Steve Vinoski's Blog

The title of this blog entry is inspired by Kent Beck’s posting on the topic. There, he describes some situations in which he feels not writing a test is OK, explaining that depending on whether you’re in the “short game” or “long game” your testing strategy might be different.

I believe Kent’s “short” and “long” games line up well with the Technology Adoption Lifecycle curve. Geoffrey Moore’s “Crossing the Chasm” and “Inside the Tornado” characterize how companies have to adjust their actions and approaches for developing and marketing a given product depending on what part of the curve that product currently addresses.

If your product targets the extreme left side of the curve, you can get away with less testing because customers on that part of the curve — visionaries and early adopters — are mostly concerned with your ideas and approach and are less concerned with the details of how your product operates and performs. If they’re kicking the tires and they hit a glaringly huge bug, you can just say, “Oops, we’ll have to fix that” and that type of customer is pretty much always OK with that. But once you get to the point of attempting to cross the chasm, or if you’ve already crossed the chasm, then testing grows significantly in importance. This is because the customers you’ll be chasing there are the pragmatists, and for them, the thing has to pretty much do what it’s supposed to do, though they’ll tolerate bugs here and there especially if there are workarounds. If you make it through that part of the lifecycle and your product lives to see the downslope on the right side of the curve, your tests have to be far better still because the conservative and skeptical customers over there really don’t like finding any defects in your product.

What this means, then, is that I believe Kent’s “short game” is short indeed, applying primarily to the portion of the Technology Adoption Lifecycle curve lying to the left of the chasm and possibly also to the point immediately to its right. But even there, testing is still very important, not so much immediately for the customer but more for yourself, for at least the following reasons:

• Testing can enhance your team’s productivity by ensuring that code coming from different parts of the team actually works together and stays that way. (As commenters on Kent’s posting point out, this isn’t such a big deal in Kent’s case because he’s working alone.)

• Testing can help you identify what functionality in the product is expected to work, which is very helpful if a potential customer is kicking the tires and wants a demo.

• Some developers are under the incredibly mistaken belief that testing isn’t their job, or that they can tell their management they can have either the functionality or the tests or not both. I’ve heard this many times over the course of my career, and frankly, it’s pretty weak. Having testing on the agenda from the start makes it clear that you consider testing to be a regular part of every developer’s job.

• There can be a huge difference between code that’s written to be testable and code that isn’t. If testing is delayed, the cost of refactoring down the road to make the code testable can be prohibitive.

• If you write code that other developers have to build on, testing can help you weed out code that isn’t easy for them to use (this is essentially a form of Extreme Programming’s “simplicity” value).

• Speaking of XP, testing can also help developers know when they’re finished, and can make them more courageous when it comes to fixing problems, adding enhancements, or refactoring.

Kent isn’t saying it’s OK to skip testing; rather, he’s saying that having a clear testing strategy and plan makes it easier to adapt your testing to different needs of the product at different times in its lifecycle. I think, then, that what I’ve written here is just a different focus on what he wrote. I agree completely with him that testing strategy can and should vary depending on where you are on the Technology Adoption Lifecycle curve, but for all the reasons mentioned above and more, I feel it’s important to stress that including testing as a key component of your efforts from Day One is critical, something I think Kent’s posting assumes but does not explicitly say.

I’ve noticed that frequently in technical discussions, the strongest disagreements seem to come from people with little to no actual experience with the technology they’re arguing against. How can that be? For example:

• Test-First Development. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve suggested to a developer that writing their tests before or along with writing their code will make the code not only easier to write but also more robust coming out of the gate, and I get back responses like, “What? That’s crazy! How can you write tests before you have any code? That doesn’t make any sense!” Having an initial reaction like that isn’t such a big deal, as I’ve seen numerous developers who have such reactions actually try the “test first” approach and quickly become strong advocates who wonder how they ever did without it. The point is, though, that they actually tried it. Arguing with them before they tried it always turned out to be a total waste of time. No amount of words seemed to convince them. They had to experience it before they understood it.

• Erlang syntax. Erlang is getting more and more attention these days, and rightfully so, but a typical reaction from those who have written little to no Erlang code is that the language’s syntax is too weird, too hard to read and write, etc. Is the syntax different? Yes. Is it weird or difficult? No, not at all — in fact, it’s actually very simple and regular when compared to popular general-purpose imperative languages. Spend a day or two writing some real Erlang code, and I guarantee you that any initial dislike you might have for its syntax will disappear.

• REST. If you search the blog of any REST proponent, including this one, you’re sure to find all kinds of comments from detractors who argue against REST despite never having used it to develop any real systems. Similarly, the blogs of many WS-* advocates who have never tried using REST contain all kinds of reasons why REST can’t possibly work. Check out the comments in Damien Katz’s recent “REST, I just don’t get it” posting, for example; you have useful ones from those who have obviously used REST and understand its benefits, and then you have other comments that argue against REST while simultaneously showing a great misunderstanding of it. Those detractors would do well to read Bill de hÓra’s excellent response.

Also interesting about these three particular cases is that I don’t personally know of anyone who’s actually tried the approaches and decided against them. In a posting last November, for example, I asked for comments from anyone who had actually tried REST for real and with an open mind, but decided that it was inferior to WS-* and so abandoned it. Either nobody read that posting or no such people exist. I’m fairly confident it’s the latter.

There will always be arguments made by people whose livelihood is somehow threatened by the approach they’re opposing, but I don’t think that’s the source of all the opposing arguments. As developers we can’t possibly try everything, of course, because there just isn’t enough time. It’s inevitable that we’ll sometimes have to resort to researching an approach via only reading, questions and discussion and decide against it without prototyping. But ultimately we developers owe it to ourselves and our employers to keep ourselves objectively informed so that we can take advantage of new approaches whenever appropriate. When a whole bunch of smart developers have success with a particular approach, I don’t see how any responsible developer can actively and vocally oppose it without first objectively trying the approach and experiencing it firsthand.

A commenter named Nick left a thoughtful response to my post about my “Multilanguage Programming” column. Rather than respond to it with another comment, I thought I’d turn my response into a full posting, as I think Nick’s feedback is representative of how many people feel about the topic.

Nick said:

I would say that instead of spending a lot of time on a conceptually different language it could be more beneficial to study, say, distributed algorithms or software/system architecture principles or your business domain. There is so much knowledge in this world that learning how to code the same thing in, roughly speaking, one more syntax seems like a waste of time. Even paying real attention to what is going on in the cloud computing can easily consume most of one’s spare time.

I think there are assumptions here that are not necessarily true. Specifically, you’re not necessarily learning how to code the same thing in multiple languages; rather, the idea is that by choosing the best language for the task, coding is “just right” for the problem at hand. For example, I know from significant first-hand experience that if you want to write a set of distributed services that support replication, failover, and fault tolerance, the code you’d write to do that in C++ will be extremely different from the code you’d write in Erlang to achieve the same thing (well, actually, you’d be able to achieve far more in Erlang, in far fewer lines of code).

This is about much more than syntax. It’s about facilities, semantics, and trade-offs. If it were just syntax, then that would imply that all languages are equal in terms of expressiveness and capability, which we already know and accept to be untrue.

The cloud computing topic actually provides a good example of why knowing multiple languages can be useful. To use the Google App Engine, for example, you need to develop your applications in Python. What if you don’t know Python? Too bad for you.

From a real life perspective, it takes years or working on nontrivial software to master a language. For example, some people still manage to have only a vague idea of util.concurent — and this is just a small enough (and well explained in the literature) part of Java. How realistic is it to expect that the majority of developers will be able to master multiple languages concurrently?

I disagree that it takes years to master a language. One of the best OO developers I ever worked with was a mechanical engineer who taught himself programming. One of my current coworkers — a relatively young guy — started programming in Erlang only a few months ago, and he’s already writing some fairly sophisticated production-quality code. In 1988, I started using C++; by 1989, I was starting to help guys like Stan Lippman, Jim Coplien, and others correct coding mistakes in their excellent books. I have a BSEE, no formal computer science training whatsoever, and am completely self-taught as far as programming languages go. (The only class I ever had in any computer language was a BASIC class I had to take in 1981.) Two other coworkers started with Python just a few months ago and they do quite well with it at this point. I can cite numerous such examples from throughout my career. I don’t think any of us are super-programmers or anything like that, so if we can do it, I don’t see why it would be a problem for anyone else.

Perhaps you’re falling trap to the “huge language” problem I mentioned in my column. It certainly can take some people many years to master enormous languages like Java and C++, but most languages are simply nowhere near that big.

And who wants to maintain a code base written in widely different languages? Which most likely means multiple IDEs, unit testing frameworks, build systems (hey, not everyone is using even Maven yet), innumerable frameworks etc. And most of the interpreted languages among those are not even likely to run in the same VM. Not to mention the number of jobs asking for non-C++/Java skills.

I use a number of languages daily and I really have no trouble maintaining the code regardless of which language any particular piece happens to be written in, or whether I wrote the code or one of my teammates did. Once you know a language, you know it; switching to it is no more difficult than using your one and only language if you’re a monolingual developer.

You also mention the “multiple IDE” problem. The first draft of my column contained some fairly direct language describing my dislike of IDEs, or more accurately, my dislike of the IDE culture, but Doug Lea suggested I take it out, so I did. The problem is that some folks let the tool drive their solutions, rather than using the tool as a means to developing solutions. I’ve had numerous people tell me they won’t consider using a language unless their IDE fully supports it with Java- or Smalltalk-like refactoring. To me, that’s completely backwards. I’d rather use an extensible editor that can handle pretty much any language, thus letting me develop optimal solutions using the right languages, rather than having a mere editing tool severely limit my choice of possible solutions.

But there are language mavens and there are tool mavens, and they typically disagree. Follow that link and read, as the posting there is incredibly insightful. I am definitely a language maven; languages are my tools. I suspect, though, that Nick and others who raise similar questions to the ones quoted here lean more toward being tool mavens. I’m not passing judgment on either; I’m only pointing out the different camps to help pinpoint sources of disagreement.

As far as unit test frameworks, build systems, and frameworks go, I haven’t ever found any big issues in those areas when using multiple languages. The reason, not surprisingly, is that knowing multiple languages gives you multiple weapons for testing and integration. Ultimately, when you’re used to using multiple languages, you’re used to these kinds of issues and thus they don’t really present any formidable barriers.

And as far as jobs go, the best developers I’ve known throughout my career have been fluent in a number of programming languages, and each of them could work virtually wherever they wanted to. I don’t believe this correlation is mere coincidence.

Curiously enough, this argumentation is hardly ever mentioned. Authors tend to assume that developers are lazy or have nothing else to learn.

I don’t assume developers are lazy. Rather, I think our industry generally has a bad habit of continually seeking homogeneity in platforms, in languages, in tools, in frameworks, etc., and we really, really ought to know better by now. Once you learn to accept the fact that heterogeneity in computing is inevitable — since nothing can do it all, right? — you find yourself able to use that heterogeneity to your advantage, rather than continually battling against it and losing.

Personally, I am planning to look at Scala and probably Erlang but even judging from the number of books on those it’s clear to me that they represent merely a niche market.

Today’s niche market is tomorrow’s mainstream market. Regardless of whether either of those languages continues to grow, learning one or both will make you a better developer than you are today.

Consider the final question I ask in my column:

After all, do any of us really believe we’ve already learned the last programming language we’ll ever need?

I suspect the vast majority of developers would answer “no” to this question. Assuming that’s the case, then if you don’t regularly practice learning new languages, how do you know when you really need to start learning a new one, and how capable will you be of learning that next language when the need arises? The longer you stay with one language, the more isolated you become, typically without even realizing it. Shifting gears gets harder and harder. Then one day you look up and all the interesting work is elsewhere, out of your reach. Is that a position you want to put yourself in?

Multilingual programming is one of my all-time favorite topics, and I feel very strongly that software developers should be adept at multiple programming languages. Developers need to be able to apply whatever language in their arsenal best suits the problem at hand, and perhaps even quickly learn a new language if what they already know doesn’t fit.

Too many developers seem to think that familiarity with one general-purpose language is good enough, but it isn’t. Knowing one language forces you to try to bend or change problems to fit whatever that language happens to be. That’s like trying to solve a problem by choosing a data structure or algorithm to use without ever considering the nature or details of the problem.

One of my favorite quotes on this topic is from Steve Yegge:

…an “X programmer”, for any value of X, is a weak player. You have to cross-train to be a decent athlete these days. Programmers need to be fluent in multiple languages with fundamentally different “character” before they can make truly informed design decisions.

Yes indeed.

Too many developers also come up with weak excuses for not learning new programming languages, most of them being just different ways of saying, “But it’s different from the language I already know!” Don’t whine about the differences — instead, learn to appreciate them and take advantage of them.

I’ve hinted at the fact that I like this topic in previous issues of my Internet Computing column when I covered the usefulness and applicability of languages such as JavaScript and E4X, Ruby (twice), and Erlang (also twice) for middleware and integration projects. My latest column, entitled “Multilingual Programming” (PDF), attempts to provide a few reasons why knowing and being able to apply multiple languages can be highly beneficial. As always, I welcome comments and feedback.

[Update: if you prefer not to read PDF, this column is now also available online in HTML.]

When I spoke at QCon San Francisco last November, Stefan Tilkov interviewed me, and the video is now available on InfoQ.com.

We covered a range of topics: CORBA, dynamic languages, REST, distribution, concurrency, Erlang. Stefan asked some great questions, and I hope I gave some worthwhile answers. Thanks again, Stefan.