Slashdot Mirror
Same Dev Tools/Language/Framework For Everyone?
AC writes "Upper management of the company I work at recently declared that all new development should be done with a single combination of development tools, language, and framework. The main rationale is that people can be relocated from one group / project to another faster, because they don't need to learn a new environment when they switch. Of course the chosen language / framework used by everybody does not need to be the best tool for the job, but it should be good enough to allow every project to get done. What does Slashdot think about this? Is it OK to use the same development tools and language for every project, instead of choosing what fits best? Will the time saved be sufficient to offset the time lost to the 'not the best tool for the job' environment developers will be forced to use?"
We frequently encounter this issue with our clients (government, military, and commercial). We know that this can be a very bad thing if they capriciously apply it across the board. What we have recommended allows for the most flexibility, while minimizing the "tools". In order of importance.
1. Cygwin (0$)
2. Eclipse (0-250$)
3. Teraterm (0$)
4. Adobe CS whichever (900-2500$)
5. Microsoft Office 2003. (400$)
This would allow any team member to move from one workstation/area of work to another without too much effort.
As to the language, we recommend that one be chosen for "prototyping/scripting" and another for "enterprise" development.
With Cygwin you get the CM tools, build tools, perl/bash/etc. (Already included tool set under Mac/Linux/Unix...) With Eclipse you get every thing too. (works on all OS) Teraterm nice term, just don't like putty myself. (not needed outside of windows) Adobe for those that like spending money. (Mac/Windows) Office, they are going to buy it anyway.
1. Slashdot will think that you should be able to use anything you damn well please as long as it's Open Source.
2. Yes, especially if the people who sign you paycheck tell you that's what you have to do.
3. Maybe. A lot depends on how well the team is managed.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Management invariably tries to standardize the wrong tools because they have no idea how software development works. They think in terms of the IDE as "the tool set" rather than the MAKE or ANT build systems, compiler toolchain, version control, and other behind the scene tools.
If you want the standardization to go well, make sure the build tools are standardized. Once anyone can build the project (IDE or no), it won't matter what the "standard" IDE is. (Unless it's Rational Application Developer. That's just a piece of shit right there. Universally agreed upon.) Developers will still download their own editor or IDE tools to make themselves happy without disturbing the greater whole.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Sure, and while they're at it, let's give all the mechanics just one size of wrench and screwdriver.
This policy shows a gross misunderstanding of the engineering process, and of what computer science is. Any computer scientists worth his/her salt should be expected to learn whatever tools are needed to get the job done. And conversely, each project team should be free to evaluate the best tools to get each job done.
It's not unreasonable to have guidelines and even strong recommendations; for example, a company could discourage csh scripts in favor of bash because of the known problems with csh. But to think that C/C++ can substitute for a scripting language or vice versa, or that even a language like FORTRAN has no purpose, completely misses the point.
When I was at Stanford, we got ZERO units for learning different programming languages. We were EXPECTED to learn C, C++, Lisp, and about a dozen other languages, before we could call ourselves computer scientists. If anyone thinks that limiting a computer scientist's choice of tools is a good idea, you should kick that manager to the curb.
Seriously get out your resume and start updating it. Once management starts treating all programmers as interchangeable is the day that all things start going to hell. Programmers are not interchangeable, and all languages are not interchangeable. I sure hope you guys don't do anything that requires AI or if you do I sure hope you don't do anything that requires graphical interfaces because you are screwed either way if you need to pick one language.
I am sure we could all make due building every road out of steal, but it would certainly be a little expensive, because if we need to build everything out of the same material because all road builders need to be interchangeable, than we would never be able to build a bridge over say San Francisco Bay with using stones...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
It depends on how varied your projects are; if all you ever do (as a company) is produce slight variations on a single theme, it should go fine. If you need to develop everything from hard real time embedded apps to web 2.7 social networking goo, you're screwed.
--MarkusQ
Where developers must interface, such as coding style, source code repository or corporate blog? Yes, it makes sense. I may not *like* a coding style, but if management at a large company told us to use one, I'd at least understand why. IDE? OS? Compiler (except for the one that actually builds the product)? No, NO, NO!!! A thousand times, no! Why? Because you're just going to stifle creativity.
Management point: IT needs to work on the same thing. Counterpoint: IT is often clueless. Developers can almost always troubleshoot their own systems.
Management point: Ensures software licensing compliance. Counterpoint: None really, they kind of have you there; but since most companies have a policy against installing unlicensed software anyway, punishing developers by forcing them into a cookie-cutter workstation isn't going to solve that problem.
Management point: puts them all on the same page, builds team. Counterpoint: It makes development less a "collegial" environment, where diverse ideas are explored, and more of a "command" environment. Developers are notoriously intolerant of following orders simply for orders sake.
Newbie developers coming right out of school might not mind being told to use all the same tools; but experienced developers might feel otherwise. If you want to annoy experienced developers who know all the ins-and-outs of their particular toolset, then go right ahead. Then, wonder why nobody comes up with new ideas, makes comparative observations of one system against another, or develops an alternative approach that goes beyond the status quo. Wonder why people who don't drink the kool-aid on your particular toolchain leave for greener pastures. Wonder why you don't have any in-house expertise on any other system when your chosen flavor is no longer sweet.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
27 years experience and I've heard this idea before. It is dumb.
2-3 languages- sure. One for gear-head, one for report/data mining at least.
5 languages at the same company is a problem- but 1 language is a problem too.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It's lame to reply to myself, but I forgot something re: development tools.
Don't dictate what your developers use, if it's possible. Case in point: In my current company we are building a VB.NET web application. There are six developers and five of us use Visual Studio, but the tech lead does not, he uses VIM. I was amazed by this, but after seeing him wrangle some text with that thing, I can see the value over an IDE, although I still prefer its warm confines because I've come to rely on the bells and whistles.
BUT, this works only because he has a build system where he does not rely on the VS project files, only the source code, resources, images, etc. The end result is the same as if you had compiled the thing inside Visual Studio, except that you used only the compilers. This is very cool, and while I don't fully understand the build files, I can see how that's a definite advantage. The scripts even pull the source off CVS and everything.
My point I guess is that you shouldn't tie yourself to development tools, if possible. That's just common sense, and at the same time you'll allow developers to use the tools they prefer. That makes for happy developers.
Maybe one of these days I'll try VIM or EMACS, or maybe I'll just stick with the IDE. But at least I know I have the option.
Languages are just details. It's far better for developers to standardize on a set of processes - documentation, as-builts, code review, unit tests, TDD, scrum, FDD ... pick a set of development processes that make sense for your company and project. Some methodologies always make sense - if developers write clear, concise docs and as-builts for their set of coding responsibilities (yeah, right :rolleyes:) then a good developer can pick the code up and run with it regardless of the language.
Language is just syntax. (OK, it's mostly syntax :p) But the primary point is that most developers have had a wide range of language exposure. I don't know Ruby nor Python, but I've done a helluvalota PERL, JavaScript, and C/C++ and it'd be fairly trivial for me to pick up a well documented Python app and maintain or extend it. Just give me a good O'Reilly book. It takes longer to figure out what the actually code is doing than to understand the syntax and semantics anyways.
to pronounce my name, I would have to pull out your tongue...
A similar question came up roughly a year ago on slashdot. My recommendation is to chose two: one "scriptish" language (PHP, Python, etc.) and one strong-typed language (Java, Eiffel). C# is sort of a compromise between the two, but marries you to MS (so far), which may bite you in the future like VB6 did.
Table-ized A.I.
Perhaps your environment is unique, but I've rarely seen an organization capable of moving people around at will, simply because not everyone has the same skill sets. Even within the Web development paradigm, there's always the "SQL guy", the "CSS guy", heck, even the "regex guy" who's been writing Perl since he was a kid. making that guy use Eclipse instead of vim and puTTY seems counterproductive to me, even if you happened to have someone with those skills on each team.
body massage!
So you have tried emacs too huh.
Look for another job. When upper management sticks their nose in with the rational that you described, doom is just around the corner. The problem is simple. How do you get the best performance out of your best people? The answer is not: Fit them all into the round hole. The correct answer is: Let them use the best tools possible as they perceive them to be.
Okay, languages need to be standardized, but after that, the environment needs to be perogative of the developer.
Nuff said...
Beware the wood elf!!!
I used to think that a programmer's tools are sacred and you should basically let people use whatever they feel they are most productive with, but I'm starting to see problems with that, at least in big organizations..
First, IDEs - I've worked on teams where 3 different IDEs were being used by different members of the team - IntelliJ, NetBeans, and Eclipse. It worked fairly well and no real problems came about as a result of the different IDEs. I've also been in training sessions where everyone is using the same IDE except for some crackhead insisting that their IDE is better and that they can't switch to Eclipse even just for the training, and everyone in training has to wait for half an hour why the instructors try to help them figure out why stuff isn't working in their IDE.
Second, platforms/libraries/frameworks - There are really a lot of valid reasons for standardizing the platforms, libraries, and frameworks your organization uses. You have better internal support, can leverage work done by other groups, and training is easier. Being able to switch people around easily is perfectly valid as well - people leave, get promoted, need a break from their project, want to explore different career goals, etc.. Plus, I think it is good to send people off to other projects to learn and share good practices. Having a standard set of tools makes this relatively easy - all you really need to learn on a new project is the business side of things.
That said, there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, so it probably makes the most sense to pick a standard set of tools for common project types. If a project needs to deviate from one of those standards, that is fine, but they need to make their case for doing so.
So for full-blown enterprise apps, the standard may be Java EE. For smaller apps, it might be Rails or Grails. For desktop apps, you might mandate .NET. Then if someone says "Hey, it would be cool if we wrote this small app in Python", then they could do it, but they would have to show that the benefits gained by using Python in that scenario would outweigh the costs of using a non-standard platform.
Makefiles are text files, and completely tool agnostic. By standardizing on Make, you don't paint yourself into a corner with a single toolchain.
Emacs has editing modes for many languages and file formats. By standardizing on that, you don't paint yourself into a corner, unlike a single language IDE. (Also, those who prefer vi can still use Emacs in viper mode, so Emacs is a more flexible choice than vi for the company).
GCC is a compiler collection, with support for many languages. By standardizing on that, you don't paint yourself into a corner with a single language.
Best of all, these tools don't take up a lot of RAM, so the development machines will be responsive without beefy hardware.
There is definitely value in having the members of the development team agree to a set of tools around which they can share common experiences and exchange solutions for problems that come up. That's fine. What scares me about your question is that it is driven from above,
The main rationale is that people can be relocated from one group / project to another faster, because they don't need to learn a new environment when they switch.
Developers are not plug-compatible interchangeable parts that can be slotted in and out of various projects according to shifting needs. It doesn't matter if they all know exactly the same toolset or not, dropping Jane from the accounting project who has been around for a couple of years in to replace James in the supply-chain project who left because he got married and his wife is taking an internship at a distant hospital and expecting equivalent results demonstrates a vast ignorance of how developers become productive.
Nearly every company's management wants to imagine it can standardize developers for a lot of bad reasons -- because they believe that gives them leverage over someone who has deep domain knowledge and can't easily be replaced with a junior programmer for example. Or they imagine they can save money by buying bulk licenses for a product from a vendor. Beware of management playing golf with software tool vendors, you'll get stuck with some POS for sure.
Perhaps going to management and suggesting that the developers collaborate to nominate a selection of acceptable toolsets from which management can select would work, but that kind of suggestion never seems to be taken very well by the suits.
First of all, it's a pile of shit and it stinks.
I can show you two programs written in Java that are so different that you wouldn't know it was the same language if you found them in the wild. As remarked before, switching languages is almost never the problem.
The problem is that developers in different divisions are not interchangeable like parts in a machine.
Newsflash: developers are not interchangeable.
If you hire and train in a smart way you might get developers that are smart enough to deal with somebody elses messes and that leave messes that can be dealt with by somebody else.
The first thing that a developer will say when he starts at an existing project: "This should have been done differently, using language Y, framework X. This is a pile of shit!" (Y and X varying among developers and over time). Doing everything with language Y and framework X doesn't fix anything though, because they are in constant flux.
Newsflash: projects are not all the same.
If all your projects are the same you should come up with a way to let the business owners roll out variations on the theme and get the hell out of there.
The interesting bit about writing software is to learn the domain and find the programming model that works best there. Then simplify it until you're done.
This is not to say that developers should be allowed to try anything new. Reducing the choice a bit (dare I mention web frameworks?) makes a lot of sense. Eliminating all choice is just plain stupid.
If you dumb down the organization by eliminating evolution of the programming model and robbing the developers of the freedom to do what makes sense, you will see the smartest developers walk first. The next thing you will see is a huge drop in the rate of change in the products and the responsiveness to the market. The last thing you will see is lawyers.
Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
"Management standardizes that which they do not understand, to relieve them of the responsibility of having to think about it any more..."
dave
I'm in academia, where just about the opposite prevails: you can use whatever you damn well please, and generally PhD students don't even get that much in the way of hard-and-fast rules from their advisors, so they use what they please too, as do half the research scientists and post-docs. The results of that are why companies consider standardization.
The main problem is that, while experimenting with lots of languages and using languages perfectly suited to a particular task is nice, doing it too freely makes for a nightmare if you ever want to combine things, have a programmer of one system help out on another project, etc.---just the sorts of issues that prompted this question.
My current research project's codebase, partly inherited, partly pasted together from components that were lying around the lab, and partly of my own doing, using nine languages, as a result of everyone using whatever seems like the right tool for each job. There's a C backend for one part and a C++ backend for another part; an AI component in Lisp; some GUI and glue-y stuff in Python; other GUI stuff and some other AI stuff in Java; some text-munging scripts in Perl; some number-crunching in Ocaml; some parsing and god knows what else in Haskell; and some other AI in an in-house language that compiles to Java.
Now some of those tools were indeed exactly the right tool for the job. But this is not ideal to maintain, and it's nearly impossible to ship to anyone who isn't me in a way that a mere mortal could get the code built and running.
Oh, and there's some other projects in the group that use C#, and one that uses Scheme, if I want to go for double-digits...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yes, there are almighty drawbacks. Things aren't nearly as simple as management tend to believe.
However...
That doesn't mean the reverse isn't often true as well.
Just like 95% of drivers know they're in the top 50% of all drivers, I know this'll piss off a lot of indignant engineers who know they're far too smart to fall prey to this...
But, the truth is, a lot of engineers are absolutely terrible at picking the right tool for the job too.
The right tool is not "anything other than the tool I used last time because I know that one has lots of flaws now." Every tool has flaws. There being a devil you know doesn't mean the other option is a blessed saint. It just means you don't know its flaws yet.
I've watched countless engineers choose tool A, decide they hate A and want to use B because it solves X that they didn't like about A... Then decide B does Y badly so they move to C... Then discover C screws Z up but A has a new version that's supposedly much better. And then they repeat... Every time, writing lousy code because a decent tool that's poorly understood is often worse than a bad tool that you understand deeply enough to avoid most of the pitfalls of.
Conversely, the right tool is also not the one that you know and won't put down because you're scared of the learning curve and don't want to look bad compared to other engineers when you're safe and secure in your existing kingdom.
The right tool is also not the one that'll make your resume look really cool and cutting edge. Yes, it's often exciting to learn new skills and they make you look really advanced. Learning tends to have a diminishing rate of return. Say you can learn the first 50% of a language in a month. You can probably learn the next 25% in the next month. Two or three years in, you're hopefully smart enough to still be learning but you're only improving by fractions of a percent of what's out there each month. It's tempting to pick something new and learn 50% of a whole new language... but that doesn't actually make it the right tool.
Engineers also tend to be very bad at understanding what makes the business actually work. Yes, I know there's deep moral righteousness but, here's the interesting thing... if the business can't find anyone in the area to help you ship a product on time because you chose too obscure a tool... if the business goes bust because they're paying too much for trendy skillsets... it's still the wrong tool. If the business isn't in business anymore because the tool ignored financial realities, it's the wrong tool.
In short, there are a lot of ways that engineers tend to make very, very bad decisions about what a good tool is.
Yes, I know you're not one of those engineers. I know bean counters make even worse decisions. I know I need to go to hell for suggesting this.
But the right tool is often a combination of factors. Some engineers tend to get, some engineers tend to be very bad at getting, some managers tend to get, some managers tend to be very bad at getting.
Being open to identifying the flaws in decision making processes and finding ways to make better decisions is how we really get to the point of picking good tools. In some companies, for certain processes, that may mean standardized tools, in others it won't. Smart people are open to all ideas and pick the best from them for each situation.