Go check out Schneem’s post on “polish”. (No, not the country).
Polish is what distinguishes good software from great software. When you use an app or code that clearly cares about the edge cases and how all the pieces work together, it feels right. Unfortunately, this is the part of the software that most often gets overlooked, in favor of more features or more time on another project…
…When we say something is “polished” it means that it is free from sharp edges, even the small ones. I view polished software to be ones that are mostly free from frustration. They do what you expect them to and are consistent.…
…In many ways I want my software to be boring. I want it to harbor few surprises. I want to feel like I understand and connect with it at a deep level and that I’m not constantly being caught off guard by frustrating, time stealing, papercuts.
I definitely have experienced the difference between working with and on a project that has this kind of ‘polish’ and, truly, experiencing a deep-level connection of the code that lets me crazy effective with it — and working on or with projects that don’t have this. And on projects that started out with it, but lost it! (An irony is that it takes a lot of time, effort, skill, and experience to design an architecture that seems like the only way it would make sense to do it, obvious, and as schneems says, “boring”!)
I was going to say “We all have experienced the difference…”, but I don’t know if that’s true. Have you?
What do you think one can do to work towards a project with this kind of “polish”, and keep it there? I’m not entirely sure, although I have some ideas, and so does schneems. Tolerating edge-case bugs is a contraindication — and even though I don’t really believe in ‘broken windows theory’ when it comes to neighborhoods, I think it does have an application here. Once the maintainers start tolerating edge case bugs and sloppiness, it sends a message to other contributors, a message of lack of care and pride. You don’t put in the time to make a change right unless the project seems to expect, deserve, and accommodate it.
If you don’t even have well-defined enough behavior/architecture to have any idea what behavior is desirable or undesirable, what’s a bug– you’ve clearly gone down a wrong path incompatible with this kind of ‘polish’, and I’m not sure if it can be recovered from. A Fred Brooks “Mythical Man Month” quote I think is crucial to this idea of ‘polish’: “Conceptual integrity is central to product quality.” (He goes on to say that having an “architect” is the best way to get conceptual integrity; I’m not certain, I’d like to believe this isn’t true because so many formal ‘architect’ roles are so ineffective, but I think my experience may indeed be that a single or tight team of architects, formal or informal, does correlate…).
There’s another Fred Brooks quote that now I can’t find and I really wish I could cause I’ve wanted to return to it and meditate on it for a while, but it’s about how the power of a system is measured by what you can do with it divided by the number of distinct architectural concepts. A powerful system is one that can do a lot with few architectural concepts. (If anyone can find this original quote, I’ll buy you a beer or a case of it).
I also know you can’t do this until you understand the ‘business domain’ you are working in — programmers as interchangeable cross-industry widgets is a lie. (‘business domain’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘business’ in the sense of making money, it means understanding the use-cases and needs of your developer users, as they try to meet the use cases and needs of their end-users, which you need to understand too).
While I firmly believe in general in the caution against throwing out a system and starting over, a lot of this caution is about losing the domain knowledge encoded in the system (really, go read Joel’s post). But if the system was originally architected by people (perhaps past you!) who (in retrospect) didn’t have very good domain knowledge (or the domain has changed drastically?), and you now have a team (and an “architect”?) that does, and your existing software is consensually recognized as having the opposite of the quality of ‘polish’, and is becoming increasingly expensive to work with (“technical debt”) with no clear way out — that sounds like a time to seriously consider it. (Although you will have to be willing to accept it’ll take a while to get feature parity, if those were even the right features). (Interestingly, Fred Books was I think the originator of the ‘build one to throw away’ idea that Joel is arguing against. I think both have their place, and the place of domain knowledge is a crucial concept in both).
All of these are more vague hand wavy ideas than easy to follow directions, I don’t have any easy to follow directions, or know if any exist.
But I know that the first step is being able to recognize “polish”, a well-designed parsimoniously architected system that feels right to work with and lets you effortlessly accomplish things with it. Which means having experience with such systems. If you’ve only worked with ball-of-twine difficult to work with systems, you don’t even know what you’re missing or what is possible or what it looks like. You’ve got to find a way to get exposure to good design to become a good designer, and this is something we don’t know how to do as well with computer architecture as with classic design (design school consists of exposure to design, right?)
And the next step is desiring and committing to building such a system.
Which also can mean pushing back on or educating managers and decision-makers. The technical challenge is already high, but the social/organizational challenge can be even higher.
Because it is harder to build such a system than to not, designing and implementing good software is not easy, it takes care, skill, and experience. Not every project deserves or can have the same level of ‘polish’. But if you’re building a project meant to meet complex needs, and to be used by a distributed (geographically and/or organizationally) community, and to hold up for years, this is what it takes. (Whether that’s a polished end-user UX, or developer-user UX, which means API, or both, depending on the nature of this distributed community).