Programming

No-one loves bad ideas

Charles Arthur has an interesting piece of post-Guardian vented frustration on his blog. His argument about developers and journalists sitting together is part-bonkers opinion and partly correct. Coders and journalists are generally working on different timeframes and newsroom developers generally don’t focus enough on friction in the tools that they are creating for journalists.

Journalists however focus too much on the deadline and the frenzy of the news cycle. I often think newsroom developers are a lot like the street sweepers who clean up after a particularly exuberant street market. Everything has to be tidied up and put neatly away before the next day’s controlled riot takes place.

The piece of the article I found most interesting was something very personal though. The central assumption that runs through Arthur’s narrative is that it is valuable to let readers pre-order computer games via Amazon. One of the pieces of work I’ve done at the Guardian is to study the value of the Amazon links in the previous generation of the Guardian website. I can’t talk numbers but the outcome was that the expense of me looking at how much money was earned resulted in all the “profits” being eaten up by cost of my time. You open the box but the cat is always dead.

Similarly Arthur’s Quixotic quest meant that he spent more money in developer’s time than the project could ever possibly earn. Amazon referrals require huge volumes to be anything other than a supplement to an individual’s income.

His doomed attempt to get people to really engage with his idea really reflected the doomed nature of the idea. British journalism favours action and instinct and sometimes that combination generates results. Mostly however it just fails and regardless of whom is sitting next to whom, who can get inspired by a muddle-minded last-minute joyride on the Titanic except deadline-loving action junkies?

Standard
Programming

Programming as Pop Culture

The “programming is pop culture” quote has been doing the rounds from a 2004 interview with Alan Kay in terms of the debate on the use of craft as a metaphor for development. Here’s a recap:

…as computing spread out much, much faster than educating unsophisticated people can happen. In the last 25 years or so, we actually got something like a pop culture, similar to what happened when television came on the scene and some of its inventors thought it would be a way of getting Shakespeare to the masses. But they forgot that you have to be more sophisticated and have more perspective to understand Shakespeare. What television was able to do was to capture people as they were.

On the face of it this is a snotty quote from someone who feels overlooked; but then I am exactly one of those unsophisticated people who entered a democratised medium and is now rediscovering the past!

As a metaphor though in trying analyse how programmers talk and think about their work and the way that development organisations organise what they do then the idea that programming is pop culture is powerful, relevant and useful.

I don’t necessarily think that pop culture is necessarily derogatory. However in applying it to programming I think that actually you have to accept that it is negative. Regular engineering for example doesn’t discuss the nature of its culture, it is much more grounded in reality, the concrete and stolen sky as Locke puts it.

Architecture though, while serious, ancient and storied is equally engaged in its own pop culture. After all this is the discipline that created post-modernism.

There are two elements to programming pop culture that I think are worth discussing initially: fashion and justification by existence.

A lot of things exist in the world of programming purely because they are possible: Brainfuck, CSS versions of the Simpsons, obfuscated C. These are the programming equivalent of the Ig Nobles, weird fringe activities that contribute little to the general practice of programming.

However ever since the earliest demoscene there has been a tendency to push programming to extremes and from there to playful absurdity. These artifacts are justified through existence alone. If they have an audience then they deserve to exist, like all pop culture.

Fashion though is the more interesting pop culture prism through which we can investigate programming. Programming is extremely faddish in the way it adopts and rejects ideas and concepts. Ideas start out as scrappy insurgents, gain wider acceptance and then are co-opted by the mainstream, losing the support of their initial advocates.

Whether it is punk rock or TDD the patterns of invention, adoption and rejection are the same. Little in the qualitative nature of ideas such as NoSQL and SOA changes but the idea falls out of favour usually at a rate proportional to the fervour with which it was initially adopted.

Alpha geeks are inherently questors for the new and obscure, the difference between them and regular programmers is their guru-like ability to ferret out the new and exciting before anyone else. However their status and support creates an enthusiasm for things. They are tastemakers, not critics.

Computing in general has such fast cycles of obsolescence that I think its adoption of pop culture mores is inevitable. It is difficult to articulate a consistent philosophical position and maintain it for years when the field is in constant churn and turmoil. Programmers tend to attach to concrete behaviour and tools rather than abstract approaches. In this I have sympathy for Alan Kay’s roar of pain.

I see all manner of effort invested in CSS spriting that is entirely predicated on the behaviour of HTTP 1.1 and which will all have to be changed and undone when the new version HTTP changes file downloading. Some who didn’t need the micro-optimisation in initial download time will have better off if they ignored the advice and waiting for the technology to improve.

When I started programming professional we were at the start of a golden period of Moore’s Law where writing performant code mainframe-style was becoming irrelevant. Now at the end of that period we still don’t need to write performant code, we just want easy ways to execute it in parallel.

For someone who loves beautiful, efficient code the whole last decade and a half is just painful.

But just as in music, technical excellence doesn’t fill stadiums. People go crazy for terrible but useful products and to a lesser degree for beautiful but useless products.

We rediscover the wisdom of the computer science of the Sixties and Seventies only when we are forced to in the quest to find some new way to solve our existing problems.

Understanding programming as pop culture actually makes it easier to work with developers and software communities than trying to apply an inappropriate intellectual, academic, industrial or engineering paradigms. If we see the adoption, or fetishism, of the new as a vital and necessary part of deciding on a solution then we will not be frustrated with change for its own sake. Rather than scorning over-engineering and product ivory towers we can celebrate them as the self-justifying necessities of excess that are the practical way that we move forward in pop culture.

We will not be disappointed in the waste involved in recreating systems that have the same functionality implemented in different ways. We will see it as a contemporary revitalisation of the past that makes it more relevant to programmers now.

We will also stop decrying things as the “new Spring” or “new Ruby on Rails”. We can still say that something is clearly referencing a predecessor but we see the capacity for the homage to actually put right the flaws in its ancestor.

Pop culture isn’t a bad thing. Pop culture in programming isn’t a bad thing. But it is a very different vision of our profession that the one we have been trying to sell ourselves, but as Kay says maybe it better captures who we really are.

Standard
Software

In praise of fungible developers

The “fungibility” of developers is a bit of hot topic at the moment. Fungibility means the ability to substitute one thing for another for the same effect; so money is fungible for goods in modern economies.

In software development that means taking a developer in one part of the organisation and substituting them elsewhere and not impacting the productivity of either developer involved in the exchange.

This is linked to the mythical “full-stack” developer by the emergence of different “disciplines” within web software development, usually these are: devops, client-side (browser-based development) and backend development (services).

It is entirely possible for developers to enter one of these niches and spend all their time in it. In fact sub-specialisations in things like responsive CSS and single-page apps (SPA) are opening up.

Now my view has always been that a developer should always aspire to have as broad a knowledge base as possible and to be able to turn their hand to anything. I believe when you don’t really understand what is going on around your foxhole then problems occur. Ultimately we are all pushing electric pulse-waves over wires and chips and it is worth remembering that.

However my working history was pretty badly scarred by the massive wave of Indian outsourcing that happened post the year 2000 and as a consequence the move up the value-chain that all the remaining onshore developers made. Chad Fowler’s book is a pretty good summary of what happened and how people reacted to it.

For people getting specialist pay for niche work, full-stack development doesn’t contain much attraction. Management sees fungibility as a convenient way of pushing paper resources around projects and then blaming developers for not delivering. There are also some well-written defences of specialisation.

In defence of broad skills

But I still believe that we need full-stack developers and if you don’t like that title then let’s call them holistic developers.

Organisations do need fungibility. Organisations without predictable demand or who are experiencing disruption in their business methodology need to be flexible and they need to respond to situations that are unexpected.

You also need to fire drill those situations where people leave, fall ill or have a family crisis. Does the group fall apart or can it readjust and continue to deliver value? In any organisation you never know when you need to change people round at short notice.

Developers with a limited skill set are likely to make mistakes that someone with a broader set of experiences wouldn’t. It is also easier for a generalist developer to acquire specialist knowledge when needed than to broaden a specialist.

Encouraging specialism is the same as creating knowledge silos in your organisation. There are times when this might be acceptable but if you aren’t doing it in a conscious way and accompanying it with a risk assessment then it is dangerous.

Creating holistic developers

Most organisations have an absurd reward structure that massively benefits specialists rather than generalists. You can see that in iOS developer and mobile responsive web CSS salaries. The fact that someone is less capable than their colleagues means they are rewarded more. This is absurd and it needs to end.

Specialists should be treated like contractors and consultants. They have special skills but you should be codifying their knowledge and having them train their generalist colleagues. A specialist should be seen as a short-term investment in an area where you lack institutional memory and knowledge.

All software delivery organisations should practice rotation. Consider it a Chaos Monkey for your human processes.

Rotation puts things like onboarding processes to the test. It also brings new eyes to the solution and software design of the team. If something is simple it should make sense and be simply to newcomer, not someone who has been on the team for months.

Rotation applies within teams too. Don’t give functionality to the person who can deliver it the fastest, give it to the person who would struggle to deliver it. Then force the rest of the team to support that person. Make them see the weaknesses in what they’ve created.

Value generalists and go out of your way to create them.

Standard
Work

The gold-plated donkey cart

I'm not sure if he came up with the term but I'm going to credit this idea to James Lewis who used it in relation to a very stuck client we were working on at ThoughtWorks.

The golden donkey cart is a software delivery anti-pattern where a team ceases to make step changes to their product but instead undergoes cycles of redevelopment of the same product making every more complex and rich iterations of the same feature set.

So a team creates a product, the donkey cart, and it's great because you can move big heavy things around in it. After a while though you're used to the donkey cart and you're wondering if things couldn't be better. So the team gets together and realise that they could add suspension so the ride is not so bumpy and you can get some padded seats and maybe the cart could have an awning and some posts with rings and hooks to make it easier to lash on loads. So donkey cart v2 is definitely better and it is easier and more comfortable to use so you wonder, could it be better yet.

So the team gets back together and decides that this time they are going to build the ultimate donkey cart. It's going to be leather and velvet trim, carbon fibre to reduce weight, a modular racking system with extendible plates for cargo. The reins are going to have gold medallions, it's going to be awesome.

But it is still going to be a donkey cart and not the small crappy diesel truck that is going to be the first step on making donkey carts irrelevant.

The gold-plated donkey cart is actually a variant on both the Iron Law of Oligarchy and the Innovator's Dilemma.

The donkey cart is part of the valuable series of incremental improvements that consists of most business as usual. Making a better donkey cart makes real improvements for customers and users.

The donkey cart team is also there to create donkey carts. That's what they think and talk about all the time. It is almost churlish to say that they are really the cargo transport team because probably no-one has ever expressed their purpose or mission in those terms because no-one else has thought of the diesel truck either.

Finally any group of people brought together for a purpose will never voluntarily disband itself. They will instead find new avenues of donkey cart research that they need to pursue and there will be the donkey cart conference circuit to be part of. The need for new donkey cart requirements will be self-evident to the team as well as the need for more people and time to make the next donkey cart breakthrough, before one of their peers does.

Standard
Software

The sly return of Waterfall

No-one does Waterfall any more of course, we’re all Agile incrementalists. It is just that a lot of things are difficult to tackle in increments. You can’t get a great design, for example, or a visual style guide without a lot of user testing and workshopping. From a technical perspective you need to make sure your scaling strategy is baked in from the start and to help support that you will also want to have a performance testing framework in place. You’ll also want to be running those test suites in a continuous deployment process, because its hard to create that after the fact.

In short apart from the actual software you want to do everything else up front.

Waterfall existed for a reason, it tried to fix certain issues with software development, it made sure that when you finished a step in the process you didn’t have to go back and re-visit it. It made you think about all the issues that you would encounter in creating complex software and come up with a plan for dealing with them.

Therefore I can see all the exciting enticements to make sure you do something “up front because it will be difficult to solve later”.

However Waterfall had to change because it didn’t work and dressing up the same process in the guise of sensible forethought doesn’t make it more viable than its predecessors.

It can be really frustrating to have a product that looks ugly, or is slow or constantly falls over. It is far more frustrating to have a stable, beautiful and irrelevant product.

Occasionally you know that a product is going to take off like a rocket, as with fast-follow products for example, and it is going to fully payback a big investment in its creation. However in all other cases you have no idea whether a product is going to work and therefore re-coup its investment.

Even with an existing successful product major changes to the product are just as likely to have unexpected consequences as they are to deliver expected benefits. Sometimes they do both.

What always matters is the ability to change direction and respond to the circumstances that you find yourself in. Some aspects of software development have seen this and genuinely try to implement it. Other parts of the discipline are engaged in sidling back into the comfortable past under the guise of “responsibility”.

Standard
Software, Work

Up-front quality

There has been a great exchange on the London Clojurians mailing list recently talking about the impact of a good REPL on development cycles. The conversation kicks into high-gear with this post from Malcolm Sparks although it is worth reading it from the start (membership might be required I can’t remember). In his post Malcolm talks about the cost of up-front quality. This, broadly speaking, is the cost of the testing required to put a feature live, it is essentially a way of looking at the cost that automated testing adds to the development process. As Malcolm says later: “I’m a strong proponent of testing, but only when testing has the effect of driving down the cost of change.”.

Once upon a time we had to fight to introduce unit-testing and automated integration builds and tests. Now it is a kind of given that this is a good thing, rather like a pendulum, the issue is going too far in the opposite direction. If you’ve ever had to scrap more than one feature because it failed to perform then the up-front quality cost is something you consider as closely as the cost of up-front design and production failure.

Now the London Clojurians list is at that perfect time in its lifespan where it is full of engaged and knowledgeable technologists so Steve Freeman drops into the thread and sensibly points out that Malcolm is also guilty of excess by valuing feature mutability to the point of wanting to be able to change a feature in-flight in production, something that is cool but is probably in excess of any actual requirements. Steve adds that there are other benefits to automated testing, particularly unit testing, beyond guaranteeing quality.

However Steve mentions the Forward approach, which I also subscribe to, of creating very small codebases. So then Paul Ingles gets involved and posts the best description I’ve read of how you can use solution structure, monitoring and restrained codebases to avoid dealing with a lot of the issues of software complexity. It’s hard to boil the argument down because the post deserves reading in full. I would try and summarise it as the external contact points of a service are what matters and if you fulfil the contract of the service you can write a replacement in any technology or stack and put the replacement alongside the original service.

One the powerful aspects of this approach is that is generalises the “throw one away” rule and allows you to say that the current codebase can be discarded whenever your knowledge of the domain or your available tools change sufficiently to make it possible to write an improved version of the service.

Steve then points out some of the other rules that make this work, being able to track and ideally change consumers as well. Its an argument for always using keys on API services, even internal ones, to help see what is calling your service. Something that is moving towards being a standard at the Guardian.

So to summarise, a little thread of pure gold and the kind of thing that can only happen when the right people have the time to talk and share experiences. And when it comes to testing, ask whether your tests are making it cheaper to change the software when the real functionality is discovered in production.

Standard
Work

Agile software development defers business issues

My colleague Michael Brunton-Spall makes an interesting mistake in his latest blog post:

much of our time as developers is being completely wasted writing software that someone has told us is important.  Agile Development is supposed to help with this, ensuring that we are more connected with the business owners and therefore only writing software that is important.

Most Agile methodologies actually don’t do what Michael says here. Every one I’ve encountered in the wild treats it as almost axiomatic that there exists someone who knows what the correct business decision is. That person is then given a title, “product owner” for example and then is usually assigned responsibility for three things: deciding what order work is to be done, judging whether the work has been done correctly and clarifying requirements until they can be reduced to a programming exercise.

That’s why it was liberating to come across System Thinking which does try to take a holistic approach and say that any organisation is only really as good as its worst performing element. Doing that does not eliminate all the process improvements in development that Agile can provide but also illustrates that a great development team doing the wrong thing is a worse outcome than a poor development team doing the right thing.

The invention of the always correct product owner was a neat simplification of a complex problem that I think was probably designed to avoid having multiple people telling a development team different requirements. Essentially by assigning the right to direct the work of the development team to one person the issue of detail and analysis orientated developers getting blown off-course by differing opinions was replaced by squabbling outside the team to try and persuade the decision maker. Instead of developer versus business the problem was now business versus business.

Such a gross simplification has grave consequences as the “product owner” is now a massive point of failure and few software delivery teams can effectively isolate themselves from the effects of such a failure. I have heard the excuse “we’re working on the prioritised backlog” several times but I’ve never seen it protect a team from a collectivised failure to deliver what was really needed.

Most Agile methodologies essentially just punt and pray over the issue of business requirements and priorities, deferring the realities of the environment in the hoping of tackling an engineering issue. Success however means to doing what Michael suggests and trying to deal with the messy reality of a situation and providing an engineering solution that can cope with it.

Standard