Think like a programmer

From time to time, it behooves me to think about how I think.

This past week, I've been working on a legacy application. It consists of 20,000 lines of C++ code, written and modified by a number of people of varying talent. The code works -- mostly -- and it certainly compiles and runs. But the code is poorly organized, uses unclear names for functions and variables, and relies on the C preprocessor. Identifying the source of problems is a challenge. As I work on the code, I look at the coding style and the architecture. Both make me wince. I think to myself: "Programmers -- real programmers --don't think this way."

It's an arrogant position, and I'm not proud of the arrogance. The code was put together by people, some who are not professional programmers, doing their best. But the thought crosses my mind.

Cut to my other activity this week: reading about the Haskell programming language and the concepts behind functional programming. These concepts are as different from object-oriented programming as object-oriented programming was to procedural programming. In functional programming, the design is much more rigorous. The central organizational concepts are recursion and sets. The programs are hard to read -- for one who is accustomed to object-oriented code or the procedural-laden code that exists in many shops. Yet despite the strangeness, functional programming has elegance and a feeling of durability. As I look at programs written in Haskell, I think to myself: "Programmers -- real programmers -- don't think this way."

This is not the arrogant position I have with poorly structure code, but one of humility and frustration. I am disappointed with the programmers and the state of the craft. I covet the attributes of functional programming. I want programs to be elegant, readable, and reliable. I want programmers to have a high degree of rigor in their thinking.

In short, I want programmers to think not like programmers, but like mathematicians.