Are You Hard to Convince?

When discussing a new technology, I’m rarely the first one to jump on the bandwagon. In fact, I’m usually the killjoy that ends up arguing against using a new library or a new language feature when the enthusiasm is high and everybody is eager to get started.

It’s not that I want to stay comfortable and never move forward. Rather, I need to be convinced that something is worth it instead of moving for the sake of it. New features and libraries can add complexity to something that’s already complex. That makes it harder for new people to join in (including you if you didn’t touch it for the last 6 months).

I’m all for new ideas that makes software easier to understand and that allows me to do my job better. Still, the argument about new technology is too focused on the shiny new technology itself, and not the problem it solves. A great idea is not enough; it has to work well in the real world.

To illustrate this, I choose a few templating engines at random on npm (not judging their quality; maybe they’re all great). Here is the kind of descriptions that will greet you:

Why should I choose one over the other, or use it to replace an existing tool?  A description like fast and powerful is not very helpful. It’s good to have, but who would pick a underpowered, slow engine?

Of course, if I’m looking specifically for an HTML template engines I can narrow it down a bit, but if I don’t have a strong preference one way or the other, what should I choose? There were surely a few problems or use cases that led to writing those engines instead of using an existing one, but I don’t have any way of knowing from looking at this.

At this point, I’m asking myself if the library will still exist in 5 years (without forcing me to rewrite everything every year) and if it’s well documented so I can get up to speed quickly, not if it implements a cool pattern in particular.

If I had to choose something for a project from that list, I would probably pick the ones that have the most promising documentation and a large following, and try them out for myself. Granted, it could still blow up later in production or when trying to implement a feature in particular since I’m only coding a prototype, but it’s better than nothing.

But after doing all this work, why would I switch to something new a few years down the line if the one I choose first still works well? I have to be really convinced that it can solve my problem better, and that is worth the cost of switching in improved productivity and ease of use. With the speed that the technology is moving I must be sure it’s worth it. I can’t afford to waste my time migrating to something that will make things worse.

Your job will never be done

As a software developer, you have to become comfortable with the fact that your work is never truly done. The software you create will always be a work in progress. When you code that last feature or fix that last bug, another one will pop up soon enough.

Also, as you keep learning, you’ll find better patterns that you want to use, or new standards that you want to implement. If you don’t stop yourself, you’ll quickly go down the rabbit hole, only waking up after you’ve sunk many hours to refactor your whole code base. At some point, you have to let it go and ship anyway, because it’s never going to be perfect.

Good software is like a garden. You can pull all the weeds and clean up, but be quick to congratulate yourself because it will stay neat for approximately a day. After this, new weeds will have grown and you’ll have to start over again. Perfection is fleeting in software and in gardening: the best you can do is making sure it’s not overrun by weeds and bugs.

Likewise, there are new languages, frameworks and tools coming out all the time, and you need to keep learning to stay up to date. You don’t have to jump on every bandwagon: many skills can be learned as you need them. On the other hand, changes like new browsers and OS versions will force you to adapt even if you would have preferred working on a new feature instead.

It’s humbling to let go if you’re a recovering perfectionist. When you started out, small problems could be “solved”, and a class could be “completed”, but real life is more complex than this. Life will throw you curveballs, and you won’t be able to reach inbox zero. It won’t come easy at first, but stay mindful that you’re doing your best, but can’t do it all. You’ll learn to be at peace with it, but even this is always a work in progress.

Simple code is beautiful

Despite the large number of languages and tools that will get thrown at you if you mention web development (Ruby! React! Node.js! AngularJS! Gulp! Python!), the simplest web application you can create includes HTML, CSS and a bit of JavaScript for the interactivity. You don’t even need to setup a web server: just open it in your browser or host it with any cheap shared hosting and it just works.

Anyone can maintain this application with just a text editor, a web browser and some experimentation. It’s a great way to learn how the web works, and it is a good solution for a few pages showing static information or a little JavaScript calculator.

Unfortunately, it all goes downhill from there as soon as you need to save the state of the application or introduce some other form of server-side logic. Also, your application will soon turn into an unmanageable mess if you have to update many pages every time there is a small change.

Once you get started on this path and have chosen a web development stack, you’ll end up depending on many tools, technologies and frameworks for your developments process. In many cases, you HAVE to do this: most stacks don’t include everything, and you have to choose libraries according to the needs of your project. Unfortunately, every new bit that you add needs to be updated and can break on you. You need to find a balance between the time saved now by using a tool or automating a process, and the time waster further down the road if it breaks.

It’s easy to add dependencies, but you have to make sure it’s worth it for your project (see the left-pad debacle): a good dependency is something that doesn’t make sense to code yourself. You should never trust logic that is core to your application and that cannot easily be replaced to a third-party tool. That means that using a framework for two-way data binding or even just for handling AJAX calls is the proper thing to do, but a chat application that would outsource the chatting part is taking on a lot of risk.

The same goes for the code itself. When you’re thinking of trying out a fancy new language feature, you need to ask yourself if the immediate productivity gain is worth it. Will it make maintenance and readability harder for everyone working with the code (including you in 6 months)?

You don’t need to use each and every feature of a language. If you come up with a new way to do things at every possible occasion, it’s going to be very hard to introduce new people to your project. Using a small subset of the language makes it easier to understand what’s going on, even if it’s boring. You can experiment in your own learning projects, not in code meant for production.

Likewise, I like to keep my IDE as simple as possible, and work with a small number of tools. Many plugins are a great boost to productivity, but you don’t want to depend on all of them working perfectly to be able to do something. Also, if you deviate too much from the standard working environment for your technology or at your organization, it’s a lot harder to collaborate with other people. A simple environment meant you’re able to start working quickly, without spending hours reinstalling software to setup your environment.

If you’re just working on projects for a few months and handing them off to someone else to maintain, or if you’re just doing small projects to learn, it may not be as obvious, but those are all things that can come back and bite you. Your code will most likely be around for many years, and your tools must last that long or you’ll find yourself scrambling to find an alternative quickly.