Once upon a time, in a kingdom not far from here, a king summoned two of his advisors for a test. He showed them both a shiny metal box with two slots in the top, a control knob and a lever.

“What do you think this is?”

One advisor, an engineer, answered first. “It is a toaster,” he said.

The king asked, “How would you design an embedded computer for it?”

The engineer replied, “Using a four-bit microcontroller, I would write a simple program that reads the darkness knob and quantizes its position to one of 16 shades of darkness, from snow white to coal black. The program would use that darkness level as the index to a 16-element table of initial timer values. Then it would turn on the heating elements and start the timer with the initial value selected from the table. At the end of the time delay, it would turn off the heat and pop up the toast. Come back next week, and I’ll show you a working prototype.”

The second advisor, a computer scientist, immediately recognized the danger of such short-sighted thinking. He said, "Toasters don’t just turn bread into toast, they are also used to warm frozen waffles. What you see before you is really a breakfast food cooker. As the subjects of your kingdom become more sophisticated, they will demand more capabilities. They will need a breakfast food cooker that can also cook sausage, fry bacon, and make scrambled eggs. A toaster that only makes toast will soon be obsolete. If we don’t look to the future, we will have to completely redesign the toaster in just a few years.

With this in mind, we can formulate a more intelligent solution to the problem. First, create a class of breakfast foods. Specialize this class into subclasses: grains, pork and poultry. The specialization process should be repeated with grains divided into toast, muffins, pancakes and waffles; pork divided into sausage, links and bacon; and poultry divided into scrambled eggs, hard-boiled eggs, poached eggs, fried eggs, and various omelet classes.

The ham and cheese omelet class is worth special attention because it must inherit characteristics from the pork, dairy and poultry classes. Thus, we see that the problem cannot be properly solved without multiple inheritance. At run time, the program must create the proper object and send a message to the object that says, ‘Cook yourself’. The semantics of this message depend, of course, on the kind of object, so they have a different meaning to a piece of toast than to scrambled eggs.

Reviewing the process so far, we see that the analysis phase has revealed that the primary requirement is to cook any kind of breakfast food. In the design phase, we have discovered some derived requirements. Specifically, we need an object-oriented language with multiple inheritance. Of course, users don’t want the eggs to get cold while the bacon is frying, so concurrent processing is required, too.

We must not forget the user interface. The lever that lowers the food lacks versatility and the darkness knob is confusing. Users won’t buy the product unless it has a user-friendly, graphical interface.

When the breakfast cooker is plugged in, users should see a cowboy boot on the screen. Users click on it and the message ‘Booting UNIX v. 8.3’ appears on the screen. (UNIX 8.3 should be out by the time the product gets to the market.) Users can pull down a menu and click on the foods they want to cook.

Having made the wise decision of specifying the software first in the design phase, all that remains is to pick an adequate hardware platform for the implementation phase. An Intel 80386 with 8MB of memory, a 30MB hard disk and a VGA monitor should be sufficient. If you select a multitasking, object oriented language that supports multiple inheritance and has a built-in GUI, writing the program will be a snap. (Imagine the difficulty we would have had if we had foolishly allowed a hardware-first design strategy to lock us into a four-bit microcontroller!)."

The king had the computer scientist thrown in the moat, and they all lived happily ever after.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    1 year ago

    No computer scientist I know would ever advocate for that GUI. Our toaster would be five days from the project deadline and we’d just say “Users like command line interfaces right? I do… and I’m a user… so yeah, let’s just slap a CLI on this puppy, throw open the telnet port and call it a day.”

    At most you might get me to write an ncurses interface.

  • HighJudge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    Obviously this joke was written by someone who’s very pro-engineer, and hasn’t worked with very many computer scientists. You want something done as quickly as possible? Get a Dev to look at the project. This response would be by someone in project management or sales.

    • 257m@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is an old joke from Hacker’s Wisdom. I believe it was first posted on Usenet although the exact origins are unknown.

    • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Computer scientist code is some of the “worst” code that exists because it usually needs to do one thing well enough to produce a set of findings that support or reject some thesis.

  • theDoctor@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pretty sure the 2nd advisor isn’t actually a computer scientist/developer or if they are they are absolutely employed as Technical Sales for a consulting company. Otherwise their answer would have looked incredibly similar.