Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm currently faced with a very unusual design problem, and hope that a developer wiser than myself might be able to offer some insight.
Background
Without being too specific, I've been hired by a non-profit organisation to assist with the redevelopment of their legacy, but very valuable (in terms of social value) software. The development team is unlike any I've encountered in my time as a software developer, and is comprised of a small number of developers and a larger group of non-programming domain experts. What makes the arrangement unusual is that the domain experts (lets call them content creators), use custom tooling, some of which is based around a prolog expert system engine, to develop web based software components/forms.
The Problem
The system uses a very awkward postback model to perform logical operations server side and return new forms/results. It is slow, and prone to failure. Simple things, like creating html forms using the existing tooling is much more arduous than it should be. As the demand for a more interactive, and performant experience grows, the software developers are finding increasingly that they have to circumvent the expert system/visual tooling used by the content creators, and write new components by hand in javascript. The content creators feel increasingly that their hands are tied, as they are now unable to contribute new components.
Design approach: Traditional/Typical
I have been advocating for the complete abandonment of the previous model and the adoption of a typical software development process. As mentioned earlier, the project has naturally evolved towards this as the non-programmatic development tooling has become incapable of meeting the needs of the business.
The content creators have a very valuable contribution to make however, and I would like to see them focusing on formally specifying the expected behaviour of the software with tools like Cucumber, instead of being involved in implementation.
Design approach: Non-programmatic
My co-worker, who I respect a great deal and suspect is far more knowledgeable than me, feels that the existing process is fine and that we just need to build better tooling. I can't help but feel however that there is something fundamentally flawed with this approach. I have yet to find one instance, either historical or contemporary where this model of software development has been successful. COBOL was developed with the philosophy of allow business people/domain experts to write applications without the need for a programmer, and to my mind all this did was create a new kind of programmer - the COBOL programmer. If it was possible to develop effective systems allowing non-programmers to create non-trivial applications, surely the demand for programmers would be much lower? The only frameworks that I am aware of that roughly fit this model are SAP's Smart Forms and Microsoft's Dynamix AX - both of which are very domain specific ERP systems.
DSLs, Templating Languages
Something of a compromise between the two concepts would be to implement some kind of DSL as a templating language. I'm not even sure that this would be successful however, as all of the content creators, with one exception, are completely non technical.
I've also considered building a custom IDE based on Visual Studio or Net Beans with graphical/toolbox style tooling.
Thoughts?
Is non-programmatic development a fools errand? Will this always result in something unsatisfactory, requiring hands on development from a programmer?
Many thanks if you've taken the time to read this, and I'd certainly appreciate any feedback.
You say:
Something of a compromise between the
two concepts would be to implement
some kind of DSL as a templating
language. I'm not even sure that this
would be successful however, as all of
the content creators, with one
exception, are completely non
technical.
Honestly, this sounds like exactly the approach I would use. Even "non-technical" users can become proficient (enough) in a simple DSL or templating language to get useful work done.
For example, I do a lot of work with scientific modeling software. Many modelers, while being much more at home with the science than with any form of engineering, have been forced to learn one or more programming languages in order to express their ideas in a way they can use. Heck, as far as I know, Fortran is still a required course in order to get a Meteorology degree, since all the major weather models currently in use are written in Fortran.
As a result, there is a certain community of "scientific programming" which is mostly filled with domain experts with relatively little formal software engineering training, expertise, or even interest. These people are more at home with languages/platforms like Matlab, R, and even Visual Basic (since they can use it to script applications like Excel and ESRI ArcMap). Recently, I've seen Python gaining ground in this space as well, mainly I think because it's relatively easy to learn.
I guess my point is that I see strong parallels between this field and your example. If your domain experts are capable of thinking rigorously about their problems (and this may not be the case, but your question is open-ended enough that it might be) then they are definitely capable of expressing their ideas in an appropriate domain-specific language.
I would start by discussing with the content creators some ideas about how they would like to express their decisions and choices. My guess would be that they would be happy to write "code" (even if you don't have to call it code) to describe what they want. Give them a "debugger" (a tool to interactively explore the consequences of their "code" changes) and some nice "IDE" support application, and I think you'll have a very workable solution.
Think of spreadsheets.
Spreadsheets are a simple system that allows non-technical users to make use of a computer's calculation abilities. In doing so, they have opened up computers to solve a great number of tasks which normally would have required custom software developed to solve them. So, yes non-programmatic software development is possible.
On the other hand, look at spreadsheets. Despite their calculational abilities you really would not want as a programmer to have to develop software with them. In the end, many of the techniques that make programming languages better for programmers make them worse for the general population. The ability to define a function, for example, makes a programmer's life much easier, but I think would confuse most others.
Additionally, past a certain point of complexity trying to use a spreadsheet would be a real pain. The spreadsheet works well within the realm for which it was designed. Once you stray too far out that, its just not workable. And again, its the very tools programmers use to deal with complexity which will prevent a system being both widely usable and sufficiently powerful.
I think that for any given problem area, you could develop a system that allows the experts to specify a solution. It will be much harder to develop that system then to solve the problem in the first place. However, if you repeatedly have similiar problems which the experts can develop solutions for, then it might be worthwhile.
I think development by non-developers is doomed to failure. It's difficult enough when developers try it. What's the going failure rate? 50% or higher?
My advice would be to either buy the closest commercial product you can find or hire somebody to help you develop a custom solution with your non-developer maintenance characteristics in mind.
Being a developer means keeping a million details in mind at once and caring about details like version control, deployment, testing, etc. Most people who don't care about those things quickly tire of the complexity.
By all means involve the domain experts. But don't saddle them with development and maintenance as well.
You could be putting your organization at risk with a poorly done solution. If it's important, do it right.
I don't believe any extensive non-programmer solution is going to work. Programming is more than language, it's knowing how to do things reasonably. Something designed to be non-programmer friendly will still almost certainly contain all the pitfalls a programmer knows to avoid even if it's expressed in English or a GUI.
I think what's needed in a case like this is to have the content creators worry about making content and an actual programmer translate that into reasonable computer code.
I have worked with two ERP systems that were meant for non-programmers and in both cases you could make just about every mistake in the book with them.
... Simple things, like creating html forms using the existing tooling is much more arduous than it should be...
More arduous for whom? You're taking a development model that works (however badly) for the non-programming content creators, and because something is arduous for someone you propose to replace that with a model where the content creators are left out in the cold entirely? Sounds crazy to me.
If your content creators can learn custom tooling built around a Prolog rules engine, then they have shown they can learn enough formalism to contribute to the project. If you think other aspects of the development need to be changed, I see only two honorable choices:
Implement the existing formalism ("custom tooling") using the new technology that you think will make things better in other ways. The content creators contribute exactly as they do now.
Design and implement a domain-specific language that handles the impedance mismatch between what your content creators know and can do and the way you and other developers think the work should be done.
Your scenario is a classic case where a domain-specific language is appropriate. But language design is not easy, especially when combined with serious usability questions. If you are lucky you will be able to hire someone to help you who is expert in both language design and usability. But if you are nonprofit, you probably don't have the budget. In this case one possibility is to look for help from another nonprofit—a nearby university, if you have one.
I'd advise you to read this article before attempting to scrap the whole system. I look at it this way. What changed to prompt the redevelopment? Your domain experts haven't forgotten how to use the original system, so you already have some competent "COBOL programmers" for your domain. From your description, it sounds like mostly the performance requirements have changed, and possibly a greater need for web forms.
Therefore, the desired solution isn't to change the responsibilities of the domain experts, it's to increase the performance and make it easier to create web forms. You have the advantage of an existing code base showing exactly what your domain experts are capable of. It would be a real shame not to use it.
I realize Prolog isn't exactly the hottest language around, but there are faster and slower implementations. Some implementations are designed mostly for programmer interactivity and are dynamically interpreted. Some implementations create optimized compiled native code. There are also complex logical programming techniques like memoization that can be used to enhance performance, but probably no one learns them in school anymore. A flow where content creators focus on creating new content and developers focus on optimization could be very workable. Also, Prolog is ideally suited for the model layer, but not so much for the view layer. Moving more of your view layer to a different technology could really pay off.
In general though, 2 thoughts:
You cannot reduce life to algorithms. Everything we know (philosophically, scientifically) and experience demonstrates this. (Sorry, Dr. Minsky).
That said, a Domain-Specific tool that allows non-programmers to express a finite language is definitely doable as several people have given examples. Another example of this type of system is Mathematica and especially Simulink which are used very successfuly over a range of applications. However, the failure of Expert Systems, Fuzzy logic, and Japan's Fifth Generation computer project of the 80's to take-off demonstrate the difficulty in doing this.
Labview is a very successful none programatic programming environment.
What an interesting problem.
I would have to ultimately agree with you, and disagree with your colleague.
The philosophy and approach of Domain Driven Development/Design exists exactly for your purposes, in that it puts paramount importance on the specific knowledge of the experienced domain experts, and on communicating that knowledge to talented software developers.
See, in your issue, there are two distinct things. The domain, and the software. The domain should be understood and specified first and foremost without software development in mind.
And then the transformation to software happens between the communication between domain experts and programmers.
I think trying to build "programming" tools for domain experts is a waste of time.
In Domain Driven Development your domain experts will continue to be important, and you'll end up with better software.
In your colleague's approach you're trying to replace programmers with tool.... maybe in the future, like, start trek future, that will be possible, but today I don't think so.
I am currently struggling with a similar problem in trying to enable healthcare providers to write rules for workflows, which isn't easy because they aren't programmers. You're a programmer not because you went to programming school -- you're a programmer because you think like a programmer. Fortunately, most hospitals have some anesthesiologist or biomedical engineer who thinks like a programmer and can manage to program. The key is to give the non-programmers-who-think-like-programmers a language that they can learn and master.
In my case, I want doctors to be able to formulate simple rules, such as: "If a patient's temperature gets too low, send their doctor a text message". Of course it's more complicated than that because the definition of "too low" depends on the age of the patient, a patient may have many doctors, and so on, but a smart doctor will be able to figure out those rules. The real issue is that the temperature sensor will often fall off the patient and read ambient temperature, meaning that the rule is useless unless you can figure out how to determine that the thermometer is actually reading the patient's temperature.
The big problem I have is that, while it's relatively easy to create a DSL so that doctors can express IF [temperature] [less-than] [lookup-table [age]] THEN [send-text-message], it's much harder to create one that can express all the different heuristics you might need to try before coming up with the right way to make sure the reading is valid.
In your case, you may want to consider how VB became popular: It has a form drawing tool that anybody can easily use to draw forms and set properties on form items. Since not everything can be specified by form properties and data binding, there's a code-behind mode that lets you do complex logic. But to make the tool accessible to beginning programmers, the language is BASIC, so users didn't have to learn about pointers, memory allocation, or data structures.
While you probably wouldn't want to give your users VB, you might consider a hybrid approach. You would have one "language" (it could be graphical, like VB's form designer or Labview) where inexperienced users can easily do the simple stuff, and another language to enable expert users to do the complicated stuff.
I had this as a comment previously but I figured it deserved more merit.
There are definitely a number of successful 'non-programmatic' tools around, off hand I can think of Labview, VPL and graph based (edit: I just noticed this link has more far more than just shaders on it) shaders which are prevalent in 3D applications.
Having said that, I don't know of any which are suited to web based dev (which appears to be your case).
I dout very much the investment on developing such tools would be worth it (unless maybe you could move to sell it as a product as well).
I agree with you - non-technical people will not be able to program anything non-trivial.
Some products try to create what's basically a really simple programming language. The problem is that programming is an aptitude as well as a skill. It takes a certain kind of mindset to think in the sort of logic used by computers, which just can't be abstracted away by any programming language (at least not without without making assumptions that it can't safely make).
I've seen this in action with business people trying to construct workflows in MS Dynamics CRM. Even though the product was clearly intended to allow them to do it without a programmer they just couldn't figure out how to make a loop or an if-else condition work, no matter how "friendly" the UI tried to make it. I watched in amazement as they struggled with something that seemed completely self-obvious to me. After a full day (!) of this they managed to produce a couple of very basic workflows that worked in some cases, but didn't handle edge cases like missing values or invalid data. It was basically a complete waste of time.
Granted, Dynamics CRM isn't exactly the epitome of user-friendliness, but I saw enough to convince me that this is, indeed, a fool's errand.
Now, if your users are not programmers, but still technical people they might be able to learn programming, but that's another story - they've really become "new programmers" rather than "non-programmers" then.
This is a pretty philosophical topic and difficult to answer for every case, but in general...
Is non-programmatic development a fools errand?
Outside of a very narrow scope, yes. Major software vendors have invested billions over the years in creating various packages to try to let non-technical users create & define workflows and processes with limited success. Your best bet is to take advantage of what has been done in that space rather than trying to re-invent it.
Edit:
Sharepoint, InfoPath, some SAP stuff are the examples I'm talking about. As I said above, "a very narrow scope". It's possible to let non-programmers create workflows, complex forms, some domain processes, but that's it. Anything more general-purpose is simply trying to make non-programmers into programmers by giving them very crude tools.
Non programatic software development IS feasable, as long as you are realistic about what non-developers can reasonaby achieve - its all about a compromise between capability and ease of use.
The key is to break the requirements down cleanly into things that the domain experts need to be able to do, and spend time implementing those features in a foolproof way - The classic mistake is to try to let the system to do too much.
For example suppose you want domain experts to be able to create a form with a masked text input:
Most developers will look at that requirement and create a fancy control which accepts some sort of regular expression and lets the domain expert do anything.
This is the classic developer way of looking at things, however it's likely that your domain expert does not understand regular expressions and the developer has missed the point of the reqirement which was for the domain expert to be able to create this form.
A better solution might have been to create a control that can be confgiured to mask either Email addresses or telephone numbers.
Yes this control is far less capable than the first control, and yes the domain experts have to ask developers to extend it when they want to be able to mask to car registration numbers, however the domain experts are able to use it.
It seems that the problem is of organizational nature and cannot be solved by technical means alone.
The root is that content creators are completely non-technical, yet have to perform inherently technical tasks of designing forms and writing Prolog rules. Various designers and DSLs can alleviate their problems, but never solve them.
Either reorganize system and processes so knowledge carriers actually enter knowledge - nothing else; or train content creators to perform necessary development with existing tools or may be DSLs.
Non-programmatic development can save from low-level chores, but striving to set up system once and let users indefinitely and unrestrictedly expand it is certainly a fools errands.
Computer games companies operate like this all the time, so far as I can tell: a few programmers and a lot of content creators who need to be able to control logic as well (like level designers).
It's also probably a healthy discipline to be able to separate your code from the data and rules driving it if you can.
I'm therefore with your colleague, but of course the specifics may not make this general solution appropriate!
Using the right language for the job is the key - this is the comment I read in SO and I also belive thats the right thing to do. Because of this we ended up using different languages for different parts of the project - like perl, VBA(Excel Macros), C# etc. We have three to four languages currently in use inside the project. Using the right language for the job has made it immensly more easy to do automate a job, but of late people are complaining that any new person who has to take over the project will have to learn so many different languages to get started. Also it is difficult to find such kind of person. Please note that this is a one to two person working on the project maximum at a given point of time. I would like to know if the method we are following is right or should we converge to single language and try to use it across all the job even though another language might be better suited for it. Your experenece related to this would also help.
Languages used and their purpose:
Perl - Processing large text file(log files)
C# with Silverlight for web based reporting.
LabVIEW for automation
Excel macros for processing data in excel sheets, generating graphs and exporting to powerpoint.
I'd say you are doing it right. Almost all the projects I've ever worked on have used multiple languages, without any problems. I think you may be overestimating the difficulty people have picking up new languages, particularly if they all use the same paradigm. If your project were using Haskell, Smalltalk, C++ and assembler, you might have difficulties, I must admit :-)
Using a variety languages vs maintainability is simply another design decision with cost-vs-benefits trade-offs that, like any design decision, need to considered carefully. While I like using the "absolute best" tool for the task (whatever "absolute best" means), I wouldn't necessarily use it without considering other factors such as:
do we have sufficient skill and experience to implement successfully
will we be able to find the necessary resources to maintain it
do we already use the language/tech in our system
does the increase in complexity to the overall system (e.g. integration issues, the impact on build automation) outweigh the benefits of using the "absolute best" language
is there another language that we already use and have experience in that is usable in lieu of the "absolute best" language
I worked a system with around a dozen engineers that used C++, Java, SQL, TCL, C, shell scripts, and just a touch of Perl. I was proud that we used the "best language" where they made sense, but, in one case, using the "best language" (TCL) was a mistake - not because it was TCL - but rather because we failed to observe the full costs-vs-benefits of the choice:*
we had only 1 engineer deeply familiar with TCL - the original engineer who refused to use anything but TCL for a particular target component - and then that engineer left the project
this target component was the only part of the system to use TCL and it was small relative to the other components in the system
the component could have been also implemented in another language we already used that we had plenty of experience in (C or C++) with some extra effort
the component appeared deceptively simple, but in reality had subtle corner cases that bit us in production (not something we could have known then, but always something to consider as a possibility later)
we had to implement special changes to the nightly build because the TCL compiler (yes, we compiled the TCL code into an executable) wouldn't work unless it could first throw its logo up on the screen - a screen which wasn't available during a cron-initiated automated nightly build. (We resorted to using xvfb to satisfy it.)
when bugs turned up, we had difficult time finding engineers who wanted to work on it
when problems with this component cropped up only after sustained load in the field, we lacked the experience and deep understanding of the TCL execution engine to easily debug it in the field
finally, the maintenance and sustainment team, which is a much smaller team with fewer resources than the main development team, had one more language that they needed training and experience in just to support this relatively small component
Although there were a number of things we could have done to head-off some of the issues we hit down the road (e.g. put more emphasis on getting TCL experience earlier, running better tests to detect the issues earlier, etc), my point is that the overall cost-vs-benefit didn't justify using TCL to code that single component. Again, it was not a mistake to use TCL because it was TCL (TCL is a fine language), but rather it was a mistake because we failed to give full consideration to the cost-vs-benefits.
As a Software Engineer it's your job to learn new languages if you need to. I would say you should go with the right tool for the job.
It's like sweeping the floor with an octopus. Yeah, it gets the job done... kind of... but it's probably not the best tool for the job. You're better off using a mop.
Another option is to create positions geared towards working in specific languages. So you can have a C# developer, a Perl developer, and a VBA developer who will only work with that language. It's a bit more overhead, but it is a workable solution.
Any modern software project of any scope -- even if it's a one-person job -- requires more than one language. For instance, a web project usually requires Javascript, a backend language, and a DB query language (though any of these might be created by the backend language). That said, there's a threshold that is easily reached, and then it would be very hard to find new developers to take over projects. What's the limit? Three languages? Four? Let's say: five is too many, but one would be too few for any reasonably complex project.
Using the right language for the right job is definitely appropriate - I am mainly a web programmer, and I need to know server-side programming (Rails, PHP + others), SQL, Javascript, jQuery, HTML & CSS (not programming languages strictly, but complex things I need to know) - it would be impossible for me to do all of that in a single language or technology.
If you have a team of smart developers, picking up new languages will not be a problem for them. In fact they probably will be eager to do so. Just make sure they are given adequate time (and mentoring) to learn the new language.
Sure, there will be a learning curve to implementing production code if there is a new language to learn, but you will have a stronger team member for it.
If you have developers in your teams who strongly resist learning new languages, unless there is a very good reason (e.g they are justifiably adamant that they are being asked to used a different language when it is not appropriate to do so) - then they are not the sort of developers I'd want in my teams.
And don't bother trying to hire people who know all the languages you use. Hire smart programmers (who probably know at least one language you use) - they should pick up the other languages just fine.
I would be of the opinion, that if I a programmer on my team wanted to introduce a second (or third) language into a project, that there better be VERY VERY good reason to do so; as a project manager I would need to be convinced that the cost of doing so, more than offset the problems. And it would take a lot of convincing.
Splitting up project into multiple languages makes it very expensive to hire the right person(s) to take over that project when it needs maintenance. For small and medium shops it could be a huge obstacle.
Edit: I am not talking about using javascript and c# on the same project, I am talking about using C# for most of the code, F# for a few parts and then VB or C++ for others - there would need to be a compelling reason.
KISS: 'Keep it simple stupid' is a good axiom to follow in most cases.
EDIT: I am not completely opposed to adding languages, but the burden of proof is on the person to who wants to do it. KISS (to me) applies to not only getting the project/product done and shipped, but also must take into account the lifetime maint. and support requirements. Lots of languages come and go, and programmers are attracted to new languages like a moth to a light. Most projects I have worked on, I still oversee and/or support 5 or 10 years later - last thing I want to see is some long forgotten and/or orphaned language responsible for some key part of an application I need to support.
My experience using C++ and Lua was that I wrote more glue than actual operational code and for dubious benefit.
I'd start by saying the issue is whether you are using the right paradigm for the job?
Suppose you know how to do object oriented programming in C#. I don't think the leap to Java is all that great . Although you'd have to familiarize yourself with libraries and syntax, the idea is pretty similar.
If you have procedural parts to your project, such as parsing files and various data transformations, your Perl/Excel Macros seem pretty similar.
But to address your issues, I'd say above all, you'll need clarity in code. Since your staff are using several languages, they won't be familiar with all languages to an equal degree. So make sure of this:
1) Syntactic sugar is explained in comments. Sugars are pretty language specific and may not be obvious to a new reader. For instance, in VBA I seem to remember there are default properties, so that TextBox1 = "Hello" is what you'd write instead of TextBox1.Text = "Hello". This can be confusing. Also, things like LINQ statements can have un-obvious meanings. So make sure people have comments to read.
2) Where two components from different languages have to work together, make excruciatingly specific details about how that happens. For instance, I once had to write a C component to be called from Excel VBA. There's quote a few steps and potential errors in doing this, especially as far as compiler flags. Make sure both sides know how their side of the interaction occurs.
Finally, as far as hiring people goes, I think you have to find people who aren't married to a specific language. To put it vaguely, hire an intelligent person who sees business issues, not code. He'll learn the lingo soon enough.
Just a question that came up from time to time at my old job when we were considering fleshing out our development staff with additional bodies. Does it really matter, if you are a .NET development house, if your developers all code in one language vs another.
I probably started out like alot of the 4million other folks there with Visual Basic way back when, and then migrated to VB.NET. Another developer we had at the time came from a C background and migrated over to C#.NET. Basically he was able to code very quickly in his native language and I was able to do so in mine and since our projects did not really overlap there was no issue until our boss basically said we need to switch to C#... for no other reason than standardization.
So I guess the 'subjective' part of the question is, is it better to sacrifice productivity for consistency? Now I should quantify this in saying we were a SMALL shop, less than 5 developers and given how most of our project plans were done on cocktail napkins its not like we were going for 6-Sigma anytime soon so it was not like 'standards' were a hard and fast rule.
Thanks.
C# is definitely becoming the preferred avenue for Microsoft and it would make sense to choose a language that all developers to use simply based on the fact that if developers move between tasks, having the projects in a uniform language (not to mention coding conventions) will make the maintenance on those projects much easier for everyone involved.
If it helps, I recently wrote an article on my blog looking back at my decision to standardize our development shop on VB.NET over C# and how well my various assumptions have held up and things hindsight has shown me.
Here's a link: "A Manager’s Retrospective on the C# versus VB.NET decision"
As to whether you should standardize the whole shop on one language. I'd say there are definite benefits. The most obvious one is that switching back and forth when you work on different projects is going to incur some mental overhead to re-acclimate yourself each time. Granted, it is going to be less if you have to do it frequently, but to justify the extra complexity there would have to be some offsetting benefit.
Ultimately my advice is to standardize on one or the other based on the following criteria:
(1) If you have a large VB code-base there is a good argument for standardizing on VB.NET.
(2) If everything else is equal, I'd lean towards C# for a number of reasons mentioned in the above article.
(3) Carefully take into account your current team's preferences and the general consensus among developers in your market that you would try to recruit. Language choice is a big deal for morale and hiring.
I think it makes sense to pick one and get everyone on it. The sacrifice in productivity will be brief, competent developers will migrate quickly.
Some advantages:
your last VB developer and the team get downsized...uh oh.
one of the developers quits and you have to take over their code
etc.
I'd say go for whatever works. VB.NET and C# use all the same underlying framework so you should be able to read each others code and with a little googling you should be able to modify it too.
I'd say go for productivity.. ultimately is the customer going to care if it's written in VB.NET or C#?? But saying that you have to think about maintanability.
So I guess the 'subjective' part of
the question is, is it better to
sacrifice productivity for
consistency?
Of course not. What good is consistency, by itself? Ultimately the goal of consistency is productivity. With that in mind, I would suggest that, long term, having everyone code in one language would be the best way to go...in general over the long haul, a lot more time is spent modifying and maintaining code than in writing it, and I would think that having people spend the ramp up time once would be better than having to switch back and forth all the time.
our boss basically said we need to
switch to C#... for no other reason
than standardization. (...) So I guess
the 'subjective' part of the question
is, is it better to sacrifice
productivity for consistency?
Of course not. The only question is what value this 'consistency' has in terms of future productivity, because productivity is all that matters. 'Consistency' by itself is not a business value. It may only help you to achieve more productivity in the future.
Several factors must be balanced:
(+) Tomorrow people will have to maintain only one language, the most popular .Net language: C#. (See Note 1)
(-) Today you must learn C#, which is a cost for your company, unless you do it for free in your weekends. Of course this is a (-) in terms of cost. Learning C# is good by itself, it just has a cost.
(-) Today after learning C#, you or someone else must switch one project from Visual Basic .Net to C#. That has a cost, depending on the LOC count of the project. Also, errors might be introduced, so you need to rerun your unit tests, go over all the failures and work them out. Also, you need to repeat some integration testing, to guarantee that everything works well.
You can't tell what the outcome of the balance is with this information. But you don't have to tell, anyway, since your boss presumably has better information and has already taken the decision. All that you need to do is to actually do it.
Note 1: However, this reasoning is dangerously close to "the world would be a better place if VB.NET didn't exist", which may be too strong a statement. VB.NET, or a mix of both languages, might be a good option in some scenarios.
We're still a mixed language group where I work; however, mixed with a purpose. Nearly all hardware related projects are done in C++ (not assembly, I know :() and all nearly all windows applications are done in C#.
Considering C# popularity and ease, I'd say it's in a company's interest to move to it for when they get new, greener employees.
How do you see yourself as shop?
VB.NET is strong in markets that directly lean on Office, maybe client apps too, while C# is particularly strong in serverside and larger applications.
Maybe it is not about following your or his choice, but make a choice to align with the nature of the shop.
It is important to stick to a singular language choice, if possible. Obviously, if you are writing unmanaged C++, or have some other similar scenario, there would be notable exceptions. Many people have hit on the efficiency of homogeneous language choices, once you have ramped up. Most of the developers I know will run into an efficiency issue when switching languages, even if they know it inside and out. After coding in C# for a couple of months, if I have to go back to VB.NET to maintain something, there is a good day where I have to consciously think about things that are normally automatic. They are simple things, like using vs. Imports, type conversion, etc. It isn't that you forget how it works, but that your mind wants to do something the way you have been doing it for an extended period. A lot like the old parlor trick of pushing your arms out against a door frame for a minute and then resting them at your side. They want to go back up, because that is the signal that your brain is used to sending.
Another very important takeaway, is that this efficiency factor is important in code reviews, as well. If you are working in VB.NET and have to review C#, you are going to have the same stumbling blocks. Sure, you understand the code, but your rate or accuracy in analyzing the code will not be the same as it would be if it was in the same language you are currently using.
There are some additional minor points. Some tooling is geared towards one language over another. For example, Resharper works for both VB.NET and C#, but it provides a larger set of refactorings if you are using C#. Also, if someone in your organization maintains a company coding standard, it makes changes to those standards half as complex, if only a single language needs to be addressed.
I think this also goes a long with coding style standards. Is there really a reason why a development team chooses to go with 3 spaces for tabs rather than 4? Not really there is no technical or business advantage to this decision other than uniformity and making everyone's code look the same so when I switch between files my brain doesn't have to adjust to the new formatting.
Same thing applies here with the uniformity for C# and VB.net. There is no technical or business advantage for taking one over the other (NOTE: I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find something really obscure). But having everyone's code uniform helps when moving from project to project so people don't have to switch gears from thinking in C# to thinking in VB.net.
One of the advantages of using the .Net platform for development is the fact that you have the ability to develop in the language that is best able to express you solution to the problem at hand.
An arbitrary rule IMO should not prevent you from using F# or a DLR language when those languages would be a more natural fit than an imperative language like C# or VB.Net.
It's a harder decision to make with VB.Net vs. C# because the languages are so similar but If you need to do a lot of work with XML then VB.Net's XML literals may help make the code clearer, conversely C#s terse syntax and support for anonymous methods may make your intent clearer.
I work on a medium/large company that follows what I think are some good practices for development, maybe not the best ones but good enough.
We've some development resource that get implemented on the basis of "do, test, if it useful the use, else throw away". I've found that most of the so called best practices are, sometimes, ideally great but unfeasible or even harmful in real life.
For example, we use to have a dotproject website for our team. The idea was to track tasks, update progress and so on. We used the "do, test, if" with it and the result was... we threw it away and just keep the forum that was extremly useful to communicate between us and keep track of conclusions of meetings and TO DO lists... Tracking each task on the other hand proved to be both time consuming and unrealistic.
Firs of all nobody was doing it, it didn't take a lot of time but developers hated it and make them unhappy because they had to remember updating every task, the estimates for the times of the task proved to be unrealistic most of the time.
So my question is, What development techniques have you tried and found useful/unuseful?
I mean that as in real life, not some theoretical best practice, but as a hands on experience. I'm looking to explore new techniques (or tools or whatever) and I'd like opinions on what to do next. Our current status:
Internal issue tracking system (Useful)
Semiautomated builds (every developer has to maintain the equivalent of a makefile in order for the system to be able to make them).
NO automated testing. Test are performed by a test team. We have integration tests and wide system tests.
Two test labs, one for the Test team, the other for the developers (in case they need to perform test that involves more than one machine or to test out of the development machine)
No unit testing in general. Some libraries have them but usually the developer test its units as he wants.
Full Specification using DOORs.
Test protocols. Formal, written in Word.
Source control (Clear Case). Usually everything is done in the main branch, whenever we ship a version it gets labeled, if needed a branch is made for fixes to that version.
Note: When you can (if you don't mind :P), could you try to justify your proposal? How and why was it useful? How did improve your work?
One of the most useful things we introduced was a project Wiki, an extremely useful dumping ground for all the little titbits of information floating around in peoples head but too trivial to record in a full document.
Having been involved in all sorts of development teams with different methodologies, my experience is that most of the agile principles tend to work great. It generally makes development more fun, since everyone is more engaged. In the larger development environments the basic principle of co-locating all team members brings great benefits, especially when you have separate information analysts and testers next to developers. Have information analysts, testers and developers work together per feature. This creates the best flow of information, with as little overhead as possible. You can take this even further to a Lean development process.
In general, the things that gave us the greatest benefits were the things that lowered the barriers of communication. In a practical sense, a company wiki helped out a great deal as well, lowering the barrier for sharing information. A good bug/features/RFC tracking tool also helped a great deal to have a joint understanding amongst stakeholders of what direction the project is heading. And such a tracking tool does not just have to be internal: lower the barriers to your customers as well. This also helps a great deal in managing expectations.
I feel I'm just getting started here. Others will no doubt come with more suggestions.
Pascal.
Follow this link...
And personally, as a developer I prefer to focus on things that improve my performance. I don't mind checking some bug reporting site to check if new bugs are reported, but I need to be able to view it quickly without having to go through a few dozens of pages or dozens of clicks.
I don't mind writing technical designs before writing code either, as long as I have the tools to write it properly. These tools must be created to increase performance with a minimum of fluffy features that no one uses. For example, in the past I've used Enterprise Architect to create UML models before writing code. It worked fine but the application has some flaws and lots of features that I don't need. When I discovered Altoma UModel, I quickly changed to a much leaner tool for UML generation that offered me exactly what I need. Nothing more, nothing less.
Basically, you have to keep people focused on the final goal. And the final goal is creating some product to be used by your users. Many development teams get lost because they focus on other things instead. None of your users will care about how you created the thing they use. They just need your project to reach their goals.
Thus, the best practice is that which makes your team the most comfortable, including any new team member that would join halfway of any project.
Personally, I'm a very big fan of Automatic Testing (both unit tests and integration tests). In my view it's like a safety net - developers feel safer when changing code when they know there's a test harness that could catch them if the break something. This allows you faster introduction of new features, but also removes the 'fear' of refactoring, for example.
As management for our team: SCRUM
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
A couple of years ago the media was rife with all sorts of articles on
how the idea of code reuse was a simple way to improve productivity
and code quality.
From the blogs and sites I check on a regular basis it seems as though
the idea of "code reuse" has gone out of fashion. Perhaps the 'code
reuse' advocates have all joined the SOA crowd instead? :-)
Interestingly enough, when you search for 'code reuse' in Google the
second result is titled:
"Internal Code Reuse Considered Dangerous"!
To me the idea of code reuse is just common sense, after all look at
the success of the apache commons project!
What I want to know is:
Do you or your company try and reuse code?
If so how and at what level, i.e. low level api, components or
shared business logic? How do you or your company reuse code?
Does it work?
Discuss?
I am fully aware that there are many open source libs available and that anyone who has used .NET or the Java has reused code in some form. That is common sense!
I was referring more to code reuse within an organizations rather than across a community via a shared lib etc.
I originally asked;
Do you or your company try and reuse code?
If so how and at what level, i.e. low level api, components or shared business logic? How do you or your company reuse code?
From where I sit I see very few example of companies trying to reuse code internally?
If you have a piece of code which could potentially be shared across a medium size organization how would you go about informing other members of the company that this lib/api/etc existed and could be of benefit?
The title of the article you are referring to is misleading, and is actually a very good read. Code reuse is very beneficial, but there are downsides with everything. Basically, if I remember correctly, the gist of the article is that you are sealing the code in a black box and not revisiting it, so as the original developers leave you lose the knowledge. While I see the point, I don't necessarily agree with it - at least not to a "sky is falling" regard.
We actually group code reuse into more than just reusable classes, we look at the entire enterprise. Things that are more like framework enhancement or address cross-cutting concerns are put into a development framework that all of our applications use (think things like pre- and post-validation, logging, etc.). We also have business logic that is applicable to more than one application, so those sort of things get moved to a BAL core that is accessible anywhere.
I think that the important thing is not to promote things for reuse if they are not going to really be reused. They should be well documented, so that new developers can have a resource to help them come up to speed, as well. Chances are, if the knowledge isn't shared, the code will eventually be reinvented somewhere else and will lead to duplication if you are not rigorous in documentation and knowledge sharing.
We reuse code - in fact, our developers specifically write code that can be reused in other projects. This has paid off quite nicely - we're able to start new projects quickly, and we iteratively harden our core libraries.
But one can't just write code and expect it to be re-used; code reuse requires communication among team members and other users so people know what code is available, and how to use it.
The following things are needed for code reuse to work effectively:
The code or library itself
Demand for the code across multiple projects or efforts
Communication of the code's features/capabilities
Instructions on how to use the code
A commitment to maintaining and improving the code over time
Code reuse is essential. I find that it also forces me to generalize as much as possible, also making code more adaptable to varying situations. Ideally, almost every lower level library you write should be able to adapt to a new set of requirements for a different application.
I think code reuse is being done through open source projects for the most part. Anything that can be reused or extended is being done via libraries. Java has an amazing number of open source libraries available for doing a large number of things. Compare that to C++, and how early on everything would have to be implemented from scratch using MFC or the Win32 API.
We reuse code.
On a small scale we try to avoid code duplication as much as posible. And we have a complete library with a lot of frequently used code.
Normally code is developed for one application. And if it is generic enough, it is promoted to the library. This works excelent.
The idea of code reuse is no longer a novel idea...hence the apparent lack of interest. But it is still very much a good idea. The entire .NET framework and the Java API are good examples of code reuse in action.
We have grown accustomed to developing OO libraries of code for our projects and reusing them in other projects. Its a part of the natural life cycle of an idea. It is hotly debated for a while and then everyone accepts and there is no reason for further discussion.
Of course we reuse code.
There are a near infinite amount of packages, libraries and shared objects available for all languages, with whole communities of developers behing them supporting and updating.
I think the lack of "media attention" is due to the fact that everyone is doing it, so it's no longer worth writing about. I don't hear as many people raising awareness of Object-Oriented Programming and Unit Testing as I used to either. Everyone is already aware of these concepts (whether they use them or not).
Level of media attention to an issue has little to do with its importance, whether we're talking software development or politics! It's important to avoid wasting development effort by reinventing (or re-maintaining!) the wheel, but this is so well-known by now that an editor probably isn't going to get excited by another article on the subject.
Rather than looking at the number of current articles and blog posts as a measure of importance (or urgency) look at the concepts and buzz-phrases that have become classics or entered the jargon (another form of reuse!) For example, Google for uses of the DRY acronym for good discussion on the many forms of redundancy that can be eliminated in software and development processes.
There's also a role for mature judgment regarding costs of reuse vs. where the benefits are achieved. Some writers advocate waiting to worry about reuse until a second or third use actually emerges, rather than spending effort to generalize bit of code the first time it is written.
My personal view, based on the practise in my company:
Do you or your company try and reuse code?
Obviously, if we have another piece of code that already fits our needs we will reuse it. We don't go out of our way to use square pegs in round holes though.
If so how and at what level, i.e. low level api, components or shared business logic? How do you or your company reuse code?
At every level. It is written into our coding standards that developers should always assume their code will be reused - even if in reality that is highly unlikely. See below
If your OO model is good, your API probably reflects your business domain, so reusable classes probably equates to reusable business logic without additional effort.
For actual reuse, one key point is knowing what code is already available. We resolve this by having everything documented in a central location. We just need a little discipline to ensure that the documentation is up-to-date and searchable in a meaningful way.
Does it work?
Yes, but not because of the potential or actual reuse! In reality, beyond a few core libraries and UI components, there isn't a large amount of reuse.
In my personal opinion, the real value is in making the code reusable. In doing so, aside from a hopefully cleaner API, the code will (a) be documented sufficiently for another developer to use it without trawling the source code, and (b) it will also be replaceable. These points are a great benefit to on-going software maintenance.
Do you or your company try and reuse code? If so how and at what
level, i.e. low level api, components or shared business logic? How do
you or your company reuse code?
I used to work in a codebase with uber code reuse, but it was difficult to maintain because the reused code was unstable. It was prone to design changes and deprecation in ways that cascaded to everything using it. Before that I worked in a codebase with no code reuse where the seniors actually encouraged copying and pasting as a way to reuse even application-specific code, so I got to see the two extremities and I have to say that one isn't necessarily much better than the other when taken to the extremes.
And I used to be an uber bottom-up kind of programmer. You ask me to build something specific and I end up building generalized tools. Then using those tools, I build more complex generalized tools, then start building DIP abstractions to express the design requirements for the lower-level tools, then I build even more complex tools and repeat, and at some point I start writing code that actually does what you want me to do. And as counter-productive as that sounded, I was pretty fast at it and could ship complex products in ways that really surprised people.
Problem was the maintenance over the months, years! After I built layers and layers of these generalized libraries and reused the hell out of them, each one wanted to serve a much greater purpose than what you asked me to do. Each layer wanted to solve the world's hunger needs. So each one was very ambitious: a math library that wants to be amazing and solve the world's hunger needs. Then something built on top of the math library like a geometry library that wants to be amazing and solve the world's hunger needs. You know something's wrong when you're trying to ship a product but your mind is mulling over how well your uber-generalized geometry library works for rendering and modeling when you're supposed to be working on animation because the animation code you're working on needs a few new geometry functions.
Balancing Everyone's Needs
I found in designing these uber-generalized libraries that I had to become obsessed with the needs of every single team member, and I had to learn how raytracing worked, how fluids dynamics worked, how the mesh engine worked, how inverse kinematics worked, how character animation worked, etc. etc. etc. I had to learn how to do pretty much everyone's job on the team because I was balancing all of their specific needs in the design of these uber generalized libraries I left behind while walking a tightrope balancing act of design compromises from all the code reuse (trying to make things better for Bob working on raytracing who is using one of the libraries but without hurting John too much who is working on physics who is also using it but without complicating the design of the library too much to make them both happy).
It got to a point where I was trying to parametrize bounding boxes with policy classes so that they could be stored either as center and half-size as one person wanted or min/max extents as someone else wanted, and the implementation was getting convoluted really fast trying to frantically keep up with everyone's needs.
Design By Committee
And because each layer was trying to serve such a wide range of needs (much wider than we actually needed), they found many reasons to require design changes, sometimes by committee-requested designs (which are usually kind of gross). And then those design changes would cascade upwards and affect all the higher-level code using it, and maintenance of such code started to become a real PITA.
I think you can potentially share more code in a like-minded team. Ours wasn't like-minded at all. These are not real names but I'd have Bill here who is a high-level GUI programmer and scripter who creates nice user-end designs but questionable code with lots of hacks, but it tends to be okay for that type of code. I got Bob here who is an old timer who has been programming since the punch card era who likes to write 10,000 line functions with gotos in them and still doesn't get the point of object-oriented programming. I got Joe here who is like a mathematical wizard but writes code no one else can understand and always make suggestions which are mathematically aligned but not necessarily so efficient from a computational standpoint. Then I got Mike here who is in outer space who wants us to port the software to iPhones and thinks we should all follow Apple's conventions and engineering standards.
Trying to satisfy everyone's needs here while coming up with a decent design was, probably in retrospect, impossible. And in everyone trying to share each other's code, I think we became counter-productive. Each person was competent in an area but trying to come up with designs and standards which everyone is happy with just lead to all kinds of instability and slowed everyone down.
Trade-Offs
So these days I've found the balance is to avoid code reuse for the lowest-level things. I use a top-down approach from the mid-level, perhaps (something not too far divorced from what you asked me to do), and build some independent library there which I can still do in a short amount of time, but the library doesn't intend to produce mini-libs that try to solve the world's hunger needs. Usually such libraries are a little more narrow in purpose than the lower-level ones (ex: a physics library as opposed to a generalized geometry-intersection library).
YMMV, but if there's anything I've learned over the years in the hardest ways possible, it's that there might be a balancing act and a point where we might want to deliberately avoid code reuse in a team setting at some granular level, abandoning some generality for the lowest-level code in favor of decoupling, having malleable code we can better shape to serve more specific rather than generalized needs, and so forth -- maybe even just letting everyone have a little more freedom to do things their own way. But of course all of this is with the aim of still producing a very reusable, generalized library, but the difference is that the library might not decompose into the teeniest generalized libraries, because I found that crossing a certain threshold and trying to make too many teeny, generalized libraries starts to actually become an extremely counter-productive endeavor in the long term -- not in the short term, but in the long run and broad scheme of things.
If you have a piece of code which could potentially be shared across a
medium size organization how would you go about informing other
members of the company that this lib/api/etc existed and could be of
benefit?
I actually am more reluctant these days and find it more forgivable if colleagues do some redundant work because I would want to make sure that code does something fairly useful and non-trivial and is also really well-tested and designed before I try to share it with people and accumulate a bunch of dependencies to it. The design should have very, very few reasons to require any changes from that point onwards if I share it with the rest of the team.
Otherwise it could cause more grief than it actually saves.
I used to be so intolerant of redundancy (in code or efforts) because it appeared to translate to a product that was very buggy and explosive in memory use. But I zoomed in too much on redundancy as the key problem, when really the real problem was poor quality, hastily-written code, and a lack of solid testing. Well-tested, reliable, efficient code wouldn't suffer that problem to nearly as great of a degree even if some people duplicate, say, some math functions here and there.
One of the common sense things to look at and remember that I didn't at the time is how we don't mind some redundancy when we use a very solid third party library. Chances are that you guys use a third party library or two that has some redundant work with what your team is doing. But we don't mind in those cases because the third party library is great and well-tested. I recommend applying that same mindset to your own internal code. The goal should be to create something awesome and well-tested, not to fuss over a little bit of redundancy here and there as I mistakenly did long ago.
So these days I've shifted my intolerance towards a lack of testing instead. Instead of getting upset over redundant efforts, I find it much more productive to get upset over other people's lack of unit and integration testing! :-D
While I think code reuse is valuable, I can see where this sentiment is rooted. I've worked on a lot of projects where much extra care was taken to create re-usable code that was then never reused. Of course reuse is much preferable to duplicate code, but I have seen a lot of very extenisve object models created with the goal of using the objects across the enterprise in multiple projects (kind of the way the same service in SOA can be used in different apps) but have never seen the objects actually used more than once. Maybe I just haven't been part of organizations taking good advantage of the principle of reuse.
The two software projects I've worked on have both been long term development. One is about 10 years old, the other has been around for over 30 years, rewritten in a couple versions of Fortran along the way. Both make extensive reuse of code, but both rely very little on external tools or code libraries. DRY is a big mantra on the newer project, which is in C++ and lends itself more easily to doing that in practice.
Maybe the better question is when do we NOT reuse code these days? We are either in a state on building using someone elses observed "best practices" or prediscovered "design patterns" or just actually building on legacy code, libraries, or copying.
It seems the degree to which code A is reused to make code B is often based around how much the ideas in code A taken to code B are abstracted into design patterns/idioms/books/fleeting thoughts/actual code/libraries. The hard part is in applying all those good ideas to your actual code.
Non-technical types get overzealous about the reuse thing. They don't understand why everything can't be copy-pasted. They don't understand why the greemelfarm needs a special adapter to communicate the same information that it used to to the old system to the new system, and that, unfortunately we can't change either due to a bazillion other reasons.
I think techies have been reusing from day 1 in the same way musicians have been reusing from day 1. Its an ongoing organic evolution and sythesis that will keep ongoing.
Code reuse is an extremely important issue - where code is not reused, projects take longer and are harder for new team members to get into.
However, writing reusable code takes longer.
Personally, I try to write all my code in a reusable way, this takes longer, but it results in the fact that most of my code has become official infrastructures in my organization and that new projects based on these infrastructures take significantly less time.
The danger in reusing code, is if the reused code is not written as an infrastructure - in a general and encapsulated manner with as few as possible assumptions and as much as possible documentation and unit testing, that the code can end up doing unexpected things.
Also, if bugs are found and fixed, or features added, these changes are rarely returned to the source code, resulting in different versions of the reused code, that no one knows of or understands.
The solution is:
1. To design and write the code with not only one project in mind, but to think of future requirements and try to make the design flexible enough to cover them with minimal code change.
2. To enclose the code within libraries that are to be used as-is and not modified within using projects.
3. To allow users to view and modify the code of of the library withing its solution (not within the using project's solution).
4. To design future projects to be based on the existing infrastructures, making changes to the infrastructures as necessary.
5. To charge maintaining the infrastructure to all projects, thus keeping the infrastructure funded.
Maven has solved code reuse. I'm completely serious.