# Monday, 09 February 2009

Man, it seems that every few years there is a new software development methodology that comes out and while not purported as the 2nd coming, it certainly has all of the fanfare of the latest and greatest.


Let’s see there has been CMMI, TDD, Agile, Scrum, Lean, Waterfall, Continuous Integration, Spiral, Extreme Programming, RAD, MDD, YAGNI, Cowboy Programming, and the list goes on.  I would like to add to the list an oldie but a goodie: Brute Force Development or BFD.


I would suggest that BFD is the most widely practiced software development methodology in the world.  In fact, I would claim that the majority of organizations and people use this methodology daily and have been since the inception of software development.


How do I know this? In the real world of software development, where the size and complexity of even the smallest projects (e.g. >5000 lines of code) exceed the allocated budget and timeline, almost everyone resorts to brute force development in the end.  Why?  Because, we have to.  How else can we do it?  When was the last time, as a professional programmer, that you actually finished your project/product on time and on budget?  Did you do it working 40 hours per week?  Honestly?


Typically we start out with the best intentions, but as the schedule starts to slip and the budget is disappearing at the rate that a 426 Hemi goes through a tank of gas, we drop in BFD mode.  We try and do the impossible.  Extra hours are burnt, features are slashed, quality goes out the window, and we brute force our way to meet the impossible schedule.


Now, I am not complaining.  This is just an observation having worked in many different shops, large and small, including my own start-up.  We end up with BFD in the end.


Heck even the guru himself (who I have nothing but respect for), in his own post called, "Building a Fort – Lessons in Software Estimation" made some pretty interesting slip ups.  My favorite was the, “I dropped a little piece of my laser level down the side of one of the footing holes, between the concrete form and the dirt, after I'd poured the concrete.”  Oh Steve, think of all the things we have dropped in the software!


I will go out on a limb by saying I have yet to see any evidence that we, as software architects, developers, estimators, etc., are actually getting any better at this.  I have been doing this for 18 years professionally and maybe I am dreaming, but it seemed simpler years ago. Not just that the requirements were simpler, but even from a technology standpoint.  What I mean is that software vendors that produce tools, programming languages and applications have grown (seemingly) exponentially during this time frame as it seems any solution (and the tooling, languages, and apps) I am involved in has way more moving parts.  A lot of these moving parts are new and unforeseen issues crop up well into the development cycle where one vendors library interfaces don’t seem to match what the documentation says, for example.  And then we brute force it – to make it work.


Part of this is tongue in cheek as there is another meaning to BFD than can be applied to programming methodologies.  You can get a hint by looking at the blog category this was filed under.  I sincerely don’t mean any disrespect to the authors and believers of these software development methodologies, but sometimes the “marketing messages” can be a little much and even downright embarrassing.  For example, try explaining to your significant other what Agile and Scrum mean.  What do you think the “business folks” are thinking when you explain it to them?  Do they even care?  I would hazard a guess that all they care about is how much is it going to cost and when can we start using the software.  Btw, they are also thinking, it better do what I want it to do for this amount of money... or else...


So the moment that things don’t go as planned, BFD kicks in.  Whether you know it or not.


In 1994, before most of these methodologies and marketing names came into effect, I had the good fortune of taking a 2 year post grad course in Software Engineering Management at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada.  It was taught by Motorola University and one of the instructors, with 30 years experience, had some awesome stories on how “yer doin it wrong.”  The funny thing was, while we learned a great deal about software engineering (that’s the last time I write 17 exams in 2 years!), what we learned most was common sense and communication.  In other words, how to tell your customer (ahem, the one paying your rate, salary, contract, or whatever) that we can’t write 100,000 lines of code in 2 weeks.  The real methodology here folks is just called common sense.


I don’t think much has changed since then as we are always fighting that battle.  Developing software for any decent sized project (>5,000 lines of code) is really, really hard, maximally labor intensive and fraught with… well, you name it.


I can hear the Agile folks saying that our methodology is the one that mitigates this risk.  While that may be partially true, how do you answer the top two questions asked by the customer: how long will it take?  And how much will that cost?  And our requirements list is just that, a one pager with bulleted high level fatures items and some of the bulleted items have two words explaining the requirement.  Oh yeah and at fixed price.  Ready to sign up?  In the end, in order to make that deadline or not burn through your fixed cost, it's BFD man.  That’s the reality.  And btw, could you not have come up with a better name.  I mean did you not know that Agile is Dead?


So what’s my point?  Well, aside from having some fun with the BFD acronym, as with most things, there is some truism there for sure.  We have all done it, yes?  I am sure that anyone that has written code for any length of time has done BFD.  Which makes my newly minted, TLA marketing buzzword an instant leader in the world of software development methodologies! 


All kidding aside, maybe it is time to step back and look at some of the basics for any software development project.  The very first I would think is answering the two most basic questions of any software development project – how long and how much $’s.  Do you have a predictable and repeatable way of doing that?  How accurate is it?  If you don’t, then you are likely to be doing BFD even before you write a single line of code and therefore none of those fancy software development methodologies won’t help you one bit. Know what I mean?


Remember, keep the rubber side down!

Monday, 09 February 2009 22:43:45 (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Comments [0]
# Tuesday, 23 December 2008

Goes to zoomii



In my last post, I asked the question, “Show Me a Good User Interface Design.”  I asked the question simply because of the length of time I have been in the software development business, sometimes you get so close to your work that you can’t see the forest for the trees.  And I was certainly feeling that way.  It is further exacerbated by the more you look at user interface designs the less objective you become – I needed a fresh perspective.


Thankfully, Breton commented on my blog about zoomii and as soon as I saw it, I knew I was back in business.  As I commented to Breton, zoomii reminded me of a user interface design I was involved with back in 1994 working for a company that developed banking applications using the Smalltalk programming language (oh, how I miss that programming language and environment, but that is another story).  We developed a visual (read: physical) representation of a banker’s desk (by banker’s role) where there were forms and files in desk drawers that could be pulled out, a calculator on the desk, calendar, etc., you get the idea.


What I remember the most about the user interface design was when we rolled it out to the bank employees and had a person sit down in front of the interface, she just started using it with no training!  The bank person said, “oh, I get it, it’s just like my desk”, and proceeded to pull out on of the drawers and flip through the file folders and clicked on a form to be filled out.  We were initially astonished by this as we had developed a training course to use the software, but the bank personnel did not need any training!  It was amazing, pretty soon everyone wanted to try it out and was using it immediately, with no help from us.


Now the paradigm is back and even better. And what is that paradigm?  I am sure there is a formal way of saying it that is probably in Jeff Raskin’s book, The Humane Interface, but for me it is dead simple, it is a model of the physical world designed and implemented in software as a zooming user interface.


Chris Thiessen, the one and only developer for zoomii, states on his web site, “…spending afternoons wandering the shelves. Happening across great books I didn't even know existed. But it's an experience I never found online.”  It is so true.  I used to frequent a computer bookstore in Calgary Alberta that carried only computer books on its shelves.  I would spend 2 to 4 hours on Saturday afternoons just browsing the shelves, picking up books and browsing through them and leaving the stores with a pile of books.  Over a few years, I had accumulated over 80 books this way.  Unfortunately, the bookstore succumbed to competition by the big box book store chains that moved into Calgary and is no longer.  I sure miss it!


But it is back in zoomii!  Let’s look at some of the user interface design elements.  First of all, if you click on Categories, you get this view:



Note that as you hover the mouse cursor over the left hand categories, the right hand representation of category on the book shelves is highlighted (white in this case).  Brilliant!  Very quickly, I could easily discern where the Computer book "shelves" were, so when I went back to the shelves, I could easily navigate (pan by holding the left mouse button down and zooming in and out using the mouse wheel) to the computer books and get the view below in a matter of seconds and minimal mouse clicks/movements.



Then I can zoom into a shelf that is sorted by the author’s last name:



Notice the little left and right arrows on either side of the Computers name category.  If you click on one of these, you navigate to the next shelf on the left or right.


When you find the book you want, you can click on it and get a detailed description of the book, plus the ability to look at what reviewers of the book had to say about it.  Essentially, for the reviews, it takes you to Amazon.com and if you read zoomii's frequently asked questions, Chris tells us that he uses Amazon’s Associates Web Services to interact with Amazon’s data and refers the sales to them and gets a cut using .  Brilliant business model.



Chris also states that the way he stocks his shelves is, by the top ranked 25,000 books.  He does state that if he used subcategories that if could to 100,000 or more. Chris is considering an optional view that will shelve Amazon’s entire book inventory.  I hope he does as I would be very interested in that – more books to browse!


I love the simple navigation of the site:




The basic navigation fits into the classic 7 +- 2 paradigm that our short term memory can handle, a far cry from the +60 clickable items navigation you get with "Office 2007 and the Killer Ribbon".


Clicking on the home button, produces this view:



Creating an account is dead simple, with no confusing user name versus email address.  Simple, yet complete – something we truly lack in our software industry.



For the techies, if you right click and view source in your browser, you are presented with a minimalistic file that contains mostly CSS and a bit of JavaScript and the barest of HTML.  If you look closely, you can see the JavaScript file Chris uses, and with a little know how, you can download his zoomii.js and pop it open in your favorite code editor to take a gander.  It is some 10,000 lines of JavaScript code, but Chris appears to use no 3rd party AJAX frameworks, or Flex or Flash or Silverlight plug-ins, it is all his own work.  Truly amazing!


Another feature is the unlimited undo.  Clicking on the back button in the browser basically retraces all of the steps (zooms, clicks, everything!) that you performed from the time you entered the site.


The search capability is my only small quibble on the site.  It is not as exact as I would like, but it is not Chris’ design, but rather the Amazon web service returning too many books that seemingly don’t match the search criteria.  For example, when I type in, “Expert F#”, I get returned 29 matches, when there are only really 2 matches that should have shown up (ideally it should have been one match).




I am sure I am missing other features, and certainly will peruse Chris’ zommi.js more to understand how he put it all together, but for now I am enjoying myself more by simply using the interface then almost any other web based interface I have used or designed on my own.


As someone who develops ecommerce applications at work, I can see this user interface design making shopping at any “brick and mortar” store online a lot of fun and more so, exactly what the general public would want and enjoy, IMO.  I can just image browsing through the “shelves” at Bestbuy or Costco or FutureShop or…  I could see how it would be applied in a B2B supply chain relationship scenario as well for electronic parts or manufacturing for example.  It would seem the applicability is universal.


Kudos to you Chris for designing a top notch user interface that brings the joy back for someone that used to browse computer books for fun many years ago.  I am even more impressed that you did this all by yourself! 


Which really begs the question for our software development industry, are we all doing it wrong and Chris is doing it right?

Tuesday, 23 December 2008 23:43:51 (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Comments [3]
# Wednesday, 17 December 2008

I mean it, honestly! I have been programming for so long and have built so many apps and have looked at, and used 100’s of (web and desktop) apps, that I no longer know what a good user interface design looks like anymore.  I have lost my objectivity.


Think of it this way.  As a user, I have been using Outlook and Outlook Web Access (OWA) daily for I don’t know how many years, but yet it (read: both) “feels” like a good user interface design to me.  Maybe I have been “programmed” by using it so much that I just feel that way.  Which is maybe why I dislike the ribbon, but that’s another story.


As a side comment, Jeff Atwood at Coding Horror wrote an article called, “Avoiding The Uncanny Valley of User Interface” saying, or at least I think it says from a summary point of view, that web applications should not try to mimic desktop applications.  Clearly, I don’t get it.  I believe the whole point to OWA is to indeed mimic the desktop (i.e. Outlook) as closely as possible so that I, the user, don’t have to “think” about the differences between the two email applications.  In fact, I think I would be quite pissed, as a user, that the desktop email application I use everyday and the web mail application were so different that I would have to then learn two different ways of working with email, calendars, tasks, folders, etc. Don’t make me “think” about the differences, I just want to “use” the applications.


I also read most of the comments form Jeff’s blog, and a few made sense to me (see below), whereas I think most were offering up their personal opinions, while valid, I know my job, as a programmer, is to give my clients what they want.  Oh sure, I have my own ideas, like many programmers, but after spending a lot of time in the trenches talking to customers over 17 years, it is clear to me that they are paying me money to get what they want – even if they don’t know what they want. “do you get me, sweetheart?”


I really like Shane’s comment:


Yeah, that "Google Maps" web app thing that acts like a desktop app, that'll never work. People only want web apps that act like web apps damn it! And all the cool AJAX features in Facebook/MySpace/Gmail, no one really wants those. They would prefer to wait for the entire page to refresh every time they make any kind of change. Or wait for a huge page to download just to make sure the page contains every bit of data that they could possibly want. Because they would prefer their "web apps" to act just like the crappy 1st generation web apps that were around before they even knew what the Internet was. Pfft.

Shane on December 17, 2008 05:55 AM


Or how about Daath’s comment – sounds like a Pragmatic Programmer to me:


For a software developer - yes.
For an average user - no. An average user simply doesn't care if it's real, doesn't search for differences, and for him/her it would be the best if the web application and the desktop application would behave the same, because it would be easier to get used to.

For a developer a software is close and personal, like another person for everyone. That's why it feels unnatural for him/her to use web apps that try to mimic desktop apps' behavior. But for an average user, web and desktop apps are nothing but utilities, things that have to be used in order to achieve a goal. They don't care, it's nothing personal for them. (Sorry for breaking your heart, you just have to realize this and move on with your life. :))

Daath on December 17, 2008 08:08 AM


And finally, Brian says it all:


What are you guys talking about! The purpose and intent of Ajax and RIA technologies is to enable web UI designers with the ability to do things that would be considered "closer" to desktop application operations than "traditional" web applications.


That’s because "traditional" stateless web application user interfaces sucked. What are web application expectation anyway? Type stuff... submit(postback)...wait...view result. I say rock on web ui designers! Give me drag-drop, give me background updating panels (event-driven updates). I am still waiting for some of those other crusty old desktop features like great undo/redo functionality and the ability to paste an image directly into an email body, but as they keep working the technology I am sure it's not far off.


For users, web apps accel because of collaboration and accessibility. Users dump outlook for web-based email so they can read their mail from home, work, school, wherever. Certainly not because Outlook's desktop user interface sucks. Users have had to trade off rich interaction for those benefits. Today, that trade off isn’t any where near as bad as it once was. Today many web apps simply rock. And that’s because of the energy and effort by many folks to bring rich (or desktop-like) interactions to the web. So let’s dispense with the noise that this is a bad thing.

Brian H on December 17, 2008 08:09 AM


Hallelujah, I say.  I just don’t understand why Jeff would write such a blog post.  Which brings me to my point, rather than hypothetically avoiding the uncanny valley, I want to hear about and see pictures of “good” user interface design and most importantly, why they are good.  I mean convincingly good.


I work for an ecommerce company that designs and builds large scale ecommerce web applications.  When it comes to good user interface design, our customers are predominantly always asking for two things:


  1. Can our customers (easily) find the product(s) they want easily with the minimal amount of mouse clicks? This all about navigation and search.


  1. Can our customers (easily) buy the product(s) they want easily with the minimal amount of mouse clicks? This is all about conversion, i.e. turning “browsers into buyers” as quickly as possible.

The point I am making is in my ecommerce web app world, there is a purpose to the user interface design, the key word being design.  The ecommerce web app is “designed” to fit the requirements for the intended end users.  We, as programmers, use a lot of interesting technologies, like AJAX, to fulfill these requirements, but the end user could care less what technologies or techniques are used to fulfill these two requirements.


Bad user interface design to me is the opposite of fulfilling these requirements in the context of what I do for a living. And if I put my customer hat on while I am shopping online, if I can’t find what I am looking for easily, I give up.  As a programmer, I give up even sooner, particularly with a web application that is loaded with so many links, 5 navigation bars, and tons of “stickers”, I already know this is going to be really painful to find what I want, so I just give up - sooner.  The consequence is that ecommerce site just lost my revenue, which hits the bottom line.  Everything else after that is irrelevant.


Another reason why I think Outlook for the desktop and Outlook Web Access for the web are so successful is because if you use the desktop app and then have to use OWA, the learning curve is almost zero, so it is instantly usable and adopted by the “user.”  I.e. I can find what I want easily and I can transact my email easily – no think time differences between the two apps.


I can give another example of good user interface design coming from my 5 year old daughter, who plays web based games on the internet and locally on my computer (i.e. “desktop” games).  She already knows that it is either going to be the arrow keys or the WASD keys to move around in the game.  I only had to show her once and it is consistent with the many games she plays.  Adult note – yes, I (or more correctly, my wife) limit the time and type of games she can play on the computer.  Heck, she even knows how to hit the green “play” button in Visual Studio to run some of the XNA games I am working on, but that is another story.


One criterion that makes for a good user interface design, even if it was arbitrarily chosen, is consistency.  Example, the ubiquitous “File” menu, in and of itself, in addition to that it is the same for Outlook desktop application and OWA, plus many, many other desktop applications that share the File, Edit, etc. paradigm.  It is a bit strange to me that not too many web applications take this same approach.  Why not?  And I mean from a user perspective, not a programming one.


Of course, Microsoft broke this paradigm with the ribbon, but I think they were actually trying to solve a different problem then good user interface design, see Office 2007 and the Killer Ribbon.


So what makes a good user interface design?  I am genuinely asking.  Like I say, I am so close to it that I feel I have lost objectivity.  Not completely mind you, but as a firm believer in , I have a sense that our industry has moved off the mark somewhat and after reading Jeff’s post, and some of the comments, there are a group of software folks that seem to have forgotten the basic “aesthetics versus function” argument.  E.g. if the iPod was not so easy to use from a user perspective, it would not matter how cool it looked.  Some may see it differently, but my ecommerce customers see it the same way as well.  If the ecommerce site is “flashy” but no-one can find or buy anything easily, then it is nothing more than eye candy as opposed to an ecommerce business, producing revenue.


So what makes a good user interface design?  Show me one (links, pictures, descriptions, all good) and tell me why.  Thanks!

Wednesday, 17 December 2008 23:06:47 (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Comments [6]
# Tuesday, 09 December 2008

This post is to answer several of the comments posted to my blog, Hacker News, Programming Reddit, and unClog - in no particular order.  I tried to answer most if not all questions, but if I missed yours, it was not on purpose.


At the end of this post, are my own answers to the productivity lost questions I have posed.


PJ says, “A bad craftsman blames the tool.”  So PJ, if the tool is broken or is in need of serious repair, would a good craftsman ignore it?


Arun says, “…I believe you need to think outside the .Net world. …What's new is not always complex. The productivity in modern languages have actually improved dramatically. People release new features all the time. But then, you need to stop using the old tools.”  Arun, I make my living as a .NET programmer and I would not call Visual Studio 2010, .NET 4.0 and C# 4.0 “old tools”, in fact they are so new they have not been released yet, except if you attended PDC.


Alecks says, “At age 17 I sit in programming class trying to find my path through the maze of the .NET framework, thinking to myself 'okay, so I can do it . . . but how does it work?”  Alecks, hang in there buddy, one step at a time.  Pick a few .NET classes (like the collection or array classes for example) and play with them to see how they work.  Look at the MSDN examples or search online.  Step through the examples in the debugger and inspect the variables, program flow, etc.  Once you see how one or two of these classes work, then you can expand to others.  One step at a time and you will be fine.  Keep at it!


Sridhar says, “…try Zoho Creator creator.zoho.com which tries to provide on the web the ease of use you get in a VB6 environment.”  Thanks Sridhar, I will give it a try, looks interesting.


Jeff says, “…I think it should be as easy to build apps for the web as it is for the desktop…”  Bingo!  Jeff was able to summarize my two posts in basically one sentence.  Good job Jeff!  Unfortunately, the reality is that we maybe years away from making this happen.


Andrew says, “We know that code re-use is a wonderful thing, and its just a real surprise to hear someone argue otherwise.  … Lastly, I'm not sure quite why you've got some of the highly passionate responses above, for sure its an opinion that differs from most people I've met, but you're not too far of death threat territory in some cases :P”  Andrew, what makes you think that I am against code reuse?  Where did I say that?  Quite the contrary, almost 80% of my open source project is predicated on code reuse, I would have never been able to complete it otherwise.  With respect to the passionate responses.  Well, I don’t think I would call them passionate…


Roger says, “As a developer you have to keep getting better tools, and get better at using those tools. …When I job interview developers, one of my questions is … if the candidate cares about their own productivity and actively seeks out new tools and techniques.”  Say Roger, I think you missed the part where I am using the latest tools and editors, including a pre-release of Visual Studio 2010.  I think your brain may have froze when you saw VB6 in my post – don’t worry, I think most of us have the same problem with VB6.


Daniel Lyons says, “It's not just you. I don't know what's going on with these other guys but I feel what you're saying just as strongly as you do and I'm only 27.  We're reaching levels of complexity where what we've been doing just doesn't work anymore. Especially with the web.”  Daniel, nice quote, “where what we’ve been doing just doesn’t work anymore.”  I say amen to that.  And as I have said before, it is getting worse, not better, in my opinion.


Roe says, “You raise some good points, but the conclusion is weird:  "to me, productivity is everything. Productivity. It is as simple as that."  To me, delivering something of value to users is everything.”  Hey Roe, I think you missed my point.  It is already a given that what is delivered is going to have value to the “users”, and if not, you have bigger problems then productivity.  If you can’t deliver to your customers in any timely manner, no matter how much value it has, is of no value when the project is canceled cause it is way overtime and budget.


Mark says, “You should try ruby. Or python.”  Yup, I have and in my article I state that I have tried so many languages over the last 17+ years, that I can’t keep track of them. I have been using IronPython and IronRuby, well, because I am a .NET guy.  And in fact, the open source project I developed embeds IronRuby and IronPython as the scripting engine to program remote computers in real-time, but that’s another discussion.


Sixbit says, “…I think I've rediscovered your VB 6 experience of 1991. When I got into iPhone programming this year, and got the hang of using Interface Builder to rapidly prototype things, I really got a feeling that, this is how simple things should be in other frameworks, and have rediscovered my love of programming again.”  Wow, sixbit, that sounds cool.  I will have a look at that.  I wonder how that extends, if at all, to general purpose web development, probably not…


Phillip Zedalis says, “I did not comment on your last post because I was still contemplating it - but yes I heard your point loud and clear. I also over time have felt a great discomfort with the growing 'complexity' of the libraries surrounding Visual Studio.”  Philip, wait till you get a load of Visual Studio 2010 and .NET 4.0 – more and more and more.  I am not sure how it is any better.  I used to be an early adopter of the Visual Studio environment, right back to Visual Studio InterDev in 97, anyone remember that environment?  Now, I just cringe at the extracurricular effort required to figure out all of the new things have been added to the IDE and framework.  I can’t even face going to anymore PDC’s which as a passionate programmer, were my favorite conferences, it is just too much.  By the way, fantastic site Phillip!


Ald says, “I am not an expert, but I think you could halve the list by refusing to use MS technology, and XML.  Are you sure you couldn't do everything in javascript, with may be a few simple scripts on the server serving the asynchronous calls?”  Ald, download my open source project and show me how I could halve the list by using different technologies, seriously I would be interested.  You will also see why it cannot be all JavaScript with a few simple scripts.


Joseph Gutierrez says, “It makes you feel less a craftsman. More like a father at Christmas with the bicycle instructions, trying to put the damn thing together. I've started learning Lisp for this simple reason. Less imperative and more declarative programming. Stay with it.  An increase in velocity is what you're looking for. Take a look at altdotnet news groups on yahoogroups. VB6 with OCX and ActiveX damn good things, but it seems to have dropped out of the mainstream.”  Joseph, thanks for your comments, absolutely true on the “bicycle instructions”, problem is that each part is from a different manufacturer and some sizes are in metric and others in imperial.  I hear you on Lisp – have been there, and may even try IronScheme, but still cannot see how I could build a web app using this technology.  Btw, I love your snowflakes on your blog!


Buford Twain says, “The next big breakthrough in software development will come when someone makes things radically simpler for us poor programmers.”  Buford, I agree, I just hope I get to see that in my lifetime...


Itay Maman says, “When you need two or more frameworks in the same application you have a problem: each one is imposing its own structure, and the two structures are usually in a conflict with each other.”  Itay, you are too right, in my own application I have several frameworks and components and the fight is to structurally fit them together even though each one on its own has the functionality I want.


Mark Jones says, “Very interesting. As a hobbyist assembly-language programmer whom has taken courses in the latest Java, C, and VB disciplines, I could not agree with you more Mitch.”  Bless your heart Mark!  Assembly language was the last thing I thought I would see on my blog about web applications, but I totally get where you are coming from.  I sure am tired of “syntax code”, particularly now that Microsoft has fully embraced XAML, it just keeps getting more and more verbose and making me less and less productive.


Evrim Ulu says, "We've faced similar problems in past, and the only solution we've found is to rewrite everything from scratch." Wow Evrim, this is pretty cool.  I will indeed look at this in more detail.  I also happen to agree with your approach by the way.  It sure appears the only solution is to indeed rewrite it all from scratch.  I totally get that, thanks!


mycall says,


“1. Why does GSB exist?
2. What is wrong with the normal way of using hosting services (e.g. FTP pre-tested application from localhost development to QA to production)?
3. How does this compare to the new Amazon EC2 or Windows Azura?
4. Does GSB actually have the minimum number of components to (a) minimize maintenance and issues?
5. Hows does Silverlight 2.0 with IronPython running in the browser change GSB? And

 Forgot to mention, here is an idea for you..


Wow, great questions mycall, let me try and answer them.  GSB exists because I wanted to program in real-time, using dynamic languages, many remote computers from a web browser.  I may have 30 or 40 web apps that need maintenance around the world.  This tool allows me to geocode the locations in the map program so that I have some physical frame of reference, and keeps all of the IP addresses, notes, etc. contained in one location.  I can then remote desktop in and launch the “service component” of GSB which contains the DLR and IronPython and IronRuby interpreters that I access through my web browser via WCF web services in both a REPL console window and a code editor.  This allows me to make simple changes to code, scripts, etc. much easier than a) trying to hook up Visual Studio remotely to +30 web sites does not make you productive and b) to answer your question 2) trying to do the “traditional” way of maintaining 40 sites in localhost and promoting those via ftp, etc., again not too productive.  And it is highly experimental as mentioned here. 

With respect to Amazon EC2 and Windows Azure, this is something completely different.  My IDE is “in the cloud” whereas the applications for Azure and EC2 are “in the cloud”. 

Yes, I do have the minimum number of components, (don’t need Agent SDK, just used as Robby the Robot demo and almost all of the components are open source that I have reused in my application.  My code is the glue code and programming for the overall functionality, along with eh ability to  “reflect” assemblies on the remote computers so I can look at the custom classes types and members I have at my disposal. 

With respect to Silverlight and IronPython in the browser, the IronPython execution is actually local and not on the remote computer.  I won’t get into the other productivity issues of trying to develop and debug a Silverlight application as that is another whole can of worms.

Finally, to answer about Michael Foord’s Silverlight in the browser, have a look at this web-based IDE round up.


Pfedor says on Hacker News, “The article is interesting, but I can't help but think that large part of the guy's problem is that he's not using Unix.”  I am wondering how that would make my application any simpler or me more productive, please do tell.


On Hacker News in general about VB6 – I think the point is being missed.  I was very productive in developing desktop applications in VB6 but there is no equivalent for web applications.


Thomasmallen on Hacker News says, “Big surprise. They guy's sick of programming because he never liked coding in the first place. This is his ideal development model…”  Dude, my very first line of the article says, I love to write code and have been doing it fulltime for 17 years.  If I was sick of it, would I still be doing it?  I don’t think so.  I would have opened up that flower shop by now!


Munificent on Programming Reddit says, “His core argument is wrong. Frameworks don't exist to make programmers' lives easier. Our job difficulty is essentially fixed: we will push ourselves as hard as we can. What frameworks do is increase the scope of what we can accomplish within that level of effort.”  I disagree and I think you missed the point.  There is so much language and framework being used that it is a humungous job to stitch anything together easily.  At least in my .NET web application world.  That’s the point.


Gregk on Programming Reddit says, “We can't re-invent the wheel all the time. There is a tendency for over-engineering a little these days. But that is avoidable. In general, I can say we have better tools than 10 years ago but we are also more demanding and tackling more complex tasks.”  Again, I think my point may have been missed.  I am not trying to reinvent the wheel at all or over engineer anything, I am trying to solve a business problem in the most productive way possible.  Like I said before, VB6 allowed me to solve a business problem simply and was a better desktop tool almost 10 years ago then the web development tools we have today to solve the same problem, except on the web.


Vhold on Programming Reddit says, “Every now and then this sort of thing is said, and there is always a very significant missing piece. The software people are writing now does a lot more, and a lot more reliably (on average) than in the past.”  Hmm  does a lot more, says who?  I think we are solving the same problems over and over again, but getting harder to do as our tools and frameworks are not making it any easier as these are increasing in size and complexity, yet our business problems are the same.  An ecommerce application 10 years ago is “basically” the same as it is today.  Sure lots of extra stuff, but the bottom line is to add stuff to the cart and get it transacted, or at least that what my ecommerce customers really care about, and they care about it doing it faster and cheaper than 10 years ago.  That’s the issue.


Recursive on Programming Reddit says, “No one's stopping you from doing pure programming.

Write your own web server in a procedural language, and then write your own procedural web app on top of it.  The big scary complicated frameworks will be waiting when you're done banging your head on the desk and crying.”  Dude, who said anything about me wanting to do pure programming?  Show me in my post where it says I want to do that.


Ken on unClog says, "I see several markup (HTML, CSS) and programming languages (C#, Javascript, Python, Ruby?), operating systems (Windows and Mac OS X?), system introspection and end-user programmability, and a third-party 3D plugin. It wasn’t too many years ago this would have been impressive in a desktop app. I’m not sure where the “simple” is. If you’re looking for a program to tie all these things together, it’s going to have a lot of inherent complexity. The solution to “too many languages” is never “another language”. I’m curious why one would think that such a complex web app would be easy out-of-the-box with a particular language or framework. Frameworks make common things easier. Uncommon things will always take more work." 


If I had a prize to give out, Ken would get it!  My one page web application is not simple.  It was a trick question.  My one page web app was “designed” to be “simple” to use, it was not simple to design and build.  I had to use a lot of languages, frameworks and components that were never really designed to work together and that was the effort involved to reach my goal.


There is real wisdom in the statement, “The solution to “too many languages” is never “another language”.”  Maybe that is what I was looking for, a web based language that can tie HTML, JavaScript, CSS, etc., into one language – a web language.  The analog of using the VB example was to indicate that I could indeed use one language and even with 3rd party plug-ins, I could develop a fairly sophisticated desktop application.  Actually that could be said for many languages if developing a desktop application.  But in the web world, there seems to be no choice around having multiple languages or scripting languages or mark-up this or that, each with its own strength and weaknesses, which result in productivity lost.  Or at least for me.


That is why I liked Evrim's response, “We've faced similar problems in past, and the only solution we've found is to rewrite everything from scratch.”  He even has an example web site written in their own technology.  I have not had a chance to look into detail, but from an innovation perspective, this looks promising to me and breaks out of the HTML, JavaScript, CSS, et al paradigm.  I hope his works continues.


My point in all of this, being that this is a blog about software industrialization, is that we, the software development industry, have not caught up to developing web applications like we can desktop applications.  I would say that had I developed my open source web app as a desktop app it would have taken me 10x less time, meaning I would have been 10x more productive (probably like 100x) and that is my point.  I hope the future is not too far away where we can develop sophisticated web apps in the same time and ease as we can develop desktop apps today regardless of choice of languages or frameworks.

Tuesday, 09 December 2008 23:59:26 (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Comments [0]
# Friday, 05 December 2008

Wow!  Was I surprised to see the number of page loads reported in StatCounter for my little blog article from the night before.  My PII 600Mhz 384 meg RAM web server circa 2001 was barely able to keep its CPU from melting down.

Double wow on some of the comments.  It seems a split between those who got the article and others, well, maybe giving the benefit of the doubt that I was not as clear as I could have been with what I was trying to communicate.

However, having looked at some of the Hacker News comments and Programming Reddit comments, it is clear that some people did not seem to get the point I was trying to make.

Let me try again using a concrete example this time.  Let’s use my open source web application I wrote as the example because you are free to download the source code and examine it to your heart’s content to make up your own minds as to what my beef is, if you so desire.

My web app is really simple, in fact, the application consists of exactly one page!  Mind you there is a lot going on as your will see, but still, it is one page.  For now, who cares what it does, let’s look at the list of technologies, frameworks, languages, components, etc., used (and reused) in this “one page” web application:

  1. ASP.NET 2.0 framework classes
  2. ASP.NET AJAX (.NET 3.5 FCL)
  3. ASP.NET AJAX Control Toolkit (Tab and Hover controls)
  4. .NET 3.5 Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) framework classes
  5. Visual Studio 2008 IDE
  6. C#
  7. JavaScript
  8. VBScript
  9. CSS
  10. HTML
  11. XML
  12. MDbg CLR Managed Debugger (mdbg) Sample application and API framework
  13. .NET 2.0 Winforms framework classes
  14. Microsoft Agent SDK (API framework)
  15. Microsoft Remote Desktop Web Connection Active X component
  16. Google Earth application
  17. Google Earth Airlines ActiveX web plug-in for Google Earth with JavaScript API
  18. Prototype.js open source AJAX framework
  19. IronPython 2.0B2 and Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR) with IronRuby support
  20. IronPythonTextbox – open source IronPython rich client text box and interpreter
  21. Edit Area – open source JavaScript source code editor with syntax highlighting
  22. Color List Box – open source WinForms modified List Control
  23. Joshua – open source interactive JavaScript HTML console window
  24. RealWorldGrid – open source ASP.NET modified GridView control

For those that did read the first post in this series, do you now see what I mean?  No? Let me further illuminate with the following ten points:

  1. Did I say I hated frameworks?  No
  2. Did I say I wanted to reinvent the wheel?  No.
  3. Did I say I wanted to do pure programming?  No.  
  4. Did I say I wanted to code from scratch and roll my own framework?  No.
  5. Did I say I did not want to use frameworks or reuse code?  No.
  6. Did I say that I wanted to return to my beloved VB 6 as my “ideal development model?” No, in fact, I have not used VB6 since 2000 when I converted to C# .NET (I was an early adopter).
  7. Did I say I was sick of programming?  No, first sentence in previous post – I love to write code!
  8. Yes, I have tried several programming languages, O/S’s, IDE’s,  etc., over the last 17 years that I have been programming professionally – this is not about programming languages, other than that they are a part of a much larger issue.
  9. Am I a hobbyist programmer?  No, and not to sound defensive, I am a professionally trained software engineer, with a 2 year post grad in Software Engineering Management and 17 years professional experience.  I have worked for Motorola (CMM Level 5), Kodak (CMM Level 3) and several other shops of various sizes and industries, plus ran my own successful custom software development company for four years with a staff of 25 people.  Currently I work for one of the best custom software development companies that produce enterprise ecommerce solutions to some of the largest retailers and supply chains in the world – the odds are that you have already used our ecommerce software and don’t even know it.
  10. You want to interview me? (for those that asked) First, pass my test by downloading my open source code and explain to my why my software design is good or bad and the reasons why for either.  Then we will talk.

Enough Tom Foolery.  What I said was that web application frameworks, components and tools are like 10 years behind the tools we are used to using to develop desktop applications.  In fact, I stated that it is getting worse, not better.  I used VB6 in a simple two tier application scenario as the example.  Now lets compare to my web app.

Look at how much “stuff” has to be used to make my “one page” web application work.  Imagine developing this as a desktop application.  You could easily cut out 50% of the stuff used in the web application and still have the same functionality in a desktop application, the least of which would be a working WYSIWYG design editor.

This is what my one page web app looks like rendered in IE 7.


This is what my one page web app looks like rendered in Visual Studio 2008 design time mode.


And no, this is not just a Visual Studio problem, I have run into this with a variety of other web development tools.

My point is illustrated by the number of items listed to make a one page web application and the design time view of the web application.  Way too much stuff and I can’t even see what I am doing!  How is this helping me being more productive?  It isn’t and that is my point.  Our frameworks and tools for developing web applications are getting worse, not better.  Vendors keep adding more and more stuff, yet we can’t even get an editor that shows a proper design time view of what we are trying to build. 

How would an engineer design an automobile (or house or electronics or cell phone or game console or name your item) in AutoCAD with a design time view the same as the one for my web application above?  It would not only be totally unacceptable, it would be ludicrous!  So why do we, the software development industry, accept it?  And worse yet, have people defend it in some of the comments I have read?  That is what makes no sense to me at all.  Am I the only one with the sunglasses from They Live?  I hope not, cause if I remember the movie correctly, it ends badly ;-)

Updated:  A Programmers Dillema - Productivity Lost - Answers

Friday, 05 December 2008 23:45:15 (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Comments [11]
# Thursday, 04 December 2008

I love to write code.  I am 49 years old and have been programming off and on from 1977 – 1990 and as a fulltime professional since 1991.  I hesitate to even guess how many programming languages I have used over that time frame.  Since I love to program, not only was I using several different programming languages at various jobs, I was also experimenting with several others after work.

I don’t do as much “on the job” programming as my role has been a “Software Architect” for several years now, but I still do a fair share and even more so in my spare time.  For example, I released an open source project that I have been working for the last two years called Global System Builder.  It was supposed to be fun, but that is the crux of the issue I am having – it was mostly a lot of really hard work.  Not that it was technically difficult, but seemingly something very simple turned out extremely hard to do.

Let me digress a moment to illustrate a point.  As the domain name of this blog indicates, I was progressing in programming languages as the level of abstraction was being raised over time.  Meaning in modern day times, not worrying about memory management, ala garbage collection in languages like C#, enjoying the REPL feel of dynamic programming languages (e.g. IronPython and IronRuby) and marvelling at the power of functional languages (e.g. F#) and then...

I came to the realization that as time marches on, rather than programming becoming easier (read: simpler) it was actually becoming more complex, to the point where today even to write anything simple seems to take a monumental effort, and seemingly more configuration effort than programming, and with so many moving parts, fraught with errors that are not compile time related.  I felt this not only in my professional software development world that I live in, but even on the open source project I was working on in my spare time for fun.  And it was supposed to be fun, but instead it was a design exercise at every turn figuring out which of the programming languages, frameworks, components, and widgets I could use that were the lesser evil since none of them did what I wanted them to do.  As you will see, this is the irony.

Sure we use all sorts of frameworks today that supposedly make our programming lives easier.  The one I am most familiar with is the .NET framework.  At +11,000 types and +100,000 members, I am overwhelmed by the sheer size and complexity of the framework.  I can barely wrap my head around 7 +- 2 items let alone several orders of magnitude larger in size and complexity.  I spend more time looking at MSDN documentation trying to figure out how some Type works and the members I can use rather than actually writing code.

The argument is that we become more productive cause “it is taken care of in the framework” My experience and others would tend to disagree from a practical perspective and let alone the simple math truth.  Our brain is not designed to juggle thousands of Types and so we spend a great deal of time, searching, looking up docs, figuring out what to use from a design perspective, looking at the samples from an implementation perspective, looking at how others have used it – only to find that while it is close to what I want, it does not really meet my requirements.  Fine, close enough and with a few overrides, no problem.  But when you get into low level design and implementation, you run into hard stop limitations and then you a) try and find ways around the limitations or b) go back to the drawing board or c) think about not programming anymore.

And so ends the digression.  The point being, as told by Charles’s Petzold, “Does Visual Studio Rot the Mind” under the subtitle, “The Pure Pleasures of Pure Coding”, where he states, “...but there’s no APIs, there’s no classes, there’s no properties, there’s no forms, there’s no controls, there’s no event handlers, and there’s definitely no Visual Studio. It’s just me and the code, and for awhile, I feel like a real programmer again.

At last we arrive at why I am possibly deciding not to code anymore.  There is so much in the way and there is so much “of it”, that doing anything simple has become an incredibly complex task and doing anything complex takes teams of software folks to deliver due to the sheer size and complexity of our own programming environments, let alone trying to solve the problem domain we have been given.

Here comes the “I remember at time when...”   Love it or hate it, Visual Basic 6 (or the Delphi equivalent at the time) was the most productive programming language and toolset I have ever worked with (Digitalk Smalltalk takes 2nd place) for building business applications in the last 17 years I have been doing software development.  Why?

I used to do storyboards right in the VB6 IDE asking the business guys what they wanted, “so you need a form, with a list box and what should be in the list box, and when you clicked ok, now what... “And on it went.  In a couple of days to a week, we basically had the front end of the application prototyped.  Since it was back in the “two tier” days all we had to do was hook it up to the database.  And if we got really “fancy”, (or had the luxury),  we added a third tier of business logic written out as VB6 classes, not in the stored procs, and after a bunch of testing, report writing, etc., boom!  off it goes into production.

There were a lot of happy people back then.  The business users were happy because they got to sit in and basically design the user interface with me while trying to figure out the app.  And then weeks later it was delivered and did exactly what they wanted it to do.  I was happy, along with my team as we got a buzz on from being so productive and delivering what the users wanted.  And the tools, language and database was simple enough back then to not to get in anyone’s way. Everyone happy!  So what happened?

One part of it is web applications happened.  Even in 2008, Visual Studio ASP.NET cannot give you a WYSIWYG view of your web application.  Yet, VB1 was able to give us WISYWYG back in 1991!  What the heck?  Not to just pick on Microsoft, I would say the majority of vendors’ web development tools are like a decade or so behind their “traditional” development tools for building desktop applications.  Further the vendors push more and more features, more and more “layers”, which mean more moving parts, which means more complexity, which means making it harder and harder for the programmer to use.   It reminds me of the infamous air-conditioning “duct” scene in the movie Brazil.

Our tools and applications have become so large, many and complex, it is literally making us less productive.  And to me, productivity is everything.  Productivity.  It is as simple as that.

Updated: A Programmers Dilemma - Productivity Lost - Part II

Thursday, 04 December 2008 22:24:03 (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Comments [12]
# Friday, 28 November 2008

In our software development business, we are always asked for estimates on:

  1. How long is the project going to take?
  2. How much will it cost?

There is a simple to use online estimation tool at: http://www.cms4site.ru/utility.php?utility=cocomoii

It takes the lines of code and hourly rate as input:

Clicking the go button immediately gives you an effort and cost estimate:

You can fiddle with team skills and project complexity and see the result.

I know some people and organizations are adverse to counting lines of code, but after 17 years in this business and having tried several different estimation methods and models, I have to admit, using COCOMO II as an estimation model has proven in practice, at least for me, the most accurate way of estimating how long a project is going to take and how much it is going to cost.

You can read the extensive COCOMO II estimation model manual at:


Friday, 28 November 2008 22:18:23 (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Comments [2]
# Wednesday, 29 October 2008

I have been coding web applications In Visual Studio since Visual InterDev was introduced in 1997.  Over that time, I have seen a wild array of error messages, but yesterday, while debugging an ecommerce web application using Commerce Server, I got this interesting message that I have never seen before:


Object is in a zombie state?  I wonder what that really means? 

Clicking Yes, produced this dialog box:

Huh? How can an object be a “zombie” and how can debugging be stopped, but not yet complete?  I know it is Halloween, but... oooooo pretty scary, huh kids!

Wednesday, 29 October 2008 10:08:08 (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)  #    Comments [1]
# Sunday, 19 October 2008
Get Off My Cloud

Dare Obasanjo wrote about Cloud Computing and Vendor Lock In where Dare commented on Tim Bray’s Get In the Cloud which Tim described a couple of issues.  One of them, called a tech issue was, “The small problem is that we haven’t quite figured out the architectural sweet spot for cloud platforms.”  I would say we have not figured out the architectural sweetspot for “any” platform, cloud or otherwise.


It seems that every API we program to, whether cloud based or not, is still a custom, one off API.  It appears to be that way since the dawn of software programming and still continues that way, even when we are in the clouds.


What I am talking about?  I know people cringe about analogies to software development, but this one contains the single point I am making.  Do you know what an 8 pin DIP is?  DIP stands for dual inline package and an 8 pin DIP is one “standard” package (or interface) for integrated circuits (IC’s).  The keyword being “standard”.  There are millions of different types of 8 pin DIP IC’s out in our world today used in virtually anything electronic.  Much like our accompanying software, however, there is one crucial distinguishing difference between the two.  Can you guess what it is? 


Those millions of IC types can fit into “one" package, or put another way, exposed through “one” interface and that is what the 8 PIN DIP is, an interface.  Through that one interface type or package, I can access millions of features and functions.  Further, through using multiples of those packages/interfaces, I can make almost anything I want, from a motherboard, to a robot servo controller to circuitry that makes my Blackberry a Crackberry (oops that’s just me, the carbon unit) to circuitry that guides a rocket to the moon.


How come we have (still) not figured this our in our software world where we continue to hand craft one off interfaces that seemingly are tied to the implementation, even though we don’t think that (i.e. the vendor lock-in described by Tim’s article).  Brad Cox seemed to have that figured out in his concept of a Software IC years ago and further in his book on Superdistribution.  A man before his time, I would say.


What’s my point? My point is that there is going to be an inevitable conclusion at some point in time where “how” you interface with any given piece of software functionality is going to be more important than the functionality itself.  Know what I mean?


Imagine you woke up this morning and you could access all software libraries through an operations based API like, Query, Create, Update, Delete, Copy and Move.  That was it.  That was your “complete” API and all software libraries, components, features and functions exposed that API where the general pattern is create a request comprising one or more operations on specified items.  Submit the request to the API service for processing.  Interpret the result returned by the service.  That’s it.


Remember I am just talking about the interface exposed by the software library and not its internal representation.  In other words, a standard API used by everyone.  How would that change the way we would consume libraries (or components or services or features or functions) to develop software today?


Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we are not heading in this direction, we are.  There are several examples of this today, but it is not ubiquitous or universal or all encompassing as it could be.  As a .NET developer and using the .NET framework class library of some 30,000 types, I can tell you it is not that way today.  In fact, it does not matter what framework class library I use to be clear I am not picking on Microsoft. I am sure that at the PDC with some 38 sessions on cloud services and the announcement of .NET 4.0, we will see some interesting developments there, I am just hoping it is towards the direction of a standardized interface for cloud services.


Maybe it is just wishing thinking that I will see in my lifetime a standard interface or package like the 8 PIN DIP for software libraries where through one "standard" interface I can access thousands of library functions.  Then again, software industrialization is occurring at a dizzying pace and I can’t help feel that it is just around the corner.  History in the making is the phrase I believe and I hope to be a part of it.

Sunday, 19 October 2008 22:45:16 (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)  #    Comments [2]
# Sunday, 21 September 2008
Global System Builder Promo



- don't forget to click on  on bottom right of player

Sunday, 21 September 2008 06:25:06 (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)  #    Comments [0]
© Copyright 2009 Mitch Barnett - Software Industrialization is the computerization of software design and function.

newtelligence dasBlog 2.2.8279.16125  Theme design by Bryan Bell
Feed your aggregator (RSS 2.0)   | Page rendered at Monday, 13 April 2009 17:51:09 (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)