Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
is “attached” to the team rather than to the individual. 56 By opening up
the programming process to self-refl ection and criticism, the egoless
(or adaptive) programming model would increase effi ciency, eliminate
errors, and enhance communication—all without inhibiting the creative
abilities of programmers.
Although egoless programming represented a relatively radical depar-
ture from traditional software development methodologies, it was predi-
cated on fairly conventional notions about the nature of programming
ability. For Weinberg, there was little doubt that the majority of people
in programming were detached personality types who preferred to be left
to themselves. This tendency toward detachment was reinforced “both
by personal choice and because hiring policies for programmers are often
directed toward fi nding such people.” 57 This detachment from people
often led programmers to become excessively attached to their products.
The “abominable practice” of attaching their names to their software
(as in Jules' Own Version of the International Algebraic Language, better
known as the JOVIAL programming language) offered evidence of the
programmer's inability to disassociate themselves from their creations.
The JOVIAL programming language was created for the U.S. Air Force
in the late 1950s by the SDC. As it was to be a variant of the International
Algebraic Language (eventually renamed ALGOL), it was suggested that
it be called OVIAL (Our Own Version of the International Algebraic
Language), but since OVIAL apparently had “a connotation relative to
the birth process that did not seem acceptable to some people,” the name
was soon changed to JOVIAL. It was later decided that the J in JOVIAL
would stand for Jules Schwartz, one of the programmers involved in the
project. Hence, Jules' Own Version of the International Algebraic
Language. This proprietary sense of ownership on the part of the creator
was not necessarily an unusual or even undesirable tendency; after all,
artists “owned” paintings, authors “owned books,” and architects
“owned” buildings. In many cases these attributions led to the admira-
tion and emulation of good workers by lesser ones. What was different
about computer programs, however, was that they were owned exclu-
sively by their creators. Good programs, unlike good literature, were
never read by anyone other than the author. Thus, according to Weinberg,
“the admiration of individual programmers cannot lead to an emulation
of their work, but only to an affectation of their mannerisms.” 58 Junior
programmers were unable to benefi t from the wisdom and experience of
their superiors. The only thing available to emulate was their manner-
isms. The result was the perpetuation of bad work habits and personal
Search WWH ::




Custom Search