Joel Spolsky, cowboy coder

This post is more than 14 years old.

Posted at 09:00 on 25 September 2009

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.