Sunday Selection 2011-02-20


Is Scheme faster than C? The cheapest way to make your code faster is to throw more hardware at it. But for a cash-stripped college student reworking the algorithm is probably a better idea. Here’s a suspense-filled story of how  superior algorithm devised in Scheme and ported to C turned out to be faster than a naive C implementation.

On Writing Books for Programmers I think writing is an important skill, especially for programmers. Putting your thoughts in writing helps with the thinking process. But this piece looks at writing from another perspective — namely writing for (as well as by) programmers. It’s worth reading if you’re writing for programmers, even if it’s not a book.


Parallelism and Concurrency in Programming Languages Rob Pike is certainly a person worth listening to when it comes to programming languages. And of course concurrency and parallelism is all the rage nowadays. Put the two together and you have a lot to learn from this talk.


Firefox 4 beta Google Chrome might be giving Firefox some stiff competition, but the folks at Mozilla are definitely holding their own. Firefox 4 is getting an impressive set of improvements and features. I think their user interface model is better than Chrome’s in some ways (especially with Panorama). There are still rough edges and most extensions will probably not work, but it’s stable enough for people to check out and use on a daily basis.

Release schedules and version numbers

I just finished a major rewrite and overhaul of my long-term research project and pushed it out to other students who are working with me on it. In the process of the redo I rewrote large parts of it to be simpler code and added a few important features. I also cleaned up the code organization (everything is neatly divided into directories instead being spread throughout the toplevel), added comments and rewrote the documentation to actually described what the program did and how to use it. But it wasn’t just a pure rewrite and refactoring. I added at least one important new feature, added a completely new user interaction mode and changed the code architecture to explicitly support multiple interfaces. But the thing is that even though I’ve “shipped” it, it’s still not quite done.

There are significant parts missing. The unit testing is very, very scant. There is almost no error handling. The previous version had a GUI which I need to port to the new API/architecture. I also want to write one more interaction mode as a proof of concept that it can support multiple, different modes. The documentation needs to be converted to HTML mode and there are some utility functions that would be helpful to have. In short, there’s a lot that needs to be done. So my question is, what version of my code is this?

I started a rewrite of this last  summer as well but never finished — a casualty classic second system effect. For a while I considered calling this version 3.0 counting the unfinished copy as 2.0. But I decided it was rather silly and so I’ve actually called it 2.0. Though it’s certainly a major major change from the last version, in some ways it’s still broken and unfinished. Is it a beta? Or a release candidate? I suppose that’s a better description. Except the additions that I want to make are more than moving it from a beta to a full release. The GUI would definitely be a point release.

In many ways the debate is purely academic and kinda pointless. As I’ve written before, software is always beta. However, releasing major and minor “versions” of software is a popular activity. In some ways it’s helpful to the user. You can tell when something’s changed significantly and when you need to upgrade. In an age where you had to physically sell software, that was a good thing to know. However, the rise of web-based software has changed that to a large extent. If you’ve been using Gmail for a while, you’ll know that it has a history of small, regular atomic improvements over time. And it’s not just Gmail, it’s most of Google’s online services. Sometimes there are major facelifts (like Google Reader a few years ago) but by and large this gradual improvement works well. Google Chrome also uses this model. Chrome is officially past version 5 now. But thanks to its built in auto update mechanism you don’t need to care (and I suspect most people don’t). Rolling releases are clearly acceptable and may just be the way software updates are going to go in the future. Of course, if you’re charging for your code you’re going to have some sort of paywall, so no, manual software updates probably won’t go away forever.

Coming back to my original question, what version did I just release? 2.0? 2.0 beta 1? 1.9.5? Honestly I don’t really care. Part of my disinterest stems from the fact that Git makes branching and merging so easy. It’s hard to care about version numbers and releases when your code is in the hands of a system that makes it so easy to spin off feature branches and then merge them back in when they’re ready. If I worked in a fully Git based team I’d just have everyone running daily merges so that everyone just automatically got the new features. In that case I wouldn’t have waited to release. The big new feature would have been pushed a week ago, the reorganization and cleanup after that and then the documentation yesterday. I’d also be sending out the later updates and addition one at a time once they were done. Everyone else uses SVN, there might still be a way to do it.

In conclusion: rolling releases are awesome. Users don’t have to worry about manually updating and automagically get new features when they’re available. Developers using a good version control system can be up-to-date with everyone else’s code. This is especially important if you’re writing developer tools (which I am): the faster and easier you can get your updates to the people making the end product the faster the end product gets developed.

PS. If you’re wondering what exactly it is I’m making, more on that later. There’s a possibility of a source release after I talk to my professor about it.

Sunday Selection 2009-07-19

I’m still at Virginia Tech for a few more weeks, but all the other students I was with have left. So I got moved to the really nice rooms for graduate students, the only downside being that I’m practically locked in since my card won’t open the doors (I was let in by a really nice grad student). Stupid technology. While I get that fixed, here’s another installment of Sunday Selection.


The Cathedral and the Pirate A funny but thought provoking look at the Microsoft-Google competition in light of the announcement of the Google Chrome OS.


Ubiquity in Depth Ubiquity is a creation from Mozilla Labs in the form of a Firefox extension that aims to bring the different components of the web and the services available into a easy-to-reach form in the browser. There’s a 6 minute demo video about half way through the article.


Ubiquity It takes some getting used to, but it’s a great tool. My personal favorite is the ability to quickly look up snippets of wikipedia without leaving the page I’m on. I would recommend getting the latest beta.

Software is Forever Beta

Word on the web is that Google just pulled the Beta label off it’s Chrome browser. As Google Operating System has noted, it’s not that Chrome is fully ready for mass consumption but rather that it’s just good enough to enter the fray with Firefox and Internet Explorer and that Google is in the process of sealing bundling deals with some OEMs. There is still work to be done, there are still bugs and their  are important features in the works (including an extension system). But the event raises a question that I don’t think has ever been convincingly answered: when is the right time to take the Beta label off a piece of software?

Wikipedia says that a beta version of a software product is one that has been released to a limited number of users for testing and feedback, mostly to discover potential bugs. Though this definition is mostly accurate, it’s certainly not the complete definition. Take for example Gmail which is open to anyone and everyone, isn’t really out there for testing, but is still labeled beta years after it was first released. You could say that in some ways Gmail changed the software culture by being ‘forever beta’. On the other hand Apple and Microsoft regularly send beta versions of their new products to developers expressly for the purpose of testing.

Corporate branding aside, everyone probably agrees that a piece of software is ready for public release if it generally does what it claims to do and doesn’t have any show-stopping bugs. Unfortunately this definition isn’t as clear cut as it seems. It’s hard to cover all the use cases of a software product until it is out in the real world being actively used. After all, rigorous testing can only prove the presence of bugs, not their absence. It’s hard to tell what a showstopping bug is until the show is well under way. Also, going by the definition, should the early versions of Windows have been labeled beta versions because they crashed so much? With exam week I’ve seen college library iMacs choke and grind to a halt (spinning beachball of doom) as student after student piles on their resource intensive multimedia. Is it fair to call these systems beta because they crack under intense pressure?

Perhaps the truth is that any non-trivial piece of software is destined to be always in beta stage. The state of software engineering today means that it is practically impossible to guarantee that software is bug-free or will not crash fatally if pushed hard enough. As any software developer on a decent sized project knows, there’s always that one obscure that needs to be fixed, but fixing it potentially introduces a few more. However, that being said, the reality of life is that you still have to draw the line somewhere and actually release your software at some point. There’s no hard and fast rule that says when your software is ready for public use. It generally depends on a number of factors: what does your software do? Who is your target audience? How often will you release updates and how long will you support a major release? Obviously the cut-off point for a game for grade-schoolers is very different from that for air traffic control software. Often it’s a complicated mix of market and customer demands, the state of your project and the abilities of your developers.

But Gmail did more than bring about the concept of ‘forever beta’. It introduced the much more powerful idea that if you don’t actually ‘ship’ your software, but just run it off your own servers, the release schedule can be much less demanding and much more conducive to innovation. Contast Windows Vista with it’s delayed releases, cut features, hardware issues and general negative reaction after release, with Gmail and it’s slow but continuous rollout of new features. Looking at this situation shows  that Gmail can afford to be forever beta whereas Windows (or OS X for that matter) simply cannot. The centralized nature of online services means that Google doesn’t need to have a rigid schedule with all or nothing release dates. It’s perfectly alright to release a bare-bones product and then gradually add new features. Since Google automatically does all updates, that means that early adopters don’t have to worry about upgrading on their own later. People can jump on the bandwagon at any time and if it’s free, more people will do so earlier, in turn generating valuable feedback. It also means that features or services that are disliked can be cut off (Google Answers and Browser Sync). That in turn means that you don’t have to waste valuable developer time and effort in places where they won’t pay off.

In many ways the Internet has allowed developers to embrace the ‘forever beta’ nature of software instead of fighting it. However even if you’re not a web developer, you can still take measures to prevent being burned by the endless cycle of test-release-bugfix-test. It’s important to understand that your software will change in the future and might grow in unexpected directions. All developers can be saved a lot of hardship by taking this fact into account. Software should be made as modular as possible so that new features can be added or old ones taken out without need for drastic rewrites. Extensive testing before release can catch and stop a large number of possible bugs. Use dependency injection to make your software easier to test (more on that in a later post).  Most importantly however, listen to your users. Let your customers guide the development of your products and don’t be afraid to cut back on features if that is what will make your software better. After all, it isn’t important what you label your software, it matters what your users think of it. People will use Gmail even if it stays beta forever because it has already proved itself as a reliable, efficient and innovative product. Make sure your the same can be said of your software.

Is Chrome really so important?

So the intertubes are resounding with word of Google’s latest offering: a next-generation browser called Chrome. Chrome certainly embodies some really cool ideas and could just pave the way for a new generation of browsers that are designed to support rich web apps and not just the text and images of web 1.0. But honestly, how far is Chrome going to go and how soon?

Chrome is being touted by some as being a full-blown web operating system that will soon supercede Windows. Ahem. Allow me to respectfully disagree. Sure the cloud is becoming an important part of everyone’s computing experience, but the desktop isn’t going anywhere soon. Let’s keep in mind the fact that the majority of computer users aren’t really tech savvy and aren’t continuously on the move. The most common use that people have for computers is word-processing, spreadsheets, maybe presentations, email and Facebook. Let’s face it: your grandmother doesn’t really want or need her cookie recipes to be kept on remote servers using Amazon S3.

Though personally I do quite like Google Chrome, there are some things that really trouble me. First up is memory usage. Google Chrome takes up about 267MB of memory which is more than IE8 which in turn is more than Windows XP. Seriously, all that for a browser so that I can run webapps which for the most part have features I could find in mid-90s software? Wasn’t it the promise of cloud computing that we would have trillion of clock cycles and terabytes of storage at our fingertips just for the asking? Webapps still have quite some way to go before I can justify a quarter of a gigabyte just to run a browser. Let’s not even talk about things for which there aren’t any webapps yet. I’ve recently begun moving away from word processors to Latex for my writing. There isn’t an online Latex environment. Nor are there full-scale online development environments (though CodeIDE is pretty cool). As a programmer, I’m not quite ready to move onto the cloud full time.

So the desktop is here to stay. After all it doesn’t really make sense to scale everything to thousands of processors just because you can. All that being said and done, I do think Google Chrome brings some interesting ideas. Separating the workload across multiple processes is interesting and the V8 javascript virtual machine could prove to be a good step forward. Only time will tell if Google Chrome really does have a substantial impact on the state of the web. But a web operating system is still some time away.