Slashdot Mirror
The Duct Tape Programmer
theodp writes "Joel Spolsky sings the praises of The Duct Tape Programmer, who delivers programming teams from the evil of 'architecture astronauts' who might otherwise derail a project with their faddish programming craziness. The say-no-to-over-engineering attitude of the Duct Tape Programmer stems not from orneriness, but from the realization that even a 50%-good solution that people actually have solves more problems and survives longer than a 99% solution that nobody has because it's in your lab where you're endlessly polishing the damn thing. Like Steve Jobs, Duct Tape Programmers firmly believe that Real Artists Ship."
Agile, scrum, patterns, unit tests, etc.
.
Interesting ideas, but can anybody show me *any* significant, quantitative, comparative proof of improved ROI?
.
Software is about money guys.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The "duct tape programmer" is just as dangerous as the "astronaut architect".
What distinguishes good architects from these fools is this:
A good architect is someone with the experience to know when to cut corners and when to enforce rigid discipline.
I agree with most of Joel's post. What bothers me with this kind of thing is that there are a lot of idiots out there just waiting for an excuse for their poor standards. For every real Duct Tape Programmer there are ten buffoons who will now take that label for themselves. But hell they shoudln't be hard to spot.
Why is it that whenever I read an article by Joel I feel like I'm being talked down to?
Curious that JWZ and his time at Netscape were particularly lauded here.
It's quite likely I'm being a bit snarky here... but Netscape lost the browser wars just a few years after they hit it big. And the core code of Netscape Navigator was bad enough that they eventually abandoned it around 1999 with the start of the Mozilla project.
Now don't get me wrong, it was only through the herculean efforts of guys like JWZ at Netscape that allowed them to ship a product at all. And certainly it made him and some of the founders a lot of money, which is a valid measure of success in business.
But to point to that particular code base as an example we all should follow? I don't think so. Certainly, choosing C++ then (or now in my opinion) is a mistake. And I've definitely seen people get overly rambunctious with architecture... especially in the Java world. But I think that's mostly the result of programming languages sucking as much as anything else. That and most people just aren't that good at design. Mostly meaning that when they've come up with a bad design themselves, they can't admit that and then really do what it takes to try and fix it. Of course, in the business world there are always severe time / money constraints, so that makes it real hard. And that's when not having unit tests hurts more... because it is harder to make significant changes to the code and have some assurance you didn't make mistakes.
Duct tape programmers may be invaluable tools in Joels world of overpervasive market economy and the corporate, but in some areas of application duct tape just does not cut it. Mission critical applications, like those used in health "industry", expensive satellites and other kind of space vessels, tunnel digging machines and what not - everything that just cannot fail - will not really benefit from Joels so cleverly coined "duct tape programmer" character. Not sure if Joel included these areas as applicable for the "duct tape programmer" attitude, but I just wanted to say I don't think they are. Let duct tape programmers develop Photoshop, and all those benemoths of software that runs slower the faster machines we throw at them, occupy more space for the same set of features and so on and so on - probably nobody notices that anymore, as we all are sworn to content. But the few areas where software quality makes it or breaks it, Joel is off the mark, IMO.
I manage a small team of programmers. When I first started, I 'inherited' a developer, let's call him Crufty Joe, who had worked at the company for 20 years and had developed financial and hr routines on the old mainframe and spiffy new oracle apps system. Joe had developed a lot of code, but he was always having to perform updates and corrections...
Why? Because he was a duct tape programmer! He always got it done by the deadline, but then he spent 75% of his time maintaining the huge pile of cruft that he had left in his wake over the years.
Well, Joe retired and I had to place two developers on his projects for the next year just to clean out all of the old '50% working' routines, in some cases we just tossed the exisiting work and started from scratch. What was really frustrating about this was that the Oracle apps have a huge, nearly incomprehensible, but extremely useful architecture that he did not even bother to leverage, but just wrote around.
This story acts like stopping to think about what you are doing means that you are going to implement huge, stupid architectures, but in reality he is just making excuses for being a sloppy hack. I feel damn sorry for anybody that has to support this crap in the future.
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Shipping is easy. Any idiot can whip something together that solves a problem, ships on time etc. That is rarely the issue. The issue is doing it in a fashion that will scale, be extensible, modifiable, understandable, high performing... the list goes on.
Given enogh time, any idiot could also make a system that is polished and architected to the point where it is fast, modifiable and extensible, and long overdue.
Bottom line: the whole skill of this business is delivering something that is architected enough while still meeting the deadline. In my experience, the necessary timeframe to deliver something long lasting and well architected is around five to ten times the time it would take to just solve the problem (tm). Of course many business exist today because they managed to release something to make money. The biggest mistake of many startups is probably polishing too much and not releasing early enough. The biggest mistake of those who DO make it past the first release is to not throw the first solution away and start over if it was something duct taped together.
is Release 2.
wow, i could write your 4000 lines of code in 3 days.... why does it take you a month?
Because there is a lot more to developing an app than writing code.
I should have been a Geologist.
My respect for him ratcheted down quite a lot. Yes, you must ship (who knew?). That's what milestones and deadlines are for, so keep overarchitecting and feature creep from occurring. However, I would NEVER want to let a "Duct Tap Programmer" near any project that I would ever have to modify, maintain, or extend. You know, something that isn't completely trivial.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Always write code as if the guy who has to maintain it is a sociopath who knows where you live.
Liability doesn't mean power. Liability just means liability. Personal liability and sign-off for developers just means he has to choose between bankruptcy and a life of "Would you like fries with that?" if failure occurs, or losing his income now (and possibly having trouble finding a job because he's got a reputation for being difficult) because he won't sign off.
Okay I will give you that- not unit testing is pretty stupid. I guess there is a happy medium between the astronaut and the duct tape guy.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I can write 4000 lines of code in 3 days too... Or alternatively, I can write 60 useful lines in the 3 days, and be 60 useful lines of code ahead of you.
forgive them if they never write a unit test, or if they xor the next and prev pointers of their linked list into a single DWORD to save 32 bits, because they are pretty enough, and smart enough, to pull it off.
No, I don't forgive them for writing obfuscated spaghetti code and leaving it for me to maintain. Also FTA:
Duct tape programmers tend to avoid C++, templates, multiple inheritance, multithreading, COM, CORBA, and a host of other technologies that are all totally reasonable, when you think long and hard about them, but are, honestly, just a little bit too hard for the human brain.
I laughed out loud when I read this. I write in C++. It's my favorite language. But I can't stand these Duct Tape Programmers who are the ones casting to void * because they can't be bothered with templates. Now I know nothing of COM or CORBA, but multithreading is generally not something you have a choice about. Avoid it if you can, think very carefully about when you need to use it because of the application requirements.
I've seen a lot of things, but I've never been a witness.
That may be true... although personally, I find that when I'm really cursing some other programmer's name and wishing disease and misfortune upon him and his family, it's the work of a "ten-levels-of-inheritance deep wrappers around wrappers that wrap wrappers that generate code on the fly" overengineerer, rather than a spaghetti coder. At least with spaghetti coding, I can walk through it mentally and figure out what's going on (although it may take a while) - with "clever" code, I can't make heads or tails of it without a debugger.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
First off, Jamie Zawinski no longer programs much. He runs a nightclub.
Second, Joel Spolsky isn't exactly a big name on programming. He's better known as a blogger than a developer. He runs a little company that makes a desktop project tracking tool. That's not rocket science. We're not hearing this "duct tape" stuff from people like Dave Cutler, who designed VMS and Windows NT. Or lead developers on MySQL. Or big names in game development.
Spolsky is taking potshots at the template framework crowd. He has a point there. I've been very critical in that area myself; I think the C++ standards committee is lost in template la-la land. The real problem with C++ is that the underlying language has a few painful flaws for historical reasons, and attempts to paper those flaws over with templates never quite work. (Read up on the history of auto_ptr to understand the pain.) But that's almost a historical issue now. Newer languages such as Java and Python aren't as dependent on templates as is C++. If you get the basic language design right, you don't need templates as much.
I bet Joel doesn't drive to work in a duct-taped go-cart .... and I bet he wouldn't drive over bridges or work in a building which wasn't designed by a proper, qualified engineers/architects.
Out in the real world his "duct tape" programmer would be called a "cowboy builder".
As for his ranting on C++: He's demonstrated his C++ ignorance enough times for C++ programmers to just ignore his opinion - he still thinks it's just C with added bloat. I agree that multithreading is harder than it looks but templates and multiple inheritance...? Puh-lease.
The final nail in the coffin of the rant is in the last line where he says it's ok to avoid unit testing but that xoring two pointers together is somehow cool. If you weren't ignoring him before you should be by now.
Summing up: Joel has jumped the shark, every article just confirms it more
No sig today...
Bad programmers can write "unwieldy" code in any language. High-level, dynamic, duck-typed languages are not unique in this respect.
The difference is, the app is up and running, ready to ship with the duck-typed languages, whereas people using lower level static languages are still writing converters and reconverters which don't add anything to the actual functionality of the app.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Except that it isn't. Sure, it starts, runs for a few seconds, and then exits due to typing error.
All duct typing does is move type errors from compile time to runtime, which also means that you can never be sure if you've actually squashed them all. I truly hate that aspect of Python.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
We have a whole department full of duct tape developers, writing Business Objects reports and other BI-type code. They can't write efficient database queries to save their asses. As one of the production support DBA's, I get the pleasure of debugging/tuning their crap after it hits production and won't run. Just yesterday, after one of the production Oracle machines fell over, we discovered a query that was piping a whopping 2.4 PETABYTES of data through a SELECT DISTINCT clause. Considering the database itself is less than 300GB, we found this rather interesting. When challenged, the developer responsible for the query says "It should only return about 10 rows". True, if it ever finishes applying the DISTINCT.
Ship first, tune later, I love that philosophy...
No, this is simply not like this. If a static type system compiler fails to compile the file because of a type error, then there is truly a type error in the program. The idea that some such programs would not have caused problems at runtime is dubious, because what programs can actually run cannot be divorced from which programs compile.
The arguments in "favor" of dynamic typing are simply misaimed. More and better static analysis of code before allowing it to execute is a virtue; the lack of static analysis and rejection of code is not an argument for dynamic type systems, it's an argument against it.
The sort of argument that can be made fairly against static type systems is the following:
So basically, static type analysis is (a) desirable, (b) hard to get right, (c) easy to misuse.
Are you adequate?
Except that it isn't. Sure, it starts, runs for a few seconds, and then exits due to typing error.
Most of the time when I have an error, it's not a typing one. Sometimes it's something else the compiler would catch -- misspelled identifier, function or method name I misremembered (or forgot to implement), whatever -- but more often than not, I don't spend a lot of time hitting my face with my palm over a typing error.
No, most of the time, I find that it's my logic: I only *think* I've given the computer instructions that will accomplish what I want it to do. But I've overlooked something, left out a step, forgotten a corner case, whatever.
Having a compiler make sure my types are right doesn't generally contribute much to solving this kind of problem, at least for the common meaning of typing we're usually invoking when we're discussing this issue (e.g., typing as it's supported by languages like Java). You could argue that unit testing is kindof like a big type test (do these modules exhibit certain specified behaviors for their "type"?), and maybe there's a language that treats typing like that, which would be intriguing. But having a compiler tell me something like "class x doesn't have method y"? Not generally germane to most of the issues I have while developing, really, and even when it is, I don't really care if I discover this at run time, particularly since feedback is at least as immediate as what you'd get from a compiler if not more.
And meanwhile, as others have pointed out, I'm spending less time writing convertors/adaptors.
There are problem domains where I probably wouldn't use an interpreted/duck-typed language, but I find I'm more productive when I can use them.
Tweet, tweet.