Archive
My 2023 in software engineering
In a 2009 post, I predicted that Chinese and Indian developers would become a major influence in the next decade. This year, it was very noticeable that many of the authors of papers at major conferences had Asian names. I would say that, on average, papers with Asian author names were better than papers by authors with non-Asian names.
While LLMs dominated the software news this year, the lead time for research projects and conference submission deadlines meant that few of the papers accepted at this year’s top ranked conferences were LLM based, e.g., around 5% at ICSE. I expect there will be a much higher percentage of LLM based papers in 2024, which I think will be a disaster for software engineering research, at least in the short term. From what I have seen and read, much of LLM based software engineering is driven by fashion and/or a desire to gain experience that leads to a job in AI. Discovering something useful about software development takes a back seat (the current fashionable topic, butterfly collecting, at least produces potentially useful datasets). I think that LLMs are going to be very useful for analyzing text data, e.g., named entity recognition.
London based, software related meetups have come back to life. I go to around 1-2 a week, and the regular good ones include: Internet of Things, Extreme Tuesday Club, London Prompt Engineers, and London R. On the academic front, I have started attending the software reliability seminars at Imperial, and funding means that the excellent Crest Open Workshops are down to two a year. There were a handful of hackathons this year, and I got to go to one of them, a LLM hackathon.
Not usually software specific: Newspeak House hosts a variety of events that are often attended by many developers and those associated with the rationalist community. I attend maybe 2–3 events a month.
What did I learn/discover about software engineering this year?
- A small team estimation dataset showed the same kinds of patterns seen in larger teams,
- more cost/benefit analysis of software engineering activities here and here,
- data on Cobol source is very rare, and I found some,
- programs often continue to work very well in the presence of serious coding mistakes; I discovered some conditions where this occurs (to be continued next year),
- yet more debunking of software folklore: Optimal function length, and Hardware/Software cost ratio,
- I fell down the rabbit hole of early computer performance and their benchmarks.
The evidence-based software engineering Discord channel ticks over (invitation), with sporadic interesting exchanges.
Who are the famous academics in software engineering?
Who are today’s ‘famous’ academics in software engineering?
Famous as in, you can mention their name when chatting with general software developers, and expect those present to have heard of them, or you have heard their names dropped into a conversation, say, at least 3+ times this year (I’m excluding academics who are famous within one specific niche of software engineering). Academic, as in, works in an institution of secondary or tertiary higher learning.
When I started out in industry, the works of Knuth and Dijkstra were cited (not always accurately), people would talk about Ted Codd’s latest position on how best to structure a database. Tony Hoare later became known through his books, and Leslie Lamport for distributed systems and perhaps LaTeX. In very large niches, William Kahan for numerical analysis, and Barbara Liskov for the Liskov substitution principle.
Anyone suggesting Kernighan and Ritchie, of C and Unix fame, is overlooking the fact they worked in an industrial research lab.
A book series continues to maintain Knuth’s fame, while Dijkstra kept himself in the news by being a source of controversial quotes for industry journalists, and for kicking off the Go-To statement considered harmful debate (the latter is likely the reason that anybody has heard of him today). Has Kahan escaped his niche, even though use of floating-point arithmetic is now perhaps even more niche than it used to be?
How might academics become famous?
Widely used algorithms/metrics/techniques named after a person generates a kind of anonymous name recognition. For instance, Halstead complexity metric and McCabe’s cyclomatic complexity metric, and from the 1990s Shor’s algorithm.
Some people achieve fame through their association with a language. Academic name/language pairs include: McCarthy/Lisp, Wirth/Pascal, Stroustrup/C++ (worked in industry, university, industry, university), Peyton Jones/Haskell (university, industrial research, industry), Leroy/OCaml, Meyer/Eiffel.
An influential book, or widely read blog can generate a kind of fame.
Many academics have written an ‘algorithms’ book, and readers may have fond memories of the particular book they used as an undergraduate. Barry Boehm wrote “Software Engineering Economics”, but is more likely to be known for the model he spent his life promoting, i.e., the COCOMO model.
Fred Brooks, author of one of the most famous books in software engineering The Mythical Man Month, was not an academic worked in industry and then academia.
I have always been surprised by how many Turing award winners I have never heard of, or while recognizing a name am completely unfamiliar with their work. I am less surprised by my failure to recognise around half the names in the Wikipedia category software engineering researchers.
A few people are known because of the widespread use of their software (Linus Torvalds has never been an academic). Richard Stallman, employed as an academic, originally became famous as the author of the GNU version of emacs and gcc; the fame from the Free Software Foundation came after copyleft took off.
Are there academics who have become ‘famous’ in software engineering this century? I’m not in a position to answer this because I don’t read introductory software books, and generally avoid bike-shed discussions.
Does the resurgence of interest in AI mean that Judea Pearl’s fame is no longer niche?
I do read recent academic papers, and the only person on the list of most frequently cited authors in my evidence-based software engineering book with any claim to fame, researches cognitive neuroscience, i.e., Stanislas Dehaene.
Is software engineering a field where it is possible for a person, academic or otherwise, to become famous?
If there are fame worthy discoveries waiting to be made, or fame worthy software engineering book waiting to be written, how likely is it that the people responsible will be academics? A lot of the advances in software engineering have been made and continue to be made by those working in industry.
Suggestions relating to (in)famous academics welcome.
Anthropological studies of software engineering
Anthropology is the study of humans, and as such it is the top level research domain for many of the human activities involved in software engineering. What has been discovered by the handful of anthropologists who have spent time researching the tiny percentage of humans involved in writing software?
A common ‘discovery’ is that developers don’t appear to be doing what academics in computing departments claim they do; hardly news to those working in industry.
The main subfields relevant to software are probably: cultural anthropology and social anthropology (in the US these are combined under the name sociocultural anthropology), plus linguistic anthropology (how language influences social life and shapes communication). There is also historical anthropology, which is technically what historians of computing do.
For convenience, I’m labelling anybody working in an area covered by anthropology as an anthropologist.
I don’t recommend reading any anthropology papers unless you plan to invest a lot of time in some subfield. While I have read lots of software engineering papers, anthropologist’s papers on this topic are often incomprehensible to me. These papers might best be described as anthropology speak interspersed with software related terms.
Anthropologists write books, and some of them are very readable to a more general audience.
The Art of Being Human: A Textbook for Cultural Anthropology by Wesch is a beginner’s introduction to its subject.
Ethnography, which explores cultural phenomena from the point of view of the subject of the study, is probably the most approachable anthropological research. Ethnographers spend many months living with a remote tribe, community, or nowadays a software development company, and then write-up their findings in a thesis/report/book. Examples of approachable books include: “Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation” by Kunda, who studied a large high-tech company in the mid-1980s; “No-Collar: The Humane Workplace and its Hidden Costs” by Ross, who studied an internet startup that had just IPO’ed, and “Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking” by Coleman, who studied hacker culture.
Linguistic anthropology is the field whose researchers are mostly likely to match developers’ preconceived ideas about what humanities academics talk about. If I had been educated in an environment where Greek and nineteenth century philosophers were the reference points for any discussion, then I too would use this existing skill set in my discussions of source code (philosophers of source code did not appear until the twentieth century). Who wouldn’t want to apply hermeneutics to the interpretation of source code (the field is known as Critical code studies)?
It does not help that the software knowledge of many of the academics appears to have been acquired by reading computer books from the 1940s and 1950s.
The most approachable linguistic anthropology book I have found, for developers, is: The Philosophy of Software Code and Mediation in the Digital Age by Berry (not that I have skimmed many).
Software engineering research is a field of dots
Software engineering research is a field of dots; people are fully focused on publishing papers about their chosen tiny little subject.
Where are the books joining the dots into even a vague outline?
Several software researchers have told me that writing books is not a worthwhile investment of their time, i.e., the number of citations they are likely to attract makes writing papers the only cost-effective medium (books containing an edited collection of papers continue to be published).
Butterfly collecting has become the method of study for many researchers. The butterflies in question often being Github repos that are collected together, based on some ‘interestingness’ metric, and then compared and contrasted in a conference paper.
The dots being collected are influenced by the problems that granting agencies consider to be important topics to fund (picking a research problem that will attract funding is a major consideration for any researcher). Fake research is one consequence of incentivizing people to use particular techniques in their research.
Whatever you think the aims of research in software engineering might be, funding the random collecting of dots does not seem like an effective strategy.
Perhaps it is just a matter of waiting for the field to grow up. Evidence-based software engineering research is still a teenager, and the novelty of butterfly collecting has yet to wear off.
My study of particular kinds of dots did not reveal many higher level patterns, although a number of folk theories were shown to be unfounded.
Payback time-frame for research in software engineering
What are the major questions in software engineering that researchers should be trying to answer?
A high level question whose answer is likely to involve life, the universe, and everything is: What is the most cost-effective way to build software systems?
Viewing software engineering research as an attempt to find the answer to a big question mirrors physicists quest for a Grand Unified Theory of how the Universe works.
Physicists have the luxury of studying the Universe at their own convenience, the Universe does not need their input to do a better job.
Software engineering is not like physics. Once a software system has been built, the resources have been invested, and there is no reason to recreate it using a more cost-effective approach (the zero cost of software duplication means that manufacturing cost is the cost of the first version).
Designing and researching new ways of building software systems may be great fun, but the time and money needed to run the realistic experiments needed to evaluate their effectiveness is such that they are unlikely to be run. Searching for more cost-effective software development techniques by paying to run the realistic experiments needed to evaluate them, and waiting for the results to become available, is going to be expensive and time-consuming. A theory is proposed, experiments are run, results are analysed; rinse and repeat until a good-enough cost-effective technique is found. One iteration will take many years, and this iterative process is likely to take many decades.
Very many software systems are being built and maintained, and each of these is an experiment. Data from these ‘experiments’ provides a cost-effective approach to improving existing software engineering practices by studying the existing practices to figure out how they work (or don’t work).
Given the volume of ongoing software development, most of the payback from any research investment is likely to occur in the near future, not decades from now; the evidence shows that source code has a short and lonely existence. Investing for a payback that might occur 30-years from now makes no sense; researchers I talk to often use this time-frame when I ask them about the benefits of their research, i.e., just before they are about to retire. Investing in software engineering research only makes economic sense when it is focused on questions that are expected to start providing payback in, say, 3-5 years.
Who is going to base their research on existing industry practices?
Researching existing practices often involves dealing with people issues, and many researchers in computing departments are not that interested in the people side of software engineering, or rather they are more interested in the computer side.
Algorithm oriented is how I would describe researchers who claim to be studying software engineering. I am frequently told about the potential for huge benefits from the discovery of more efficient algorithms. For many applications, algorithms are now commodities, i.e., they are good enough. Those with a career commitment to studying algorithms have a blinkered view of the likely benefits of their work (most of those I have seen are doing studying incremental improvements, and are very unlikely to make a major break through).
The number of researchers studying what professional developers do, with an aim to improving it, is very small (I am excluding the growing number of fake researchers doing surveys). While I hope there will be a significant growth in numbers, I’m not holding my breadth (at least in the short term; as for the long term, Planck’s experience with quantum mechanics was: “Science advances one funeral at a time”).
Evidence-based software engineering: book released
My book, Evidence-based software engineering, is now available; the pdf can be downloaded here, here and here, plus all the code+data. Report any issues here. I’m investigating the possibility of a printed version. Mobile friendly pdf (layout shaky in places).
The original goals of the book, from 10-years ago, have been met, i.e., discuss what is currently known about software engineering based on an analysis of all the publicly available software engineering data, and having the pdf+data+code freely available for download. The definition of “all the public data” started out as being “all”, but as larger and higher quality data was discovered the corresponding were ignored.
The intended audience has always been software developers and their managers. Some experience of building software systems is assumed.
How much data is there? The data directory contains 1,142 csv files and 985 R files, the book cites 895 papers that have data available of which 556 are cited in figure captions; there are 628 figures. I am currently quoting the figure of 600+ for the ‘amount of data’.
Things that might be learned from the analysis has been discussed in previous posts on the chapters: Human cognition, Cognitive capitalism, Ecosystems, Projects and Reliability.
The analysis of the available data is like a join-the-dots puzzle, except that the 600+ dots are not numbered, some of them are actually specs of dust, and many dots are likely to be missing. The future of software engineering research is joining the dots to build an understanding of the processes involved in building and maintaining software systems; work is also needed to replicate some of the dots to confirm that they are not specs of dust, and to discover missing dots.
Some missing dots are very important. For instance, there is almost no data on software use, but there can be lots of data on fault experiences. Without software usage data it is not possible to estimate whether the software is very reliable (i.e., few faults experienced per amount of use), or very unreliable (i.e., many faults experienced per amount of use).
The book treats the creation of software systems as an economically motivated cognitive activity occurring within one or more ecosystems. Algorithms are now commodities and are not discussed. The labour of the cognitariate is the means of production of software systems, and this is the focus of the discussion.
Existing books treat the creation of software as a craft activity, with developers applying the skills and know-how acquired through personal practical experience. The craft approach has survived because building software systems has been a sellers market, customers have paid what it takes because the potential benefits have been so much greater than the costs.
Is software development shifting from being a sellers market to a buyers market? In a competitive market for development work and staff, paying people to learn from mistakes that have already been made by many others is an unaffordable luxury; an engineering approach, derived from evidence, is a lot more cost-effective than craft development.
As always, if you know of any interesting software engineering data, please let me know.
First use of: software, software engineering and source code
While reading some software related books/reports/articles written during the 1950s, I suddenly realized that the word ‘software’ was not being used. This set me off looking for the earliest use of various computer terms.
My search process consisted of using pfgrep on my collection of pdfs of documents from the 1950s and 60s, and looking in the index of the few old computer books I still have.
Software: The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) cites an article by John Tukey published in the American Mathematical Monthly during 1958 as the first published use of software: “The ‘software’ comprising … interpretive routines, compilers, and other aspects of automotive programming are at least as important to the modern electronic calculator as its ‘hardware’.”
I have a copy of the second edition of “An Introduction to Automatic Computers” by Ned Chapin, published in 1963, which does a great job of defining the various kinds of software. Earlier editions were published in 1955 and 1957. Did these earlier edition also contain various definitions of software? I cannot find any reasonably prices copies on the second-hand book market. Do any readers have a copy?
Update: I now have a copy of the 1957 edition of Chapin’s book. It discusses programming, but there is no mention of software.
Software engineering: The OED cites a 1966 “letter to the ACM membership” by Anthony A. Oettinger, then ACM President: “We must recognize ourselves … as members of an engineering profession, be it hardware engineering or software engineering.”
The June 1965 issue of COMPUTERS and AUTOMATION, in its Roster of organizations in the computer field, has the list of services offered by Abacus Information Management Co.: “systems software engineering”, and by Halbrecht Associates, Inc.: “software engineering”. This pushes the first use of software engineering back by a year.
Source code: The OED cites a 1965 issue of Communications ACM: “The PUFFT source language listing provides a cross-reference between the source code and the object code.”
The December 1959 Proceedings of the EASTERN JOINT COMPUTER CONFERENCE contains the article: “SIMCOM – The Simulator Compiler” by Thomas G. Sanborn. On page 140 we have: “The compiler uses this convention to aid in distinguishing between SIMCOM statements and SCAT instructions which may be included in the source code.”
Update: The October 1956 issue of Computers and Automation contains an extensive glossary. It does not have any entries for software or source code.
Running pdfgrep over the archive of documents on bitsavers would probably throw up all manners of early users of software related terms.
The paper: What’s in a name? Origins, transpositions and transformations of the triptych Algorithm -Code -Program is a detailed survey of the use of three software terms.
The fall of Rome and the ascendancy of ego and bluster
The idea that empirical software engineering started 10 years ago, driven by the availability of Open Source that could be measured, turns out to be a rather blinkered view of history.
A few months ago I was searching for a report and tried the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), which I had last tried many years ago. The search quickly located the report, plus lots of other stuff, and over the next few weeks I downloaded a few hundred interesting looking reports. These are pdfs that often don’t show up in Google searches and sometimes not on DTIC searches unless the right combination of words is used (many of the pdfs have been created by converting microfiche copies of the original paper, with some, often very good, OCR thrown into the mix).
It turns out that during the 1970s at the Rome Air Development Center (RADC was the primary research lab of the US Air Force) something of a golden age for empirical software engineering research occurred (compared to the following 25 years).
The ingredients necessary for great research came together at Rome during this decade: the US Department of Defense were spending huge amounts of money creating lots of software systems; the management at RADC understood the importance of measurement and analysis, and had the money to hire good consultants to do it.
Why did the volume of quality reports coming out of RADC decline in the 1980s (it closed in 1991)? I have no idea, perhaps the managers responsible for the great work moved on or priorities changed.
Ego and bluster is how software engineering research operated after the decline of Rome (I’m sure plenty of it occurred before and during Rome). A researcher or independent consultant had an idea about how they thought things worked (perhaps bolstered by a personal experience, not lots of data) and if their ego was big enough to think this idea was a good model of reality and they invest enough time blustering their way through workshop presentations and publishing papers, then the idea could become part of mainstream thinking in academia; no empirical evidence needed.
The start of the ego and bluster period could be said to be 1981, the year in which Software Engineering Economics by Barry Boehm was published, and 2008 as the end of the ego and bluster period (or at least the start of its decline) the year of publication of the 3rd edition of Applied Software Measurement by Capers Jones. Both books dress up tiny amounts of empirical data as ‘proof’ of the ideas being promoted.
Without measurement data researchers have to resort to bluster to hide the flimsy foundations of the claims being made, those with the biggest egos taking center stage. Commercial companies are loath to let outsiders measure what they are doing and very few measure what they are doing themselves (so even confidential data is rare). Most researchers moved onto other topics once they realised how little data was available or could be made available to them.
Around 2005, or so, the volume of papers using new empirical data started to grow and a trickle has now turned into a flood. Of course making use of empirical data does not prevent research papers being a complete waste of time and ego and bluster is still widely practiced (and not limited to software engineering).
While a variety of individuals and research groups around the world (sadly only individuals in the UK) are actively working on extracting and analysing open source systems, practical progress has been very slow. Researchers are still coming to grips with the basic characteristics of the data they are seeing.
The current legacy, in software engineering, of long standing beliefs (built on tiny datasets) is a big problem. Lots of researchers have not seen through the bluster and are spending lots of time and effort trying to accommodate the results they are obtaining with what are mistakenly taken to be ‘established’ theories. One example is “Program Evolution – Processes of Software Change” by Lehman and Belady, from the late 1970s. Researchers need to stop looking at Lehman’s ‘laws’ through rose tinted glasses; a modern paper making Lehman’s claims based on such a small set of measurements would be laughed.
Most of those now working with empirical data are students working towards a postgraduate degree, some of whom have gone on to get full-time research jobs. Unfortunately there are still many researchers applying the habits they acquired during the ego and bluster period; fit some old data using the latest fashionable technique, publish and quickly move on to the next fashionable technique. As Max Planck observed, science advances one funeral at a time.
What is the name should be given to this new period of software engineering research? We will probably have to wait many more years before things become clear.
Software Reliability is one report from the Rome period that is well worth checking out.
NASA sponsored research was hit and mostly miss. One very interesting sequence of experiments is documented in: Software reliability: Repetitive run experimentation and modeling and An experiment in software reliability.
Workshop on App Store Analysis
I was at the 36th CREST Open Workshop, on App Store Analysis, at the start of this week. The attendee list reads like a who’s who of academics researching App stores. What really stood out for me was the disconnect between my view of the software engineering aspects of developing mobile Apps and the view of many, but not all, academics in the room.
Divergent points of view on App development being different because… included:
Academics: they are written by a small number (often one) of developers.
Me: This was true in the early days of microprocessors and the web. When something new comes out only a small number of people are involved in it and few companies are willing to invest in setting up large development teams. If the new thing succeeds (i.e., there is money to be made) the money to create large teams will follow.
Academics: third party libraries make a significant contribution to functionality.
Me: This is true of a lot of web software and it is becoming more common for Apps on all platforms. It was not true in the past because the libraries were not available; Open Source changed all that.
Academics: they are not structured/written according to software engineering principles (someone in the room thought that waterfall was still widely used).
Me: This is true of most software produced by individuals who are writing something out of interest in their spare time or because they are not gainfully employed in ‘real’ work. When microcomputers were new the internal quality of most software on the market was truly appalling; it was primarily written by people who knew a market niche very well and taught themselves programming, the software sold because it addressed the needs to its customers and code quality was irrelevant (of course the successful products eventually needed to be maintained, which in when code quality became important, but they now had money to employ developers who knew about that kind of stuff).
Academics: the rapid rate of change (in tools and libraries etc) being experienced will continue into the foreseeable future.
Me: I was staggered that anyone could think this.
Academics: lots of money to be made for minimal investment:
Me: Those days are past.
Me: power drain issues (may) be a significant design issues.
Academics: Blank look.
Other things to report:
Various concerns raised by people who had encountered the viewpoint that mobile Apps were not considered worthy of serious academic study within software engineering; this point of view seemed to be changing. I don’t recall there every having been academic research groups targeting microcomputer software, but this certainly happened for web development.
I was a bit surprised at the rather rudimentary statistical techniques that were being used. But somebody is working on a book to change this.
Success: Software engineering data is starting to become very dull
A few years ago it was unusual for the author(s) of a paper in software engineering to make their data public (and on top of that it was rare to encounter a paper that actually made use of empirical data). The situation now is that I am having trouble keeping up with all the papers that include a link to downloadable data. Part of the problem is that I will pay a lot more attention to papers that come with data, having lived through a long famine I have not yet adjusted to the greater abundance. I’m sure that journal editors and referees are in the same boat and are being lured by accompanying data to accept paper for publication that they would otherwise have rejected.
This growing quantity of empirical software engineering data means we can now start thinking about what data is useful to have and what data is not so useful. Data is useful if it highlights a pattern of behavior that can be used to help reduce the resources needed to create/maintain software.
To get a handle on estimating data usefulness we need a model of research in software engineering. While many have used Physics as the model for software engineering research (i.e., a few simple universal laws that apply everywhere), I think Biology is a much better fit.
Software is written in different habitats environments (e.g., small teams, large teams) and targets different habitats environments (e.g., embedded, desktop, mobile, supercomputer) using different techniques and driven by different predators/prey market forces (e.g., release first/quickly, be reliable). Yes there are common drivers, just as the living things studied by biologists share a common need to eat, sleep and reproduce.
Like biology, the bulk of software engineering research is about the study of niche topics, with some small percentage of researchers trying to build theories that tie everything together at one level or another to create bigger pictures.
This model of software engineering research means estimating the usefulness of data probably requires some knowledge of the niche to which it applies. It also means that a particular data set might not be useful yet because it needs to be combined with other data, that does not yet exist (perhaps it was collected first because it was easier to do).
So in a space of a few years most software engineering data has gone from being very interesting (because it is rare) to being very dull (because it is harder to stand out in a crowd).
Recent Comments