Tag Archives: Software

Coining the word “software”

softwaredefn

Computing pioneer Paul Niquette’s memoir begins with the tale of how he came to coin the term software in 1953 — to the ridicule of his colleagues — and how the idea of a computer whose code was separate from its machinery took hold and changed the way we think about computing forever.

When I first said `software’ out loud, people around me said, “Huh?” From the very beginning I found the word too informal to write and often embarrassing to say. Nevertheless, with smirking trepidation I did occasionally feature the word `software’ in speeches and lectures and media interviews throughout the fifties.

It was just a throw-away thing. The word `software’ was hardly my most notable invention, even back then. Nothing to write home about (I was only 19 years old and still living at home). The word `software’ did not belong in a technical paper (besides, an undergraduate is but a ghostwriter for principal researchers). Then too, I had a reputation at UCLA as a practical joker. Colleagues and friends simply shrugged, no doubt regarding each utterance as a tiresome prank or worse, another offbeat neologism, for which I was also becoming noted.

Nobody in 1953 would have guessed that the silly word would take hold, that within a few decades `software’ would enter the general vocabulary for products and for professions — that a worldwide industry would wear it as a solemn name. You can be sure that if my ego and I had harbored any such glorious visions, then…then, what?

 
(reblogged from Boing Boing)

Tagged , , ,

Ten Simple Rules for Reproducible Computational Research

In a paper published last week in PLoS Computational Biology, Sandve, Nekrutenko, Taylor and Hovig highlight the issue of replication across the computational sciences. The dependence on software libraries, APIs and toolchains, coupled with massive amounts of data, interdisciplinary approaches and the increasing complexity of the questions being asked are complicating replication efforts.

To address this, they present ten simple rules for reproducibility of computational research:

Rule 1: For Every Result, Keep Track of How It Was Produced

Rule 2: Avoid Manual Data Manipulation Steps

Rule 3: Archive the Exact Versions of All External Programs Used

Rule 4: Version Control All Custom Scripts

Rule 5: Record All Intermediate Results, When Possible in Standardized Formats

Rule 6: For Analyses That Include Randomness, Note Underlying Random Seeds

Rule 7: Always Store Raw Data behind Plots

Rule 8: Generate Hierarchical Analysis Output, Allowing Layers of Increasing Detail to Be Inspected

Rule 9: Connect Textual Statements to Underlying Results

Rule 10: Provide Public Access to Scripts, Runs, and Results

The rationale underpinning these rules clearly resonates with the work of the Software Sustainability Institute: better science through superior software. Based at the universities of Edinburgh, Manchester, Oxford and Southampton, it is a national facility for cultivating world-class research through software (for example, Software Carpentry). An article that caught my eye in July was the Recomputation Manifesto: computational experiments should be recomputable for all time. In light of the wider open data and open science agenda, should we also be thinking about open software and open computation?

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Beware of bugs

Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.

Donald Knuth (in 1977; explanation here)

Tagged , ,

Null References: “My Billion Dollar Mistake”

I call it my billion-dollar mistake. It was the invention of the null reference in 1965. At that time, I was designing the first comprehensive type system for references in an object oriented language (ALGOL W). My goal was to ensure that all use of references should be absolutely safe, with checking performed automatically by the compiler. But I couldn’t resist the temptation to put in a null reference, simply because it was so easy to implement. This has led to innumerable errors, vulnerabilities, and system crashes, which have probably caused a billion dollars of pain and damage in the last forty years. In recent years, a number of program analysers like PREfix and PREfast in Microsoft have been used to check references, and give warnings if there is a risk they may be non-null. More recent programming languages like Spec# have introduced declarations for non-null references. This is the solution, which I rejected in 1965.

Tony Hoare (speaking at QCon London 2009)

Tagged , ,

Creating simple software systems

There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult.

Tony Hoare

Tagged , , ,