The craft of software development

-

There has been a recent spike (well relatively ancient in software terms...) in the term Software Craftsmanship. This is the notion that developing software bears more resemblance to a craft or art than to a scientific pursuit. This is a very accurate and a good explanation for why guilds and other artisanal concepts creep into software development circles.

I've noticed interesting contrasting correlations in folks who "grew up" developing software to solve problems versus people who learned computer science or computer engineering at a university. While the latter generally have a more sound grounding in the theoretical underpinning of "how computers work", the former have a better grasp at "how software delivers value". Put another way, computer scientists and computer engineers seem to have a focus on the nuts and bolts of how computers work instead of how to get them to do new and valuable things.

This is not a BAD thing, but losing sight (or not focusing on) "how what I'm building adds value" and instead focusing on "how the computer does stuff" tends to lead to what I'll term "science experiments". Using a different metaphor, a craftsman finds tools that are "good enough" for the job and spends a little effort of time to constantly refines them whereas a scientist will spends a LOT of effort over time finding or building the "perfect tool" for the job and little effort to actually do "the job".

Put another way, if I want to build something out of wood, I could spend days/weeks/months studying the various characteristics if different kinds of wood, or I could build a cabinet out of whatever lumber I can get my hands on and refine my techniques as I progress through more projects with different kinds of wood. I find the latter to be a more useful approach, unless my value proposition is that I want to be the foremost expert on "all things wooden". To illustrate the difference I ask the question: "Do you want your cabinets built by someone who has built many progressively better cabinets with a variety of materials, or by someone who has never actually built anything, but can explain the shear strength of cedar versus maple?".

While I realize this is an oversimplification (well maybe not as much as we'd like to admit), where I find a particular weakness in the industry right now is in developing the "craft". Too often, industrialized software development ignores a particular aspect of craft, that is, the continuous improvement of your tools and process and instead focuses on a particular "perfect technology" without refining the art. I've seen too many developers focus on finding the "perfect tool" instead of learning how to work with the ones they already have...the process of learning new tools and techniques better serves "building useful things" when it is constant and evolutionary instead of intermittent and revolutionary.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Please use ANSI-92 SQL Join Syntax

-
Image
Way back in 1992, a standard was published for SQL. In it, the syntax for specifying joins in SQL Database was finally standardized. This was a good thing because (for folks who've been doing this a while), trying to decode the vagaries of how various Databases handled outer joins could drive you bonkers yielding different results depending on the parse order of things in the from and where clauses. Unfortunately, some DBMS vendors took a while to adopt this standard (Oracle didn't support it until 2001), but at this point if you're using a major RDBMS and NOT using it, you're probably mired in a tradition or habit that bears changing. As an example of what I'm describing, here are some examples of what I mean. Old School (no standard syntax + implementation and evaluation of predicates varied by vendor [and query]): select * from customer, order where customer.customer = order.customerid ANSI way (agreed to standard, predicate evaluation has some rules ...
Read more

The difference between Scalability, Performance, Efficiency, and Concurrency explained

-
I thought I'd give some explanation of the difference between scalability, performance, Efficiency, and concurrency. To make things more accessible (and because I'm watching a cooking show on TV) I'm going to use a baking metaphor to help explain the differences. In our case, the system in question is baking cookies for consumers. Scalability, is how well something responds to adding more resources. If we can double our capacity by doubling the number of resources, we've got linear scalability. In our baking example, if we add more ingredients, we can scale to a larger number of cookies. To contrast with our other metrics, this doesn't actually increase the performance of creating a single cookie (they still take 10 minutes to bake), and the efficiency is the same (we just have more capacity). We also cannot bake more cookies in a fixed time period, but over a larger time period we can produce more cookies. Performance is how fast something can get done, u...
Read more

the myth of asynchronous JDBC

-
Image
I keep seeing people (especially in the scala/typesafe world) posting about async jdbc libraries. STOP IT! Under the current APIs, async JDBC belongs in a realm with Unicorns, Tiger Squirrels, and 8' spiders. While you might be able to move the blocking operations and queue requests and keep your "main" worker threads from blocking, jdbc is synchronous. At some point, somewhere, there's going to be a thread blocking waiting for a response. It's frustrating to see so many folks hyping this and muddying the waters. Unless you write your own client for a dbms and have a dbms that can multiplex calls over a single connection (or using some other strategy to enable this capability) db access is going to block. It's not impossible to make the calls completely async, but nobody's built it yet. Yes, I know ajdbc is taking a stab at this capability, but even IT uses a thread pool for the blocking calls (be default). Someday we'll have async databa...
Read more