银弹和我们的职业发展有什么相干?很简单：我们得把时间用于学习解决本质困难。新技术给高手带来方便。菜鸟们却不用指望被新技术拯救。沿用以前的比喻， 一流的摄影师不会因为相机的更新换代而丢掉饭碗，反而可能借助先进技术留下传世佳作。因为摄影的本质困难，还是摄影师的艺术感觉。热门技术也就等于相机。 不停追新，学习这个框架，那个软件，好比成天钻研不同相机的说明书。而热门技术后的来龙去脉，才好比摄影技术。为什么推出这个框架?它解决了什么其它框架 不能解决的问题?它在哪里适用?它在哪里不适用?它用了什么新的设计?它改进了哪些旧的设计?Why is forever. 和 朋友聊天时提到Steve McConnell的《Professional Software Development》里面引了一个调查，说软件开发技术的半衰期20年。也就是说20年后我们现在知识里一半的东西过时。相当不坏。朋友打趣道：“应 该说20年后IT界一半的技术过时，我们学的过时技术远远超过这个比例。具体到某人，很可能5年他就废了”。话虽悲观，但可见选择学习内容的重要性。学习 本质技艺(技术迟早过时，技艺却常用长新)还有一好处，就是不用看着自己心爱的技术受到挑战的时候干嚎。C/C++过时就过时了呗，只要有其它的系统编程 语言。Java倒了就倒了呗，未必我不能用.NET?Ruby昙花一现又如何。如果用得不爽，换到其它动态语言就是了。J2EE被废了又怎样?未必我们就 做不出分布系统了?这里还举了更多的例子。

　　一句话，只有人是真正的银弹。职业发展的目标，就是把自己变成银弹。那时候，你就不再是人，而是人弹。

　　最后就以我在Bjarne的众多访谈当中摘录的一些关于如何学习C++(以及编程)的看法结束吧(没空逐段翻译了，只将其中我觉得最重要的几段译了一下，当然，其它也很重要，这些段落是在Bjarne的所有采访稿中摘抄出来的，所以强烈建议都过目一下)：

　　I suspect that people think too little about what they want to build, too little about what would make it correct, and too much about "efficiency" and following fashions of programming style. The key questions are always: "what do I want to do?" and "how do I know that I have done if?". Strategies for testing enters into my concerns from well before I write the firat line of code, and that despite my view that you have to write code very early - rather than wait until a design is complete.

　　译：我感觉人们过多关注了所谓“效率”以及跟随编程风格的潮流，却严重忽视了本不该被忽视的问题，如“我究竟想要构建什么样的系统”、“怎样才能使它正确”。最关键的问题永远是：“我究竟想要做什么?”和“如何才能知道我的系统是否已经完成了呢?”就拿我来说吧，我会在编写第一行代码之前就考虑测试方案，而且这还是在我关于应当早于设计完成之前就进行编码的观点的前提之下。

　　Obviously, C++ is very complex. Obviously, people get lost. However, most peple get lost when they get diverted into becoming language lawyers rather than getting lost when they have a clear idea of what they want to express and simply look at C++ language features to see how to express it. Once you know data absreaction, class hierarchies (object-oriented programming), and parameterization with types (generic programming) in a fairly general way, the C++ language features fall in place.

　　译：诚然，C++非常复杂。诚然，人们迷失其中了。然而问题是，大多数人不是因为首先对自己想要表达什么有了清晰的认识只不过在去C++语言中搜寻合适的语言特性时迷失的，相反，大多数人是在不觉成为语言律师的路上迷失在细节的丛林中的。事实是，只需对数据抽象、类体系结构(OOP)以及参数化类型(GP)有一个相当一般层面的了解，C++纷繁的语言特性也就清晰起来了。

　　Well, I don't think I made such a trade-off. I want elegant and efficient code. Sometimes I get it. These dichotomies (between efficiency versus correctness, efficiency versus programmer time, efficiency versus high-level, et cetera.) are bogus.

　　I think the real problem is that "we" (that is, we software developers) are in a permanent state of emergency, grasping at straws to get our work done. We perform many minor miracles through trial and error, excessive use of brute force, and lots and lots of testing, but--so often--it's not enough.

　　Software developers have become adept at the difficult art of building reasonably reliable systems out of unreliable parts. The snag is that often we do not know exactly how we did it: a system just "sort of evolved" into something minimally acceptable. Personally, I prefer to know when a system will work, and why it will.

　　There are more useful systems developed in languages deemed awful than in languages praised for being beautiful--many more. The purpose of a programming language is to help build good systems, where "good" can be defined in many ways. My brief definition is, correct, maintainable, and adequately fast. Aesthetics matter, but first and foremost a language must be useful; it must allow real-world programmers to express real-world ideas succinctly and affordably.

　　I'm sure that for every programmer that dislikes C++, there is one who likes it. However, a friend of mine went to a conference where the keynote speaker asked the audience to indicate by show of hands, one, how many people disliked C++, and two, how many people had written a C++ program. There were twice as many people in the first group than the second. Expressing dislike of something you don't know is usually known as prejudice. Also, complainers are always louder and more certain than proponents--reasonable people acknowledge flaws. I think I know more about the problems with C++ than just about anyone, but I also know how to avoid them and how to use C++'s strengths.

　　In any case, I don't think it is true that the programming languages are so difficult to learn. For example, every first-year university biology textbook contains more details and deeper theory than even an expert-level programming-language book. Most applications involve standards, operating systems, libraries, and tools that far exceed modern programming languages in complexity. What is difficult is the appreciation of the underlying techniques and their application to real-world problems. Obviously, most current languages have many parts that are unnecessarily complex, but the degree of those complexities compared to some ideal minimum is often exaggerated.

　　We need relatively complex language to deal with absolutely complex problems. I note that English is arguably the largest and most complex language in the world (measured in number of words and idioms), but also one of the most successful.

　　C++ provides a nice, extended case study in the evolutionary approach. C compatibility has been far harder to maintain than I or anyone else expected. Part of the reason is that C has kept evolving, partially guided by people who insist that C++ compatibility is neither necessary nor good for C. Another reason-- probably even more important--is that organizations prefer interfaces that are in the C/C++ subset so that they can support both languages with a single effort. This leads to a constant pressure on users not to use the most powerful C++ features and to myths about why they should be used "carefully," "infrequently," or "by experts only." That, combined with backwards-looking teaching of C++, has led to many failures to reap the potential benefits of C++ as a high-level language with powerful abstraction mechanisms.

　　The question is how deeply integrated into the application those system dependencies are. I prefer the application to be designed conceptually in isolation from the underlying system, with an explicitly defined interface to "the outer world," and then integrated through a thin layer of interface code.

　　Had I had a chance to name the style of programming I like best, it would have been "class-oriented programming", but then I'm not particularly good at finding snappy names. The school of thought that I belong to - rooted in Simula and related design philosophies - emphasizes the role of compile-time checking and flexible (static) type systems. Reasoning about the behavior of a program has to be rooted in the (static) structure of the source code. The focus should be on guarantees, invariant, etc. which are closely tied to that static structure. This is the only way I know to effectively deal with correctness. Testing is essential but cannot be systematic and complete without a good internal program structure - simple-minded blackbox testing of any significant system is infeasible because of the exponential explosion of states.

　　So, I recommend people to think in terms of class invariants, exception handling guarantees, highly structured resource management, etc. I should add that I intensely dislike debugging (as ah hoc and unsystematic) and strongly prefer reasoning about source code and systematic testing.

　　Pros: flexibility, generality, performance, portability, good tool support, available on more platforms than any competitor except C, access to hardware and system resources, good availability of programmers and designers. Cons: complexity, sub-optimal use caused by poor teaching and myths.

 
　
说明：本教程来源互联网或网友上传或出版商，仅为学习研究或媒体推广，wanshiok.com不保证资料的完整性。
　

 2/2   首页 上一页 1 2