james mckay dot net

Half a dozen or so of us from work were at the London Stack Overflow Dev Days event with several hundred other developers today. I’ve been pretty impressed with the way Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky’s enterprise has turned out to be such a resounding success, and I’ve also been an avid reader of Jeff’s blog, Coding Horror, for several years now, so I was naturally delighted to get the opportunity to go.

Encountering Joel and Jeff in real life was an interesting experience, since I’ve only ever read their blogs and Twitter feeds up to now. Over the past year or so, I’ve had to get used to seeing certain people in real life that most people only ever see on TV or on the Internet, but it still seems a bit odd when you do. It certainly gives you a totally different impression of them from what you had before though. You can certainly see why Joel and Jeff in particular are both so successful in what they do: as well as being excellent online communicators, they are both brilliantly engaging and entertaining public speakers. So too was Jon Skeet, who gave a very funny talk about localisation entitled “Humanity: Epic Fail,” assisted by a sock puppet called Tony the Pony. Joel’s talk on FogBugz was a pretty hard sell, but it certainly looks impressive, boasting a feature set that makes Trac look like Notepad.

The other talks included an introduction to Python by Michael Sparks of the BBC, who explained to us Peter Norvig’s 21 line spelling corrector (it didn’t escape my attention that Jon Skeet spent the lunch break porting it to C#); introductions to mobile development for no less than three rival platforms (Google Android by Reto Meir, iPhone by Phil Nash, and Qt/Nokia by Pekka Kosonen); introductions to jQuery (Remy Sharp) and Yahoo! Developer Tools (Christian Heilmann); and an academic talk on “How not to design a scripting language” by Paul Biggar, who recommended the book “Engineering a Compiler,” by Cooper and Torczon as a superior alternative to the Dragon Book.

I spoke to Jeff during the afternoon break and asked him if he had any plans to publish the best of Coding Horror in a book. He said he’d thought about it a bit, but wasn’t entirely convinced it was worth doing. It’s something I’ve recently thought that he’d do well to do—a lot of his posts are ones I’d consider “must-reads” for every working developer, and if he did, I’d buy it in a shot. He wouldn’t be the first person to do something like that either—after all, Joel did it (twice), and so did Raymond Chen. It was interesting what he asked me when I told him I work for Parliament—he was most interested to know whether Britain is part of Europe or not. It’s a good question, that. Officially we are, but unofficially I sometimes think that as a country, we’re not entirely sure ourselves.

There were just two disappointments to the day. One was the catering. I was half expecting something along the lines of a buffet lunch—after all, I do tend to think of the Fog Creek Way as one where they go the extra mile to get these things perfect—but it turned out to be the kind of mass produced sandwiches that you get in a motorway service station that are all ridiculously overpriced, taste exactly the same as each other, and don’t meet with my approval anyway because they’re spread up with margarine. The other disappointment was the venue itself. Kensington town hall simply is not big enough for however many of us (800? 1000?) were there today. Consequently it felt very crowded and claustrophobic, and even a little bit uncomfortable, especially during the breaks when we all crowded into the foyer and had to form a queue stretching seemingly all the way to Barking and back to get to the food.

The day ended at about ten past six and I came away with a whole lot of freebies: a Qt rucksack, a copy of the Aardvark’d DVD, a handful of FogBugz pens, and a handful of Stack Overflow, Server Fault and Superuser stickers. All in all, it was a pretty full day (I had to get up half an hour earlier than usual and I got home an hour and a half later than usual, and sitting through seven hours of talks was pretty intense) but it was well worth it.

Comment on this »

Posted at 23:00 on 28 October 2009.
Tagged: Jeff Atwood, Joel Spolsky, Stack Overflow

Some people at work think I’m a bit of a Joel Spolsky fanboy. I’ve certainly got a lot of useful hints and tips out of his blog, Joel on Software, and I’ve been recommending it as a must-read for fellow developers and managers alike.

Until now.

What’s really, really annoying me about Joel these days is that he’s started preaching cowboy coding. And I don’t like it.

His latest post, The Duct Tape Programmer, illustrates this perfectly. He has yet another dig at Architecture Astronauts who come up to you when you’re racing to get an upgrade ready for deployment and tell you that you need to refactor your core code to use multi-apartment threaded COM. Not unreasonable. But then, he goes on to wax lyrical about Jamie Zawinski, who is, to use Joel’s words, the Pretty Boy of Software Development. He wrote Netscape Navigator in the 1990s and is Joel’s hero because—get this—he didn’t write unit tests:

Zawinski didn’t do many unit tests. They “sound great in principle. Given a leisurely development pace, that’s certainly the way to go. But when you’re looking at, ‘We’ve got to go from zero to done in six weeks,’ well, I can’t do that unless I cut something out. And what I’m going to cut out is the stuff that’s not absolutely critical. And unit tests are not critical. If there’s no unit test the customer isn’t going to complain about that.”

Now perhaps Mr Zawinski is brilliant enough to get away with a “duct tape programming” approach, but it is not something that we should be encouraging, not least because it is deeply unprofessional. Besides, what he says about unit testing is just WRONG.

Here’s the score with test-driven development. Once you know what you’re doing, it doesn’t slow you down overall. Yes, it takes longer to write the code in the first place, but this is offset by a decrease in time spent debugging, and on top of that, you get a dramatic increase in confidence in your code, a more robust design, and a reproducible, easy to run way of verifying that your code does what it’s supposed to. Every professional developer who is concerned about quality these days writes unit tests insofar as they can. If you don’t like the idea, you are a cowboy coder. Period.

Joel’s sentiments such as these have been bugging me since the start of this year, when he crossed swords with “Uncle Bob” Robert C Martin on the Stack Overflow podcast over the SOLID principles. Back in January on the Stack Overflow podcast, he made this observation:

Joel revisits the SOLID principles, and compares them to designing replaceable batteries, or a headphone jack, into your product. Appropriate in some narrow cases, but not all the time. Imagine a consumer product where every single part of it could be plugged in and replaced with another compatible part. Is that realistic?

Actually, Joel, I can perfectly well imagine such a consumer product. In fact I own one such consumer product myself where this kind of design pattern is very important. It’s called a car.

Let me explain. On the journey up to Faith Camp in August, another driver ran into the back of said car and left it looking rather sorry for itself. The repairs took three weeks, and involved replacing the rear bumper, the rear hatch, and various panels. Ford makes appropriate parts that can be slotted and bolted into place with relative ease as replacements for the damaged originals.

Imagine a car built the way Joel’n’Jeff seemed to be suggesting, where it was just one monolithic structure, with non-interchangeable parts. One ding like that and it’s a writeoff. When the tyres wear thin, or the bulbs go, you have to scrap it. Is that realistic?

Architecture astronauts are a straw man here. We’re not talking about highfalutin over-engineered ProviderSingletonVisitorAdapterMediatorRepositoryFactory design patterns, nor are we talking about more layers of abstraction than The Princess and the Pea, we’re talking about a common sense approach to software development. It’s the kind of thing that you’re either doing anyway but you just don’t know what it’s called, or else you get that kind of “aha!” moment when you first encounter it that makes you think, “Now how come I never thought of that before?”

One other thing. When you’re repairing a car after an accident, you most certainly do NOT just use duct tape and WD-40. No matter how much of a Pretty Boy you think you are.

Comments (1) »

Posted at 10:00 on 25 September 2009.
Tagged: best practices, cowboy coding, duct tape, Joel Spolsky, jwz

I find it rather ironic that the author of the blog entry from which this excerpt is taken:

It seems like any time you try to measure the performance of knowledge workers, things rapidly disintegrate, and you get what Robert D. Austin calls measurement dysfunction. His book Measuring and Managing Performance in Organizations is an excellent and thorough survey of the subject. Managers like to implement measurement systems, and they like to tie compensation to performance based on these measurement systems. But in the absence of 100% supervision, workers have an incentive to “work to the measurement,” concerning themselves solely with the measurement and not with the actual value or quality of their work.

is also one of the faces behind a programmer website which does exactly what he is railing against.

I’m talking about the Stack Overflow reputation and badge system. Granted, it was more Jeff Atwood’s idea than Joel’s — he took his inspiration for it from the Xbox 360 — but the big problem is that when you try to turn a serious system that is supposed to be all about Getting Things Done into a game, people just game the system and turn it into an unusable mess that is not fit for purpose.

If you want to see what I mean, just take a look at this question, which I asked yesterday afternoon. I’ve been looking for a bug tracker system which can work as an integrated system for both developers and project managers for a while now, and none of the ones I’ve looked at so far have the particular feature I’m asking for.

The first so-called answer came within seconds and didn’t answer the question properly, which isn’t surprising since you would need at least 2-3 minutes just to read the question in the first place. It was followed by a string of about ten or so responses over the next half hour, again, very few of which made much effort to read the question, let alone answer it. Most people seemed to treat it as saying “What is your favourite issue tracker?” and one busybody even tagged it as “subjective” when I was asking for something very specific. And nobody so far has reported any success or otherwise with using an issue tracker of any description to integrate both the developer’s-eye view and the project manager’s-eye view.

This is a BIG problem with Stack Overflow, and I’ve seen it to an extent on other questions too. The system doesn’t favour good answers or correct answers or answers that actually make any attempt to answer the question, it favours quick answers. Being the first off the mark with something that at least looks like it could plausibly be an answer to the question means you’re most likely to get voted up. Getting voted up means appearing at the top of the list of answers, and it’s kind of self perpetuating because then you get more votes, and each vote means that you get ten reputation points, and if you get enough reputation points, you automatically become the Stack Overflow equivalent of a Wikipedia administrator.

The result is that you get a whole lot of knuckleheads gaming the system trying to pimp their reputation. They put up a response that looks fairly plausible and seems right to other knuckleheads but which either (a) doesn’t answer the question, or (b) is plain wrong. If the person asking the question is also a knucklehead, their answer gets marked as the accepted answer, which means even more reputation points. In the meantime, someone who arrives several days or weeks later with the correct answer doesn’t get any attention because their answer gets buried in all the other zeros. It’s particularly worrying because it’ll be the knuckleheads who end up running the show and deciding what goes and what doesn’t.

It’s as broken as lines of code per day, and it really really annoys me.

It really annoys a lot of other Stackers too — a request to fix it is the most popular user request on the Stack Overflow uservoice forums, though the problem is that there is no consensus about what needs to be done to stop it. I do hope they come up with some fix for it, otherwise the site could end up with no more value than its arch-nemesis, expertsexchange.

Comments closed (2) »

Posted at 12:30 on 27 September 2008.
Tagged: Jeff Atwood, Joel Spolsky, metrics, Stack Overflow

I’ve been checking out the private beta of the new Stack Overflow website from Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky. You need to sign up for an invitation if you want to get involved with the beta, and they’re only sending out a hundred or so invitations a day, so you may have a bit of a wait, but from what I’ve seen it looks fairly promising.

The concept is fairly simple: it’s a programmers’ question and answer website, a bit like a cross between Yahoo Answers and Digg. You can vote answers up and down, with popular answers appearing at the top and useless answers falling to the bottom. This means that it should help to filter out answers of the type “I’m having the same problem too” which render Google search results for pretty much 100% of the problems you encounter with SharePoint development totally useless. However, it is not well suited for discussions — there are some questions where people have been posting answers in response to other answers, but it can be a bit difficult to follow the thread of the discussion.

Another interesting twist, however, is that you can vote questions as well as answers up and down. This is based on the premise that the old adage “There are no stupid questions” is wrong. This is a common sentiment in geek — especially hacker — circles, and I have mixed feelings about it. Yes, vague and misdirected questions can be an irritation, but they usually come from newbies who don’t know any better, and highlighting newbies’, er, newbie-ness, could be a bit off-putting to them. Having said that, it could — and probably will — work out fine, but the site may need some kind of equivalent to the Wikipedia policies of “Don’t bite the newbies” and “Assume good faith” to avoid the hacker types from getting too carried away with themselves there.

You can also earn “badges” and reputation points, for a whole lot of things such as answering questions, getting a certain number of votes on your answer or question, or having your answer judged as the best one by the person asking the question. You need a certain number of reputation points in order to do certain things — for example, you can only vote questions and answers up and down if you have 25 or more reputation points.

At the moment, there are just under a thousand users on the site, and since it’s populated by the kind of people who have actually heard of Joel Spolsky and Jeff Atwood, the questions and the answers are on the whole pretty smart ones. How much this changes in a month’s time or so when it opens to the public and its eternal September gets underway, remains to be seen. There is always the possibility that it will see an influx of the kind of morons that hang out on Digg, or people asking questions such as “Help, I deleted the database and we didn’t have a backup, how do I get it back before my boss finds out?” but hopefully the moderation system will keep it on track, mitigate that, and preserve the flavour of a community of developers who actually know what they are doing and can give constructive answers to questions.

Comments closed »

Posted at 22:09 on 10 August 2008.
Tagged: Jeff Atwood, Joel Spolsky, Stack Overflow

I’ve finally decided to take the plunge and get into Ruby on Rails properly.

I must admit there have been a couple of things about Rails that put me off a bit. One of these was the amount of hype surrounding it. I have always been very wary of hype, for the simple reason that it can cloud your judgment and lead you into making rash decisions that you later regret. Another thing that put me off learning Rails was the lack of decent, downloadable documentation — though this is less of an issue now that we have broadband at home. A third thing is that the business case for Rails is still fairly embryonic at present: there are fewer Rails jobs knocking around than .net jobs or PHP jobs, for instance. And on top of that, Joel Spolsky doesn’t like it.

Having said that, Rails is rapidly becoming mainstream. Tiobe Software noted that it was the programming language with the fastest growing community in 2006 (seems it took a massive leap round about November). Besides, the off-the-chart-smart people at ThoughtWorks have thrown their weight behind Rails, and you need to bear in mind that these are some of the people at the cutting edge of research into software development and design patterns, so it must be worth serious consideration. And on top of this, the chief technical architect for one of our most important clients is seriously into Rails, so it looks like it could come in pretty useful.

And what of Joel’s railing against it? Personally, I can’t help but get the impression that it cost him a lot of credibility. (David Heinemeier Hansson described it as “one of the purest forms of FUD I’ve ever seen”.) And when he ended his article by saying that he has his own in-house programming language called Wasabi, a lot of people thought that he had gone off the rails in more ways than one — or at the very least, that he was joking. Unfortunately, he wasn’t.

So I took delivery of the book from Amazon.com yesterday and I’ll be working my way through it over the next couple of weeks or so. Stay tuned.

Comments closed »

Posted at 14:44 on 10 February 2007.
Tagged: Joel Spolsky, Rails, Tiobe Index