July 9, 2014
What Problem Does This Solve?It seems that, every year, the process of getting started with a new application development becomes more and more complicated and requires ever steeper learning curves.
The root of this appears to be the heterogenity of our development tools, which grows exponentially as more and more developers - fuelled by caffeine-rich energy drinks and filled with the kind of hubris that only a programmer seems to be capable of - flex their muscles by doing what are effectively nothing more than "cover versions" of technologies that already exist and are usually completely adequate at solving the problem they set out to solve.
Take, for example, Yet Another Test Automation Tool (YATAT). The need for frameworks that remove the donkey work of wiring together automated tests suites and running all the tests is self-evident. Doing it the old-fashioned way, in the days before xUnit, often involved introducing abstractions that look very xUnit-ish and having to remember to write the code to execute each new test.
Tools like JUnit - which apply convention over that kind of manual configuration - make adding and running new tests a doddle. Handy user-friendly test-runner GUIs are the icing on the cake. Job done now.
For a bit of extra customer-centric mustard, add on the ability to suck test data for parameterised tests out of natural language descriptions of tests written by our customers. We cracked that one many moons ago, when heap big Turbo C++ compilers roamed the earth and programmer kill many buffalo etc. Ah yes, the old "merge the example data with the parameterised test" routine...
Given that the problem's solved, and many times over, what need, asks I, to solve it again, and again? And then solve it again again?
The answer is simple: because we can. Kent Beck learns new programming languages by knocking up a quick xUnit implementation in it. Pretty much any programmer beyond a certain rudimentary ability can do it. And they do. xUnit implementations are the Stairway To Heaven of programming solutions.
Likewise, MVC frameworks. They demonstrate a rudimentary command of a programming language and associated UI frameworks. Just as many rock guitar players have at some point a few weeks into learning the instrument mastered "The Boys Are Back In Town", many developers with an ounce of technical ability have gone "Look, Ma! I done made a MVC!" ("That's nice, dear. Now run outside and rig up an IoC container with your nice friends.")
But most cover versions of Stairway To Heaven (and The Boys Are Back In Town) are not as good as the originals. And even if they were, what value do they add?
Unless you're embuing your xUnit implementation with something genuinely new, and genuinely useful, surely it's little more than masturbation to do another one?
Now, don't get me wrong: masturbation has a serious evolutionary purpose, no doubt. It's practice for the real thing, it keeps the equipment in good working order, and it's also enjoyable in its own right. But what it's not any good for is making babies. (Unless it's immediately proceeded by some kind of turkey baster-type arrangement.)
It's actually quite satisifying to put together something like an xUnit implementation, or an MVC framework, or a Version Control System, or a new object oriented programming language that's suspiciously like C++.
The problems start when some other developers say "Oh, look, a new shiny thing. Let's ditch the old one and start using this one that does exactly the same thing and no better, so we shall."
Now, anyone looking to work with that team has got to drop X and start learning X', so they can achieve exactly what they were achieving before. ("But... it's got monads...")
And thusly we find ourselves climbing a perpetually steepening learning curve, but one that doesn't take us any higher. I shudder to think just how much time we're spending learning "new" technologies just to stand still.
And, yes, I know that we need an xUnit implementation for x=Java and x=C# and x=Object Pascal and so on, but aren't these in themselves self-fulfilling prophesies? A proliferation of sort-of-similar programming languages giving rise to the need for a proliferation of Yet Another 3rd Generation Programming Language xUnit ports?
Genuinely new and genuinely useful technologies come by relatively rarely. And while there are no doubts tweaks and improvements that could be made to make them friendlier, faster, and quite possibly more purple, for the most part the pay-off is at the start when developers find we can do things we were never able to do before.
And so I respectfully request that, before you inflict Yet Another Thing That's Like The Old Thing Only Exactly The Same (YATTLTOTOETS - pronounceed "yattle-toe-totes"), you stop and ask yourself "What problem does this solve? How do this make things better?" and pause for a while to consider if the learning curve you're about to subject us to is going to be worth the extra effort. Maybe it's really not worth the effort, and the time you spend making it and the cumulative time we all spend learning it would be better spent doing something like - just off the top of my head - talking to our customers. (Given that lack of customer involvement is the primary cause of software development failure. Unless you've invented a tool that can improve that. and, before anybody says anything, I refer you back to the "sucking customer's test data into parameterised tests" bit earlier. Been there. Done that. Got a new idea?)
Brought to you by Yet Another Blog Management System Written In PHP That's Not Quite As Good As The Others
Posted 3 years, 7 months ago on July 9, 2014