between certain personality attributes and coding, it would be good to see more qualitative work investigating the nature of the differences.   I’d like to know whether strategies change between personality types: for example, between systematic debugging and more insight-based scan and see it bug finding. [back]
2. but I can’t find on their website [back]
3. Perhaps 2006/2007 in either CACM or Computer Journal, if anyone knows the one I mean please remind me! [back]

Over 20 years ago I wrote “The Myth of the Infinitely Fast Machine“, about the way software developers effectively assume that everything on the machine side of human interaction happens instantly. Often interaction is programmed in a turn-taking style:

1. wait for user action
2. process the event
3. display changes
4. back to step 1

This assumption of instant (or at least infinitely fast) response at step 2 often ignores network delays, disk IO or heavy computation. This tends to work fine on a high-spec development or test machine, with a fast network and clean install of all system software … but when the software hits a real machine, a few years old, untidy system, slow network … things fall to pieces.

So 20 years later (as I described in my post last week) I am sitting watching the spinning rainbow ball as Word struggles to save a document (over an hour now, I think I will need to kill it). To be fair I think the root ’cause’ of the problem … or at least one problem … may be the printer as the Cannon printer driver has never worked properly on an Intel Mac (maybe new driver when I upgrade to Leopard?) and perhaps some change in the rest of the system (maybe the Office install) has tipped it over into not working at all.

As far as I can tell Word then decides to ask the printer things in order to set the margins properly when saving the document, and then gets stuck. I found a post on a Microsoft forum about a different print related problem and the ‘helpful’ tech support from MS simply said “not our fault, re-install everything”.

So to recap:

• user asks Word to save – probably the most critical operation in the system, or the system auto-saves, again to ensure safety against crashes, so really critical
• Word decides it needs information from the printer (although it has been displaying the page to the users using some existing information on page properties).
• Word asks for info from the printer driver of the currently selected printer
• if the printer doesn’t respond Word hangs and blocks all user interaction

However, the printer driver may be third party, may be connecting to a shared printer hanging off a different network, or in the case of a laptop on a network currently disconnected from the computer … and any resulting delay is not the fault of the developers of Word??!

The annoying thing is that such ‘hanging’ delays need never happen.

Basically there are four main causes for delays:

1. ordinary computation takes a long time due to it being too complex for the available hardware
2. unbounded internal computation -for example iterative algorithms
3. waiting for external resources (disk, network, etc.)
4. bugs that lead to the system going crazy (effectively case 2 by accident!)

Type 1 will surface during testing and may require re-design of the interaction, but is simply ’slow’ rather than ‘hanging’. Typically it leads to things gradually getting slower as the document or data gets larger or more complicated. This requires standard profiling and optimisation.

Type 4 is hard to deal with – bugs do happen. However, the majority of the problems I’m experiencing in Word at the moment are not a failure of this kind as Word does, most of the time, eventually complete without crashing.

Types 2 and 3, especially the latter, should be detected and then dealt with in the design of the user interface.

Some real-time programming languages have ways of automatically working out how long code will take to run in order to be able to assert “this will respond within a 10 ms interrupt cycle”. However, this is hard, even for relatively simple embedded systems; so not practical for complex operating systems or user interfaces.

However, a simpler version of the above is possible. Certain system functions invoke external resources such as the disk, or the network. If any function or method in your own application invokes one of these system functions, then it could potentially hang – and should be documented to say so or return some sort of ‘promise’: “I’ve started to do X, please check back later to see if it is ready”. Of course the methods that call these themselves need to be documented as potentially hanging … and so forth.

If the response to any form of user interaction ends up calling a potentially hanging function, then it is in danger of having a delay of type 3 above. However, so long as this is known, it can be dealt with at the user interface level by spawning a thread to do the work so that some form of progress indicator or at least “Cancel” button can be active – it should never ‘hang’.

This marking of functions as potentially ‘hanging’ could be done by programmers themselves, but equally can be automated as a form of static analysis, simply starting with a known set of hanging system functions and recursively ‘colouring’ functions that call them. This kind of automated checking should be standard practice in any large software project.

The type 2 hanging is a little more complicated. The ADA programming language has a ’safe’ subset that only allows loops where the bounds are fixed at compile time. This is probably too restrictive for complex software, but certainly any loop with unknown limits could be flagged. If as part of a code walk through or similar practice it is decided that the loop is ’safe’ it can be annotated as such, otherwise, just like the case of system calls, the system can propagate the fact that certain functions may have unbounded computation and then the UI adjusted accordingly.

For small bespoke software development I can be forgiving, but for large vendors like Microsoft, Apple or Adobe, there is no excuse for this form of culpable failure.

… but I have a bad feeling that in 20 years time I may be writing again …

[[ News flash - 1.5 hours later Word has finished saving the document! ... 14 pages obviously hard work. ... but then it has hung again ]]

Last week’s HCI2007 conference and the Physicality workshop now all finished (except sorting out the the final finances for HCI … but I’ll forget that for now!)

Being part of the organisation of things you always see so many things that are not as planned (like going wrong), but for the delegates it all seems a well-oiled machine. In this as in many other domains, the mark of a rubust system is not whether or not it fails, but how it copes with failure. This is the heart of my principles for appropriate intelligence when designing ‘intelligent’ user interfaces and also ‘fail fast programming’¹ when designing and debugging critical computer systems.

Great to see so many old friends … and meet new people … and after able to show Nad² the glories of the Lake District.

1. I must make web pages for this some day … but see debugging notes I did for a software engineering course a few years ago [back]
2. see his blog on arriving at the conference and his Flickr photos of the Lake District [back]