Slashdot Mirror


Joel On Software

Daniel Shefer writes "Joel on Software is a collection of essays from the Joel Spolsky's Joel on Software web log. Spolsky is also the author of User Interface Design for Programmers (previously reviewed on Slashdot) and is the principal of Fog Creek Software. In this book, Spolsky distills his technical knowledge, wit, and years of experience into an engaging collection of essays on programmers, programming and the software world. Spolsky covers everything from the technical aspects of writing code to software project management, and even offers insights into software marketing." Read on for the rest of Shefer's review. Joel On Software author Joel Spolsky pages 362 publisher Apress rating 9.5 reviewer Daniel Shefer ISBN 1590593898 summary Great insights into programming, software in general and how to do it right.

The essays in this book are even-handed. While he focuses on Windows, Spolsky is not a fanatic believer in one approach over another; if C# works better than Visual Basic for a specific task, so be it. His approach is refreshing when so much is written by opinionated members of the "Microsoft is the source of all evil" camp.

Spolsky starts with down-to-earth topics, such as how to estimate the length of time programming tasks will require, and the ratio of QA people to developers needed for a healthy product. He then moves on to share his thoughts on managing developers and higher-level software-related issues.

One of the book's opening salvos, "the Joel Test for Better Code," is a simple "irresponsible" test that Spolsky created to provide insight into how well a development organization is functioning. The test looks for things like using source-code control, and having testers create daily builds with a single click of a button. As someone who has worked companies that would have failed the "Joel Test" miserably, I can attest to the importance of these criteria.

The chapter on Unicode is a short and to-the-point overview on the topic and should be required reading for any software developer and product manager who wants an introduction to Unicode.

Clean and bug-free code is a common thread in several essays in the first part of the book. Spolsky explains the inappropriateness of developers performing QA and stresses the need to "eat your own dog food." Having developers conduct testing is a waste of resources and upsets them just the same; forcing developers to use their own product will motivate them to create a better one.

In "Fire and Motion," Spolsky takes issue with the "architect astronauts" who generate vague technology announcements that are often counterproductive by creating fear, uncertainty and doubt. While these announcements may drive competitors to waste cycles in converting their code base to the latest technology, they offer no real substance. Misguided companies, mesmerized by the promise of new technologies or by demands from numskull customers, can sap years of developer time when product improvement should have taken precedence.

In "Biculturalism," Spolsky dispassionately discusses the differences in world view between Windows and UNIX programmers. Spolsky probably rankled some UNIX fans, but I share his perspective. Spolsky points out that UNIX developers are just as smart as Windows developers, but when it comes to understanding their end users and having empathy for customers, they tend to fall short.

The "Gorilla Guide to Interviewing" is relevant to all hiring managers. Spolsky describes some of the traits of his ideal hires. Those who, in one sentence, are both smart and "get things done." Spolsky believes in hiring people that can perform multiple roles. Spolsky believes in making a "sharp" decision about the candidate, and finds insulting that a hiring manager would not find the interviewee good enough for his own team but would refer him to another team. Spolsky shares one of his hiring secrets: never hire a "maybe." This might seem obvious, but he details why it's better to reject a good candidate than to hire a bad one. Firing can cost a lot of money, time and effort. Additionally, Spolsky suggests questions to ask during an interview and the necessary "what not to ask."

The "Iceberg Secret Revealed" discusses the manner in which customers express their pain, and points out that customers often don't really know what they want. It is the product manager's job to find a solution that will solve their customer's pain while keeping an eye on the market she is addressing. Just listening to customers without proper filters, is as Spolsky points out, a recipe for disaster. And the Iceberg Secret? Spolsky illustrates in five different ways how customers and stakeholders only look at the tip of the iceberg, and not at the substance beneath it.

In one of the shorter chapters, a missive on measurement, Spolsky addresses the prickly issue of measuring performance in companies. In addition to his own insights on measuring performance, he recommends Measuring and Managing Performance in Organizations by Robert Austin. I will add that to my reading list.

Spolsky wrote an introduction to In Search of Stupidity . He offers there the "geek's" perspective on what it takes to make a successful software company, taking as a starting point the ten largest software companies in 1984 and the equivalent list of 2001. His conclusion is that "no software company can succeed unless a programmer is at the helm." With his usual even handedness, he is quick to point out some of the debacles programmers are responsible for. In the example he gives, Netscape's disastrous rewriting of their code base and almost complete loss of market share while they were doing it. His bottom line? To succeed, a company needs a management team that love and thoroughly understand programming and understand and love business. Not as easy as it sounds.

In his five "Strategy Letters," Spolsky writes about issues that are relevant to anyone making strategic business decisions in the software industry. He starts with company growth modes by comparing Ben & Jerry's to Amazon. He then discusses the classic "Chicken and the Egg" problem when building new platforms. His example is still relevant -- few will develop .NET-based clients until a large number of end users have the .NET engine installed on their PCs and end users will not install it until there are enough applications that require it. Spolsky moves on to discuss backward compatibility, open source economics and the myth of bloatware.

Spolsky points out that despite the growing size of applications, the cost of disk space has plummeted even faster. This may be true, but Spolsky does not address the programs' resulting sluggishness despite more and more processing power. Spolsky wraps up the essay by dismissing the notion of coming out with a "lite" version for a given software product. I agree that lite versions do not always satisfy everyone, but they can be a great way to keep out low-end competitors from entering the market in addition to a way to introduce customers to the high-end product.

The chapter about Microsoft losing the API war is a classic. Spolsky starts with the seemingly outlandish assertion that Microsoft lost the API war. After apologizing for his "grandiloquence and pomposity," he goes on to build a convincing case that if Microsoft has in fact not lost the war, they are definitely in danger of doing so. He starts with the diminishing interest in the Windows API as a development platform. He then describes how two camps inside Microsoft (the "Raymond Chen" and the "MSDN Magazine" groups) are influencing Microsoft's approach to their developers' tools. The former group emphasizes creating a backward-compatible operating system, free of bugs and impervious to third-party applications' errors that can harm it. On the other hand is the MSDN group, promoting the latest and greatest Microsoft has to offer. As Spolsky sees it, the latter group has the upper hand, and because of this, Microsoft is losing their developer base to simpler, more easily deployed platforms.

In part 4 of the book, Spolsky takes on Microsoft's .NET strategy. He describes Microsoft's tendency to create FUD in the marketplace with vague, hollow statements, and details his own company's reasons for not adopting .NET anytime soon. Spolsky wraps up with a very straightforward feature request: a linker for .NET. This would seem to be an obvious feature, but Microsoft so far doesn't agree. Microsoft is acting as though they want to win the development platform war in a single sweep. At the same time, independent software vendors (ISVs) are resisting, because they have to guarantee backward compatibility and support for everything their customers run.

My only complaint about the book is that it's too short. On my bookshelf, it resides next to the Mythical Man Month, another favorite.

Spolsky is knowledgeable, funny and free of unnecessary religious fervor. Joel on Software is a must-read for developers, product managers and those who want more insight into the world of developing software.

Daniel Shefer is a Software Product Management professional and has written numerous articles on this topic. You can purchase Joel on Software from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

12 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Aha! by Otter · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'd been meaning to put this in a JE after it was rejected as an article submission, but this seems like a good opportunity:

    Joel is assembling a volume of "the best software essays" of 2004 and is taking reader nominations. Suggest something if you have a favorite, or just click through and read everyone else's picks.

  2. Worth noting by prostoalex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The entire book is available on the Web for free, since the book is basically the collection of Joel's best articles. He cleaned them up, according to the introduction, but anyone willing to "look inside the book" (tm) before getting it, has a chance to go through 100% of it.

    1. Re:Worth noting by michtu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's cool, but I think having the book on your desk can do more to get other people to read it than pointing them to a web site. Logical or not the people who should read his stuff will be more inclined to believe a book though from experience the people who should read the essays, won't.

      --

      Frenchman to King Arthur - "You've got two empty halves of coconuts and you're bangin' 'em together"
  3. A quick FYI by Swamii · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those that don't know the background to the story, Joel published a "How Microsoft Lost the API War" essay on his blog which stirred up enough developers at Microsoft that the company decided it would backport their new windowing and rendering system ("Avalon") and their new networking and messanging system ("Indigo") to previous versions of Windows, including XP. Before this essay, the said technologies had been designed for Windows Longhorn only.

    Point being that Joel has a lot of influence and a lot of respect among the Microsoft folks. I also hope his suggestion of a linker for .NET falls on listening ears in Redmond, time will tell.

    --
    Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
  4. Definitely no PHB by ggeezz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Joel is definitely no PHB (pointy haired boss). You will think that many of his insights are just plain common sense and that is correct. The problem is that too many times management will not use common sense and they need someone like Joel to point it out to them.

    I'm Joel's collections made it into dead tree form as that will lend them some more credibility. Good reading.

  5. Re:Yep, this guy's an idiot by Lao-Tzu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, I used to work for a company that believed that. No specifications, since deciding how things will work would take too long. So we did iterative software development, instead - build it once, present it to the users, and then start over because it wasn't what they wanted.

    I quit.

    Oh man, am I ever happier now.

    Joel is no idiot. He realizes that specifications take time and effort to develop, and to keep up-to-date. He argues quite convincingly for specifications as a wise investment of time, not a waste. A large section of this book is devoted to "painless" specifications, and it is insightful and useful. This book is the only book I've ever felt a need to keep next to my keyboard - and it's not even a technical manual.

  6. Re:From Joel's blog by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thats not true. My computer doesn't didn't care about me and crashed frequently. Then i decided to start caring for it and installed linux and now it shows its love.

  7. Review advertised. Summary delivered. by skoda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I realize critical writing is difficult, but if you're going to advertise a book review, deliver one. Like most Slashdot "reviews", this review is actually a summary.

    A review should provide critical thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the material under consideration. A book review is not just a regurgitation of its contents. It also also provides an evaluation of its merits, noting where it succeeds or fails in its purpose. And enables me to determine if its worth its while.

    This "review" nicely summarized the contents of the book but largely failed to inform as to whether the reviews are well written, provide new ideas, or present old ideas in particularly valuable manner. Therefore, I cannot recommend reading this review. Instead, just read the book's table of contents.

  8. Re:I do not pay much attention to Joel Spolsky by TheRealSlimShady · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You don't think that might be because Joel doesn't share your opinions about Open Source software?

    Furthermore, Joel's "technical interview questions" are less than optimal. If you want to assess a prospective employee's intelligence, the first questions that you ask should be along these lines: "How long have you been using Linux or *BSD? How long have you been using Apache, Tomcat, Zope, mod_perl, PHP, gcc, etc.? What is the difference between TCP and UDP? What are the most salient differences between Linux distributions these days? Why do you use your particular distribution (of Linux, *BSD, etc.)? What do you know about package management?"

    Well that would be great if you were interviewing them for a job developing web applications on Linux - however, since he writes most of his software for the Windows platform they would be pretty useless questions really wouldn't they?

  9. An error in one of his essays by Sirp · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I don't know if this made it into the book or not, but there is an error in one of his essays that reflects a glaring misunderstanding of the workings of C++. From http://www.joelonsoftware.com/printerFriendly/arti cles/fog0000000014.html :
    You could have code like this:

    int foo( object& r )
    {
    r.Blah();
    return 1;
    }

    and you would get crashes there because the r reference was NULL, even though that's completely impossible, there's no such thing as a NULL reference, C++ guarantees it
    And then he goes onto blaming the problem on 'cosmic rays' and the user's computer. While it is true that there is no such thing as a NULL reference in C++, the problem is still likely to be a simple bug in his software. There are many possible constructs that the C++ Standard leaves as 'undefined'. A conforming compiler can do anything it wants if you do something involving undefined behavior, and that includes creating a 'NULL reference'. Just try this program:
    #include <iostream>

    void f(char& ref)
    {
    std::cout << "value of reference is " << (int)&ref << "\n";
    }

    int main()
    {
    char* p = NULL;
    f(*p);
    }
    What's its behavior? It's undefined, because a pointer-to-NULL is dereferenced, and that's a big C++ no-no. It could be anything whatsoever according to the C++ standard. The most common behavior though, and the behavior of my compiler is to output, value of reference is 0 That's right, we have created us a 'NULL reference'. I must admit, I'm a little surprised that someone who has so many years of experience as a programmer doesn't understand this, and instead blames it on the user's computer. I know his book is mostly on a higher-level, looking into the management of software projects, but he seems to think that being a good programmer is fundamental to being a good manager...
  10. A wee bit disappointing... by a_karbon_devel_005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After reading this book, I actually decided Joel was much LESS clever than I initially thought. Most of his knowledge is directly from Microsoft, you might as well read a Microsoft training manual. Yet it's plainly obvious he fails, for a LONG time, to grasp .NET

    Pages upon pages bitching about how stupid .NET is and of course, he ends up moving Fog Creek software towards it. He seems short sighted in many regards. Remember the page where he wanted a linker for .NET? hehe.

    My impression after reading the book is that he was a rich guy who went to good schools, was given opportunities and learning early (thousands of dolloars on computers when he was a kid and computers were quite rare), and basically recycles things he was spoon fed at Microsoft.

    There's nuggets of goodness, but my opinion of Joel's knowledge and expertise actually went down after reading the whole book.

  11. Re:Bloat is good! by akuma(x86) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> Interesting reasons. Bloat is still bad, no matter how much CPU you decide you can throw at it.

    It's comments like this that make me think that computer science should be taught as an engineering discipline.

    It's a tradeoff. Engineers make tradeoffs all day long. Consider the costs and the benefits. In this case it's a tradeoff of how much does the user care about bloat vs. how soon they want the product. As disk and memory and cpu speed all increase EXPONENTIALLY at the same cost point over time, the tradeoff often falls towards bloat since exponentially falling hardware prices make the user more likely to be indifferent.