In almost any book involving computer programmers, Ken Thompson would be the most famous, impressive, and respected name in the book. He's most famous for his work on Unix, but he's also quite well known for Plan 9, and for Multics, and for B, and for Belle, and for ed, and so on and so on. Many people feel that he gave the best Turing Award Lecture ever.
Here, however, we still have Chapter 15 to look forward to.
Still, the Thompson interview does not disappoint. Fairly early into the interview, it's obvious that we're listening to somebody who has programming in their blood:
I knew, in a deep sense, every line of code I ever wrote. I'd write a program during the day, and at night I'd sit there and walk through it line by line and find bugs. I'd go back the next day and, sure enough, it would be wrong.
If you've ever fixed a bug in the shower, or while riding your bike, or while playing basketball, you know instantly what Thompson means.
This ability to manipulate symbols in your mind is crucial to successful programming, and Thompson describes it well:
I can visualize the structure of programs and how things are efficient or inefficient based on those op codes, by seeing the bottom and imagining the hierarchy. And I can see the same thing with programs. If someone shows me library routines or basic bottom-level things, I can see how you can build that into different programs and what's missing -- the kinds of programs that would still be hard to write.
This ability to conceptualize a synthesis of various component parts into an integrated whole is the essence of what many people call "systems thinking" or "system design", or "software architecture". It's an extremely impressive skill when you see it done well.
Later in the interview Thompson tells a story that I, at least, had not heard before, about the very early design of Unix, and how he wasn't even intending to write an operating system:
A group of us sat down and talked about a file system.
So I went off and implemented this file system, strictly on a PDP-7. At some point I decided that I had to test it. So I wrote some load-generating stuff. But I was having trouble writing programs to drive the file system. You want something interactive.
Seibel: And you just wanted to play around with writing a file system? At that point you weren't planning to write an OS?
Thompson: No, it was just a file system.
Seibel: So you basically wrote an OS so you'd have a better environment to test your file system.
Thompson: Yes. Halfway through there that I realized it was a real time-sharing system.
I'm not really sure if I believe this story, but it was entertaining to read it.
Thompson describes his philosophy of identifying talented programmers:
It's just enthusiasm. You ask them what's the most interesting program they worked on. And then you get them to describe it and its algorithms and what's going on. If they can't withstand my questioning on their program, then they're not good. If I can attack them or find problems with their algorithms and their solutions and they can't defend it, being much more personally involved than I am, then no.
That's how I interview. I've been told that it's devastating to be on the receiving side of that.
I bet it is devastating!
I've been on both sides of such interviews. It's exhausting, although strangely enjoyable, to be on the receiving end of such questioning; it's exhausting, and often emotionally draining, to be the questioner. But it does seem to be a technique that works. Programming-in-the-large is all about finding groups of capable people who can communicate effectively about extraordinarily abstract topics, and I don't know any better way to do this than the one that Thompson describes.
It seems like Thompson has been drifting of late. He describes his work at Google:
Probably my job description -- whether I follow it or not, that's a different question -- would be just to find something to make life better. Or have some new idea of new stuff that replaces old stuff. Try to make it better. Whatever it is that's wrong, that takes time, that causes bugs.
In his defense, it can't be easy to join an organization such as Google and figure out how to effectively contribute.
A very interesting part of the Thompson interview comes near the end, when Seibel gets Thompson to talk about C++. After getting Thompson to describe the delicate working relationship he had with Stroustrup, Seibel gets Thompson to open up about the language itself:
It certainly has its good points. But by and large I think it's a bad language. It does a lot of things half well and it's just a garbage heap of ideas that are mutually exclusive. Everybody I know, whether it's personal or corporate, selects a subset and these subsets are different. So it's not a good language to transport an algorithm -- to say, "I wrote it; here, take it." It's way too big, way too complex. And it's obviously built by committee.
Thompson certainly lets us know how he feels!
But I spent nearly a decade working in C++, across several different companies and in several different domains, and the "subset" behavior that he describes is exactly true. No two uses of C++ ever seem to be the same, and it makes it strangely hard to move from one body of C++ to another body of C++ because even though they are all, at some level, written in the same language, any two libraries of C++ code always seem to be written in two different language.
I wished that the Thompson interview went on and on, and I'm glad that Seibel was able to include him in the book.