I learned to program in C more than fourteen years ago. The first program that was taught in our class was the "hello world" program. It really had no practical use. I believe it was shown as an example to show the students the different parts of a program and how to compile and run it.
When I was learning the syntax and semantics of the language, I didn't really care how my program "looked". As long as it worked and solved the problem, I was happy and contented with it. My attitude was understandable given that I focused on finishing the programming task and solving the problem. Completing the problem was already hard so there was really no time left to think about whether the codes I've written were pleasing to me or to my teacher or to anyone else who would bother to read it. (I later realized that writing programs in "bad style" actually made the debugging harder.)
As I became more involved in programming, I was not just happy that my program worked according to the specs but also became concerned about its aesthetics. As I read the codes I have previously written, I discovered that if I've written it better, it would have been easier to understand and debug it. I also felt embarrassed about the codes and really didn't want to share it because it looked like the worst piece of code ever written.
Programming with style became more of a natural evolution for me. Little by little, I created "coding conventions" to make it easier for myself to understand the codes I've written. The conventions included several things such as formatting, variable naming, function naming, and file organization among other things. I believe it's part of being human to try to organize things to create order and understanding. Programming style is some sort of manifestation of this urge to create order and understanding. Don't you find it frustrating to read codes that have no apparent organization or order?
Friday, November 21, 2008
Financial Karma?
Several months ago, around July 2008 if my memory is correct, oil prices soared close to US$150 per barrel. Prior to that, OPEC announced in several instances that its member countries were raising oil production to cope up with increasing demand and therefore ease the price. However, its pronouncements did not really cause oil price to go down. In fact, the uptrend continued for several months until the financial meltdown.
Industry analysts claimed that OPEC did not really have control of the oil price at that time. While the demand was indeed high because of China and India’s economic expansion, speculative trading in the United States commodities market also contributed significantly to the soaring oil price. Conspiracy theorists pointed at the big US investment banks (some of which have already collapsed) as the ones controlling the price of crude oil. They said that these investment banks placed a lot of money on oil contracts trading, distorting its price and in the process enriching oil-exporting countries while causing misery on most parts of the world.
If the report about the US asking US$300 billion from some oil-rich Gulf States to rescue its troubled financial system is true, then is it the law of karma catching up to balance the system?
Industry analysts claimed that OPEC did not really have control of the oil price at that time. While the demand was indeed high because of China and India’s economic expansion, speculative trading in the United States commodities market also contributed significantly to the soaring oil price. Conspiracy theorists pointed at the big US investment banks (some of which have already collapsed) as the ones controlling the price of crude oil. They said that these investment banks placed a lot of money on oil contracts trading, distorting its price and in the process enriching oil-exporting countries while causing misery on most parts of the world.
If the report about the US asking US$300 billion from some oil-rich Gulf States to rescue its troubled financial system is true, then is it the law of karma catching up to balance the system?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The Pink Color
I have nothing against pink but I must admit that I'm not a big fan of this color.
While the "pinkitization" of Metro Manila (courtesy of MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando) may be gratifying for some including BF himself, I'm one of those aghast over the choice of this color. True, it is quite petty on me to pick on this seemingly petty issue.
But the reason why I’m venting my frustration is not that pink is aesthetically gross but because someone imposed his petty preference. Now either I or that person is pettier. I do admire BF’s style of leadership. He managed to impose some order on the chaotic streets of Metro Manila. He rightly brought back the sidewalks to the pedestrians. But imposing the use of pink? Quite petty.
While the "pinkitization" of Metro Manila (courtesy of MMDA Chairman Bayani Fernando) may be gratifying for some including BF himself, I'm one of those aghast over the choice of this color. True, it is quite petty on me to pick on this seemingly petty issue.
But the reason why I’m venting my frustration is not that pink is aesthetically gross but because someone imposed his petty preference. Now either I or that person is pettier. I do admire BF’s style of leadership. He managed to impose some order on the chaotic streets of Metro Manila. He rightly brought back the sidewalks to the pedestrians. But imposing the use of pink? Quite petty.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
IT and Education in the Third World
I was fortunate to listen to a talk by Rajesh Reddy on how to exploit information technology to improve the lives of people in third world countries. Rajesh is a recipient of the Turing Prize, probably the most prestigious award in the field of computing.
What interested me the most was his discussion on the "digital divide" and his experience in using IT to uplift the educational standard in rural India. I could easily relate to his talk as I came from the Philippines where the same conditions exist. Indeed, access to IT boils down to the "haves and have nots" issue.
Obviously, the rich can easily afford computers and other things such as Internet subscription while the poor struggles to have three meals a day. One may ask therefore: Is it morally correct to spend money on information technology instead of food or other basic necessities? This question becomes more imperative given the limited monetary resources of poor countries.
This question is difficult to answer than one might think. We could easily say that the government must prioritize expenditure on basic necessities and leave IT to the private sector. But this answer is myopic. For one, as the world increasingly becomes dependent on information and communications technology, future jobs will require higher levels of IT literacy and skills. If the government does not spend on IT literacy for the poor, they will be highly disadvantaged in the near future.
Another area where IT is becoming increasingly important is education. Private schools are using computers from elementary school levels to complement traditional teaching methods. Again, if the government does not spend on computers for public schools, students from public schools will lose from their counterparts from private schools.
Information technology is indeed important. It is imperative for the government to keep the digital divide narrow by spending on IT especially for the poor.
What interested me the most was his discussion on the "digital divide" and his experience in using IT to uplift the educational standard in rural India. I could easily relate to his talk as I came from the Philippines where the same conditions exist. Indeed, access to IT boils down to the "haves and have nots" issue.
Obviously, the rich can easily afford computers and other things such as Internet subscription while the poor struggles to have three meals a day. One may ask therefore: Is it morally correct to spend money on information technology instead of food or other basic necessities? This question becomes more imperative given the limited monetary resources of poor countries.
This question is difficult to answer than one might think. We could easily say that the government must prioritize expenditure on basic necessities and leave IT to the private sector. But this answer is myopic. For one, as the world increasingly becomes dependent on information and communications technology, future jobs will require higher levels of IT literacy and skills. If the government does not spend on IT literacy for the poor, they will be highly disadvantaged in the near future.
Another area where IT is becoming increasingly important is education. Private schools are using computers from elementary school levels to complement traditional teaching methods. Again, if the government does not spend on computers for public schools, students from public schools will lose from their counterparts from private schools.
Information technology is indeed important. It is imperative for the government to keep the digital divide narrow by spending on IT especially for the poor.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The 2008 Financial Crisis: A Techie's View
The month of October this year was truly eventful especially for the world-wide financial sector. We all witnessed the collapse of several U.S. financial institutions and the panic selling in the stock markets all over the world.
But what really caused the financial crisis? Many said it was the sub-prime credit market in the U.S. Others said it was the legislation that allowed banks to package mortgages as securities that can be bought by investors all over the world. Main Street claimed it was the greed of Wall Street. Wall Street claimed it was the dishonesty of Main Street in declaring their financial capacity when securing bank loans. Whatever the cause may be, one thing is for sure: investors lost billions of dollars in a very short span of time.
From my point of view, all of these factors contributed to the crisis. Another factor that I believe played a key role in the dramatic market collapse is information technology. IT essentially caused the "flattening" and "widening" of the trading structure in financial markets especially stock markets. The flattening effect allowed people all over the world with access to Internet to easily trade without intermediaries or traditional brokers. This lead to unprecedented levels in buying and selling. As an analogy, the flattening allowed more people to go "in" and "out" of the door with ease.
The widening effect of IT enabled the trading of unprecedented volumes of shares in a very short span of time. Computers handle buy or sell orders with amazing speed and efficiency not possible with manual trading. As such, traders were able trade huge volumes in a very short span of time. As an analogy, the widening made the doors very big.
In a panic situation such as what happened, the flattening and widening of stock market trading allowed tremendous number of people to rush out of the very big doors in a very short span of time. It magnified panic selling as it became very efficient and quick to sell (without thinking) causing markets to tumble in a jiffy.
Of course, IT that was also one of the factors that made the stock markets to rise to record levels several months ago. In other words, information technology magnified both the greed and fear of human beings.
But what really caused the financial crisis? Many said it was the sub-prime credit market in the U.S. Others said it was the legislation that allowed banks to package mortgages as securities that can be bought by investors all over the world. Main Street claimed it was the greed of Wall Street. Wall Street claimed it was the dishonesty of Main Street in declaring their financial capacity when securing bank loans. Whatever the cause may be, one thing is for sure: investors lost billions of dollars in a very short span of time.
From my point of view, all of these factors contributed to the crisis. Another factor that I believe played a key role in the dramatic market collapse is information technology. IT essentially caused the "flattening" and "widening" of the trading structure in financial markets especially stock markets. The flattening effect allowed people all over the world with access to Internet to easily trade without intermediaries or traditional brokers. This lead to unprecedented levels in buying and selling. As an analogy, the flattening allowed more people to go "in" and "out" of the door with ease.
The widening effect of IT enabled the trading of unprecedented volumes of shares in a very short span of time. Computers handle buy or sell orders with amazing speed and efficiency not possible with manual trading. As such, traders were able trade huge volumes in a very short span of time. As an analogy, the widening made the doors very big.
In a panic situation such as what happened, the flattening and widening of stock market trading allowed tremendous number of people to rush out of the very big doors in a very short span of time. It magnified panic selling as it became very efficient and quick to sell (without thinking) causing markets to tumble in a jiffy.
Of course, IT that was also one of the factors that made the stock markets to rise to record levels several months ago. In other words, information technology magnified both the greed and fear of human beings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)