Often, you will be told that programming languages do not matter much. What actually matters more is not clear; maybe tools, maybe methodology, maybe process. It is a pretty general rule that people arguing that language does not matter are simply trying to justify their use of bad languages.
Let us come back to the Apple bug of a few weeks ago. Only a few weeks; the world has already moved to Heartbleed, but that is not a reason to sweep away the memory of the Apple bug and the language design that it reflects.
In late February, users of iPhones, iPads and iPods were enjoined to upgrade their devices immediately because "an attacker with a privileged network position may capture or modify data in sessions protected by SSL/TLS." The bug was traced  to code of the following form:
In other words: just a duplicated line! (The extra line is highlighted above.) But the excess goto is beyond the scope of the preceding "if", so it is executed unconditionally: all executions go directly to the "fail" label, so that The_truly_important_code_handling_non_erroneous_case never gets executed.
Critics have focused their ire on the goto instruction, but it is of little relevance. What matters, language-wise, is the C/C++-Java-C# convention of delimiting the scope of conditional instructions, loops and other kinds of composite structures. Every component of such structures in these languages is syntactically a single instruction, so that:
Although elegant in principle (after all, it comes from Algol), this convention is disastrous from a software engineering perspective because software engineering means understanding that programs change. One day, a branch of a conditional or loop has one atomic instruction; sometime later, a maintainer realizes that the corresponding case requires more sophisticated treatment, and adds an instruction, but fails to add the braces.
The proper language solution is to do away with the notion of compound instruction as a separate concept, but simply expect all branches of composite instructions to consist of a sequence, which could consist of several instructions, just one, or none at all. In Eiffel, you will write
if c then
x := y
if c then
a := b
x := y
u := v
from i := 1 until c loop
a := b
i := i + 1
across my_list as l loop
and so on. This syntax also gets rid of all the noise that permeates languages retaining C's nineteen-sixties conventions: parentheses around the conditions, semicolons for instructions on different lines; these small distractions accumulate into big impediments to program readability.
With such a modern language design, the Apple bug could not have arisen. A duplicated line is either:
Some people, however, find it hard to accept the obvious responsibility of language design. Take this comment derisively entitled "the goto squirrel" by Dennis Hamilton in the ACM Risks forum :
It is amazing to me that, once the specific defect is disclosed (and the diff of the actual change has also been published), the discussion has devolved into one of coding style and whose code is better. I remember similar distractions around the Ariane 501 defect too, although in that case there was nothing wrong with the code—the error was that it was being run when it wasn't needed and it was not simulation tested with new launch parameters under the mistaken assumption that if the code worked for Ariane 4, it should work for Ariane 5.
It is not about the code. It is not about the code. It is not about goto. It is not about coming up with ways to avoid introducing this particular defect by writing the code differently.
Such certainty! While repeating a wrong statement ( "it is not about the code") may not be as catastrophic as repeating an instruction was in the code under discussion, the repetition does not make the statement right. Of course "it" is about the code. Given that if the code had been different the catastrophe would not have happened, one needs some gall to state that it is not about the code—and just as much gall, given that the catastrophe would also not have happened if the programming language had been different, to state that it is not about the programming language.
When Mr. Hamilton dismisses as "distractions" the explanations pointing to programming-related causes for the Ariane-5 disaster, I assume he has in mind the analysis which I published at the time with Jean-Marc Jézéquel , which explained in detail how the core issue was the absence of proper specifications (contracts). At that time too, we heard dismissive comments; according to one of the critics, the programming aspects did not count, since the whole thing was really a social problem: the French engineers in Toulouse did not communicate properly with their colleagues in England! What is great with such folk explanations is that they sound just right and please people because they reinforce existing stereotypes, and are by nature impossible to refute, just as they are impossible to prove. And they avoid raising the important but disturbing questions: were the teams using the right programming language, the right specification method (contracts, as we suggested), appropriate tools? In both the Ariane-5 and Apple cases, they were not.
If you want to be considered polite, you are not supposed to point out that the use of programming languages designed for the PDP-8 or some other long-gone machine is an invitation to disaster. The more terrible the programming language people use, and the more they know it is terrible (even if they will not admit it), the more scandalized they will be that you point out that it is, indeed, terrible. It is as if you had said something about their weight or the pimples on their cheeks. Such reactions do not make the comment less true. The expression of outrage is particularly inappropriate when technical choices are not just matters for technical argument, but have catastrophic consequences on society.
The usual excuse, in response to language criticisms, is that better tools, better quality control (the main recommendation of the Ariane-5 inquiry committee back in 1997), better methodology would also have avoided the problem. Indeed, a number of the other comments in the comp.risks discussion that includes Hamilton's dismissal of code  point in this direction, noting for example that static analyzers could have detected code duplication and unreachable instructions. These observations are all true, but change nothing to the role of programming languages and coding issues. One of the basic lessons from the study of software and other industrial disasters—see for example the work of Nancy Leveson—is that a disaster results from a combination of causes. This property is in fact easy to understand: a disaster coming from a single cause would most likely have been avoided. Consider the hypothetical example of a disastrous flaw in Amazon's transaction processing. It seems from various sources that Amazon processes something like 300 transactions a second. Now let us assume three independent factors, each occurring with a probability of a thousandth (10-3), which could contribute to a failure. Then:
These observations explain why post-mortem examinations of catastrophes always point to a seemingly impossible combination of unfortunate circumstances. The archduke went to Sarajevo and he insisted on seeing the wounded and someone forgot to tell the drivers about the prudent decision to bypass the announced itinerary and the convoy stalled and the assassin saw it and he hit Franz-Ferdinand right in the neck and there was nationalistic resentment in various countries and the system of alliances required countries to declare war . Same thing for industrial accidents. Same thing for the Apple bug: obviously, there were no good code reviews and no static analysis tools applied and no good management; and, obviously, a bad programming language that blows out innocent mistakes into disasters of planetary import.
So much for the accepted wisdom, heard again and again in software engineering circles, that code does not matter, syntax does not count, typos are caught right away, and that all we should care about is process or agility or requirements or some other high-sounding concern more respectable than programming. Code? Programming languages? Did we not take care of those years ago? "I remember similar distractions."
There is a positive conclusion to the "and" nature (in probabilistic terms, the multiplicative nature) of causes necessary to produce a catastrophe in practice: it suffices to get rid of one of the operands of the "and" to falsify its result, hence avoiding the catastrophe. When people tell you that code does not matter or that language does not matter, just understand the comment for what it really means, "I am ashamed of the programming language and techniques I use but do not want to admit it so I prefer to blame problems on the rest of the world", and make the correct deduction: use a good programming language.
 Paul Duckline: Anatomy of a "goto fail" - Apple's SSL bug explained, plus an unofficial patch for OS X!, Naked Security blog (Sophos), 24 February 2014, available here.
 Dennis E. Hamilton: The Goto Squirrel, ACM Risks Forum, 28 February 2014, available here.
 Jean-Marc Jézéquel and Bertrand Meyer: Design by Contract: The Lessons of Ariane, in Computer (IEEE), vol. 30, no. 1, January 1997, pages 129-130, available online here and, with reader responses here.
There's a great illustration of Mr. Meyer's concept of a posteriori probability in Stanislaw Lem's book "Hay Fever": he asks what is the chance of aiming a drop of water from the height of several kilometers so that it hits a nail on the surface of a table in his garden---of course such probability is zero. And yet, the entire table is wet in the first few seconds of rain.
While I agree that code does matter and that a different form of the if statement could have avoided this error, it seems to me that there was a simpler way of avoiding this and similar errors: paying attention to the compiler warnings. Any decent compiler would have warned that the code below the second goto is unreachable and paying attention to the compiler warnings would have alerted the programmer of the bug.
The argument presented here is valid and well laid out however the selection of a programming language to use on a project is never on the merits of the language. The decisions are made more from a business stance i.e. money. What can be used and cost the least! While the point is simply stated the decision is a complex one. Factors such as what language is most know (i.e. what do most developers know). What is my current code base written in (if there is one). What is the cost of tools needed.
As far as I can tell it is seen as a sign of maturity to "no longer" be so "naive" as to believe in technical solutions. It is certainly a necessary "qualification" in many organizations for advancing into higher positions, so this position is enforced, evidence be damned.
I had also adopted this group-think, until I discovered that in many cases, technical solutions are the correct answer, and no amount of soft-skills or organizational changes will get you there. Of course, those elements are also important, it is not an either-or situation, but more akin to the "holes in swiss cheese" model for aviation safety: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model
Of course, both code and language matter. The usual problem is that the pairing of programming language and project is poorly made, not that the chosen language is bad. If you choose an older language like C (because, for instance, that's what your only available teams knows), you need to incorporate extra steps to guard against making the kind of error the Apple team made. Don't blame the tool, blame the tool user.
Choosing "a good programming language" is more difficult than implied because just what constitutes a good language is still an open question. My sense is that the "convention of delimiting the scope of conditional instructions" is not the most relevant criterion. Any imperative language like C or its successors is problematic. What may be needed is a shift away from these lanugages and toward functional languages. But even a functional language can be poorly designed (e.g. violating the scope criteria of the essay) and not help prevent the kind of error made by the Apple team.
I agree to some extent with Patrice that programmers should pay attention to compiler warnings, but compiler warnings only occur because a language is not well defined in the first place – a well defined language has no need of warnings. Why are there warnings? Because after the language is defined it is noticed that certain patterns might indicate that the programmer is in error, but not necessarily. That “not necessarily” is a problem because it indicates something that is poorly defined.
In short, warnings cannot make up for a well-defined language and saying that programmers should pay attention to warnings is tantamount to saying process and methodology is more important that the language. By that logic, we could revert to assembler language and pay attention to the assembler’s warnings.
On a slightly different angle, Test-driven development (TDD) also says process and methodology is more important. I have recently put an article online addressing the shortfalls of TDD.
To some degree the myth that programming languages are not important has come about because most programming languages have not been designed by language design experts – hence the need to make up for their lack of expertise by tools such as compiler warnings, process, and methodology. For example, Plauger and Stroustrup were not language design experts before designing their languages and we have been living with the traps and pitfalls ever since. And yes C was a significant retrograde step from ALGOL and C++ a significant retrograde step on Simula. To those who are not language design experts, designing a programming language may not seem like so daunting a task, but indeed it is.
By contrast Professor Niklaus Wirth and Professor Meyer were language design experts before they designed their own languages. It is time to abandon the unprofessional attitude towards programming languages align with the silly arguments that go around and recognise the significant achievement of languages starting at ALGOL, through Pascal, Oberon, Simula, Ada, and Eiffel. Both Meyer and Wirth also learnt from the mistakes of earlier languages.
We should also consider Fred P. Brooks’s characterisation of software development techniques into essentials and accidentals in The Mythical Man Month. Clean language design is essential, process and methodology while important are accidentals. In No Silver Bullet Brooks states that the only development in software engineering that made an order of magnitude difference was high-level languages. This again indicates the importance of programming languages in the development process, and Bertrand Meyer is correct in his assessment of the situation.
Dear Bertrand, thanks for this paper. Excellent insight. We are too often concerning something almost irrelevant and missing the point that matter.
Displaying all 7 comments