Related
How do you deal with a client who has different time estimates for the software product than yours?
I am going to describe a scenario that is not mine, but that captures broadly the same problem. I am working as a subcontractor to a large company that has a programming department. The software project we are working on is in an area that the department believe they have a handle on, but because their expertise and mine are very different we tend to get different results.
Example: At the start of the project I suggested one way of development which they rubbished as being unrealistically difficult and suggested integrating a different framework (one they are familiar with) with the programming language we are using (Python) to get more or less the same result.
Their estimate for this integration: less than a week (they haven't done the integration before).
My estimate for the integration: above two weeks.
Using my suggested way to get the result needed (including using matplotlib among other libraries used elsewhere within the project): 45 minutes. This is not an estimate, the bit was actually finished in 45 minutes.
Example: for the software to be integrated with their internal system, they needed to provide a web service for me to use. They provided a broken one, though it does work with their internal tool (doesn't work with .Net or Java mainstream packages among other options). They maintain that it is my fault that the integration has taken longer than the time estimated.
The problem is not that they don't know, the problem is that they have enough knowledge about programming to be dangerous (in my opinion). Is there some guidelines for how to deal with this type of situation? A way for expectation management? Or may be I shouldn't get involved in such projects from the start and in this case what are the telltale signs?
If a client isn't happy with a time estimate, don't do the work. If they think they can do it better or faster, tell them to go ahead.
The one thing I never allow is for my estimates to be modified. That's something that caught me out early on in my career but we learn our lessons.
If clients were so good at doing the work, they wouldn't be hiring me. I'd simply point out that they hired me for my expertise so why are they disregarding that expertise. Of course, if they were to allow the scope of the project to change (i.e., less work), that would be another matter, and one up for discussion.
If you didn't lock in exactly what they were meant to provide as part of the deal, then it's a "he says, she says" situation and, unfortunately, the customer controls the purse strings. However, often, the greatest power you can have is the ability to just walk away.
No-one says you have to do the job.
Of course, all that advice above is worth every cent you paid for it :-)
I don't know your specific circumstances.
Or may be I shouldn't get involved in such projects from the start and in this case what are the telltale signs?
My answer for sure. If you can avoid those projects, do it.
Some signs : people thinking they know how to do things when you can guess they can't. The "oh no let's not use this perfectly suitable tool because I don't know it" is a major indicator that the person is technically challenged.
first of all, it is no fun to be in such an environment.
So, if you like to have fun at your job, and you do not need to take this job for extenuating financial reasons, then simply do not take the job that is not fun.
Since that is hardly realistic in many cases, you will end up with the job and need to manage the situation as best you can. One way is to make sure there is a paper trail documenting your objections and concerns with the plan. Try not to be overtly negative, but try to be constructive and present valid alternatives. Here you will need to feel out the political landscape, determine if the 'boss' will be appreciative or threatened by your commentary, and act accordingly.
Many times there are other issues that management is dealing with that you are not aware of. Be cautious of this fact, and maybe ask the management team if this is the case, again without being condescending or negative.
Finally, if you have alternatives that take less time than the meetings it would take to discuss them, just try it in a sandbox, and show it off. This would go a long way to 'proving' your points. Caution here is that you could be accused of not being a team player, or of wasting resources, or not following direction. Make sure this is mitigated by doing these types of things on your own time, or after careful consideration of how long you are spending on these things as well as how vested your boss seems to be on the alternatives.
hth
I ran into the same problem with integration. Example: for the
software to be integrated with their internal system, they needed to
provide a web service for me to use...They maintain that it is my
fault that the integration has taken longer than the time estimated.
Wow very similar to what I was experiencing with a client. The best thing I can suggest is to keep good documentation. In the end that is what saved me. When it came to finger pointing I had all of the emails and facts in order and was prepared to defend my self.
One thing I would suggest is to separate out a target/goal and an estimation. I would not change my estimate unless it involved actually removing features or something is revealed that would make it easier. Tell them you will try to hit the target in anyway you can and you care about the business goal. However, your estimate will not change. If its getting no where and they are just dense then smile and nod and take it if its the only gig around.
Was just writing about this in my blog
How to estimate the WRONG way
Im curious what your preferences and thoughts are on the idea of doing as little testing as possible behind the scenes and rolling our as many new features as possible, as quickly as possible, and testing on the production site, or troubleshooting them to hell until they're bulletproof, and then releasing them to the public.
Perhaps a middle ground may be more appropriate. Your "brand" will suffer a great deal if either:
the software you release is a steaming pile of dung (as in your former cases); or
the software is not released in a timely fashion (as in your latter case).
In both those cases, you won't be very likely to stay in business for long.
The shop I operate in recognises the fact that software will have some bugs in it. All high severity bugs must be fixed before release and all low severity bugs must have a plan in place for fixing after release.
Software maintenance (basically bug fixing and answering customer questions) is an important part of our development process.
In addition, the "cost" of fixing a bug becomes more as the discovery of said bug moves away from the developer and towards the customer.
Fixing a bug I find during unit testing involves only me though it can affect others if my stuff is delayed.
Finding a bug during system test means other phases are definitely delayed since the code has to come back and be changed and unit tested again before once again being promoted to system test.
Finding a bug after your software is live is a whole other world of pain, involving communications with customers, multiple managerial reporting lines all wanting to leave an impression of their boot in your rear end and putting any bug fix through all phases, or risking adverse effects otherwise - a particularly nasty place in the ninth circle of hell is reserved for those developers who, in fixing their bug, introduce yet another one.
Rolling out code to a production server with 'as little testing as possible' to get it live quicker is setting yourself up for a life of pain. What you're suggesting really is to get your users to test your system for you, that would be a beta program, but even before you get there you should have performed a good level of testing and be confident that the app works, otherwise you're not going to keep many users for long.
From a developer perspective I would only be happy releasing code that I am confident is working as planned. From a user perspective I wouldn't want to be using an app that kept falling over, no matter how early in the development cycle it is.
If it's not ready, then don't release it.
It rather depends on the desires of the management than on the desires of the customers. Given a choice of 'you can have it working, or you can have it Friday', the average target-and-goal loving manager will prefer to have it Friday.
If you actually have a choice, please leave it until it works. You'll save yourself and everyone else a deal of time and trouble.
Time(do it right) < Time(do it again) + Time(correct database) + Time(explain and apologise)
(Fundamental law of software engineering.)
You should test and review the code during development, before the feature is even finished.
You should test the whole feature for functionality before moving to production.
You should release a small number of features often, so that you get feedback on the feature. Even if the feature works perfectly, it may still not be exactly what the user wants, or you find that something can be improved when the feature is used in practice.
It depends on the pain levels, and expectations, of your customers and how well your customer facing staff can manage their, ahem, 'feedback'.
If your customers are expecting to go quickly to high volume mass production, on a very tight schedule with fierce competition, with what you're delivering them (think consumer electronics like mobile phones) then they won't thank you at all for any surprise. They'll be very scared of having to recall hundreds of thousands of units for an upgrade.
Perhaps you're delivering to someone who's also doing research, a university department or similar, who may bend your delivery to fit a purpose that it's not intended for. They don't mind, may even expect, problems and are happy to find a way through. They may well be excited by the features and forgive you the bugs as long as they find you're listening to their feedback.
The most skillful customer facing staff I worked with were able to judge how long it would take the customer to notice the deficiencies in the deliveries we were providing, how long it would take us engineers to plug the gaps, and realise that by the time the customers noticed the problem we'd have a patch. The customer gets an early delivery so the contract is secure, is not too inconvenienced by the bugs, is happy with the support, all in all a happy world. It's a tricky call though; If you don't release anything until it's perfect you'll never have a customer as someone will always undercut you yet release something too early and disappoint then you're going to be replaced when the opportunity arrises. Get your judgement of the patch development time wrong and your customer will be unhappy.
In short it's something about open communication, something about bluff, deceit and deception, and a whole lot about judgement to know which to do and when.
I think it depends on your userbase somewhat. For example, I choose to use cutting edge and less stable features on my linux box. But I think in general, and especially in web development where generating pageviews is usually a high priority, you want to go with what works for most people, and that's stability.
If you are performing a beta or alpha test with a handful of people, sure. However, if this is code that is meant to be used by the general public or your business, then no. Buggy code reflects poorly on the programmer, and I know that when something crashes or behaves unexpectedly it tends to annoy people.
Therefore, I would much rather release polished, thought out code that may not have as many bells and whistles than code that gives people a poor experience.
One footnote, however, is that you must know when enough is enough. Every programmer can spends eons going over every line of code, saying "Well, if I move this to here, I can get a .001% speed boost" or anything on the same line of thinking. Believe me, I have this problem as well, and tend to obsess. The skill to say something is "good enough" is a hard one to learn, but it is absolutely necessary, in my opinion.
Sometimes, when I present a part of the software development process to certain people, say the supervisor or the manager that they don't have experience say
Automated unit tests and integration tests vs. their manual functional testing.
Using code generators, and scripts for repetitive tasks.
I sometimes met with resistance. Some of the reasons are the following:
They say that that's the way we do things here. Our system works and there is no need to add in our process.
They are busy being busy. They say is their job is to get us projects and our job is to deliver it to them to their satisfaction. They are satisfied when if it is a manual system, repetitive but on time.
They are very conservative about code generators. I gave them an estimate that it takes a significant time overhead for the first project to use this and time to train my teammates since this approach is relatively new to them. The overhead for the first project to them overshadows the benefit in the long run, but I explained the convenience it is to us developers, but they are always stuck to do things the old way.
What would be your strategy for this?
Wait for a problem to show up and then make your move.
You have to be a salesman, at the end of the day. You have to tell people why your proposals will make their lives easier.
If you can back up your claims with some sort of time spent/time saved data, you're onto a winner. Another thing is to get yourself a reputation gradually, by agreeing changes be implemented in phases. Implement a simple change on a small piece of the project and prove that it made a difference to them. Then roll it out a bit more, and move onto the next thing like unit testing or code generation. Given time it'll work itself out.
I don't believe you can't force people to read books, they'll shelve 'em and think you're being obnoxious. Best thing is to get small results, and use those as stepping stones to be allowed to aim for higher goals as people realise that maybe there are better ways of doing things after all.
If you're really passionate about it, you can always invest a little of your own time, and prepare a short demo (30 mins tops) that shows them how quickly you can create a tiny app without code gen, then the same app with a couple of bits code-genned. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I think that only way to convince someone about something is to reveal benefits what it provides.
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission.
There's no objective return-on-investment style measurements for "improving" a software development process. Software development is inherently hard -- it's knowledge capture -- there must be unknowns. If everything was known, you'd already have the software in hand.
Consequently, you can't ever convince a manager of anything up front.
You can only demonstrate that you are able to done something better, cheaper or faster. When they ask what the secret to your productivity is, you can show them your tools, method or approach.
Until they ask, you don't really have enough evidence to change anyone's mind. When they finally ask, then you don't need to change their mind, you need to show them your solution.
Since they don't want to derail their "do everything by hand" schedule to invest in your tools, you have to build your tools in steps, one project at a time.
"You can get a lot farther with a smile and a gun than you can with just a smile."
- Al Capone
Just kidding, but its the first thing that cross my mind :)
The gun is a metaphor (duh), like for a bug that someone spent days figuring out that with a good process he good spend in a more fun ways.
Here's what I'm wondering. Every night that our 3 months old baby lets us sleep, I jump to my computer and start coding my hobby projects. I have about 20 different projects that I'm working on: different types of projects, from C++ games to web apps along with some contribution to open source projects. It's truly a passion and has been for a lot of years.
Yet, when I look back, I see that I haven't been able to fully complete one of my hobby projects. I've always done the prototypes and setup the most important features, but with time instead of finishing my project I end up switching to another project that seems "so much cooler" at the moment. Hence I usually end up with buggy and incomplete games that have no end nor story, 3D engines that have the fastest PolygonDraw routine ever, yet lack to implement anything else, etc... The list is long. I think I must have written unfinished Pong over a hundred times different!
I've been told that the remedy is to write specs for my hobby projects.
On one hand, I write a lot of specs at work. I know how crucial they are for defining a product's roadmap and staying within schedule. On the other hand, specs and hobby project just quite don't seem to go along! It seems to me that the learning curve to building a game is actually what makes it fun; not the game itself. Hence the fun of losing time restructuring an entire engine, the fun of creating the most useless features, and so on...
So here comes the question: Do you ever write specifications for your hobby projects? How are they different then the ones from work? How do you manage to complete your hobby projects?
I'd be glad to know while I work on my new project: a piano sonata generator :)
I don't think writing specs is the solution to your problem. Clearly, your "hobby projects" are things that you find fun. You write the fun parts but then avoid the not fun parts that would be necessary to complete something.
If you're just "programming for fun" then good, you're succeeding. I don't think writing specs is fun.
If you really want to "finish" something, the best way isn't to write a spec, it's to not jump to another project when the fun factor dips.
It is all about 'Self project management' ... even for fun.
I feel for you ... I used to have many repos that tended to all get stuck at around revision 200 or so.
Here is what used to happen, because I didn't do enough planning, after around 200 commits, things get messy and need a rewrite ... then interest disappears because it seems like too much hassle.
I learned to write my own specs for personal use
to
Give me focus to get the job done, and not go off into feature creep lane
Remind me what I am working towards
To have great ideas before I get coding
Keep thing more fun for a longer time
For me, writing my own specs is vital to getting anything done!
You wouldn't start a business without a plan would you?
For personal projects I have tons of moleskine books filled with rough specs and ideas. When they mature, they migrate from the note books into real documents and the coding begins.
BIG EDIT: On a drive for personal efficiency and, to get projects finished. I read "Getting Things Done" ... Despite all the hippy crap about 'psyche' and various levels of mind (which im sure is not based in any science) the tips are very good.
I don't get too complicated, but listing out all of the features and requirements that you want included in your application really does help. As with most hobby projects you often don't just sit down and code them straight through for 2 months and finish them. It's an hour here, two hours there, etc. Basically it's very common to forget what you were working on last and what the original purpose of this super great idea for an application was.
If you spend a few hours writing down specs and requirements it will be very valuable to you 6 months down the road when you get some free time or your ADD switches to that project and you try to remember what it is this was suppose to do.
I just found out recently that writing specs is really the thing I need to get my projects done.
I've been a bit like you, tons of projects, jumping from one to the other and never getting things finished. Until about 6 months ago, when I started to actually write specs and have a kind of roadmap for my projects.
All that I can say is that, it actually works, because you break your projects into smaller steps, just like a race with checkpoints, and when you start to mark the checkpoints as done, it feels good, addictive and your focus will be on the finish line.
This way, you get to keep only 1 or 2 projects at the same time, but actually finish them. And of course, you have the extra and pretty valuable bonus of keeping up with the project even if you don't touch it for about a month or more. The specs will always be there to remind you of the goals and purposes of your project.
This is just my personal experience, and I believe that you should give it a try. Hopefully it will workout for you too.
I've been able to do some hobby projects and finish some of them. I try to finish them all but some i just cant muster.
The reason i think is that the amount of details that are needed to finish a projects are so many that it goes from a passion project to a chore of a project.
What helped me finish most of mine is that they stayed a passion until the finishing touches were left. So i just plowed through them.
Will a spec help, to some degree yes. They get you further into the project but almost always there's a point where the passion fades and you look for the next shiny object.
It doesn't work for me! Infact whenever I'm writing up specs I'm generally making the projects even bigger, and less likely to be finished.
Sometimes the best way to do it is to just do it.
Ze Frank explains this much better than me:
http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/07/071106.html (video link with swearing)
EDIT: Just to add. If you are finding you want to leave your half-finished project for a new, grand idea... do it! Don't look back!
Completion is not a requirement for your own pet projects. Nobody will blame you for not finishing stuff that barely anyone else would even bother starting.
The reason you started was because of passion. That is very important. You should not force yourself to 'slog through' in your free time. You will drain your passion which is your most vital resource.
I usually write a first set of spec when I get started.
I'm also a big fan of paper thinking, so I'll draw screens, UML, diagrams, flow charts, design elements... It's just a matter of defining the scope of your project and be able to watch what you had in mind. It really helps me think.
These documents will be my specs for the whole project. I will add others as I go, but I'm not trying to maintain the old ones as much as I would have it it was a work project: I know where I'm going and I can keep track of the changes looking at my code.
Of course, some of my hobby projects are done collaboratively. In these cases, I write down more specs in order to have a better communication with my team and I try to keep documents such as DB Diagrams up to date.
I also have several hobby projects that I have not finished. I have about 10 and have written a specification for exactly one of them, the largest in scope (also a game).
I have not finished either the ones without specifications, nor the one with. I think this is because I never publish the work or show it to anyone so it remains full of bugs and never 'finished.
I suppose that this means that regardless of whether or not you have a spec, it will not affect the success of the project as much as other factors, like having the time, motivation, help, and having confidence.
The single best thing I've ever found to help move towards completion is to have someone else working on the project with you. Find a friend (or two) who is interested in the same thing and design/code it with them. Not only do you have someone to bounce ideas off of, but you've also got someone to motivate you, not to mention progress is twice as fast so you'll hopefully finish before you give up :)
Of course, it requires source control, but you were already using that for your projects, right? :)
Do you want to finish them?
I think it's reasonable to never finish a hobby project. You can just keep working on it as long as you live. Aciddose has been working on his virtual instrument xhip for years, stubbornly never getting to 1.0, making the instrument patches people program worthless from one release to the next. Yet he and the users of his softsynth seem to be having a grand time.
Maybe if you just aim for a "release" and not being "finished" you'll be more satisfied. Betas let you keep dreaming.
Yes and no. I write notes in a notebook as I'm thinking about it, and add to it as I implement it. It is a somewhat different process from work projects where someone else may have to see the spec.
I finish about half of what I start.
I've helped with development on a range of systems from safety critical avionics to throwaway personal projects like a Sudoku solver. Obviously with the avionics systems, specifications were critical to the safe operation of the system and to prevent killing somebody, but I've never bothered with my personal projects.
I think this is because specs are generally boring to read and write. Joel wrote an interesting article about this, and how to make them better if you do write them:
Painless Functional Specifications
Unfortunately I haven't had the guts to try making my specs more fun to read at work yet.
Maybe intead of writing specs you should try working on some projects for or with other people? That could provide some external motivation. I do some web devleopment for my cousin's drive in theater, and if they need a feature they won't stop asking me about it until I finish it.
The single biggest piece of advice I could give you would be to get something out there - make the spec for your first version small enough that you actually feel you can complete it, even though it won't have nearly all the features you want.
Once you get something out there, the pressure from users of your software will be enough to hopefully keep you going on it. It also ensures that the direction you take in development is the same direction your users want you to go.
If you don't actually get any users, then don't feel so bad about dropping the project - if nobody is interested, it probably isn't worth pursuing.
If pressure from your users isn't enough to keep you focused, then open source it. If there's enough interest in it, somebody else will pick it up where you left off, and you are free to move on to bigger and better things.
Unfortunately, after writing specs for the core of the DIFL engine (don't bother looking it up, as there's no trace of it outside my home systems), I still didn't finish it up.
Short answer: developing specifications for a hobby project is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee completion.
That being said...
I keep an engineering notebook for all of my personal projects. I use the notebook to capture all sorts of things about the projects on which I work. This includes project motivation, valuable resources leveraged during the project, things developed over the course of the project that might potentially be reused later, key insights gained, etc. etc. It also includes, more to your question, specifications for most of the projects. I employ an agile/lean approach to creating these specifications which, for me, is compelling from a cost/benefit perspective.
btw...I have many, many personal projects that did not culminate in a complete working system. Some of these I might get around to completing 'someday maybe'. I consciously chose to stop working on some of the others because they had served their purpose (e.g. introduced me to a new technology, helped me better understand a language feature, etc.) Continuing to crank away at projects like these would have led to diminishing returns so I chose to reallocate my time to projects I felt were higher leverage.
The real question is: what is your hobby? Is it finishing a project, or tinkering. If getting the last ten yards is a chore, you have to decide if it's worth it to you. Writing detailed specs will work; so will self-flagellation if you're into that sort of self-discipline. Nothing will make it easy if it's against your make-up, so you have to decide whether the end-goal is worth anything to you.
And, just to demonstrate that there is nothing programming-specific about this point, you might really like this guy. One of the main points in his work is that conceptual artists, such as Picasso and Da Vinci never really cared about the final execution--the idea was everything, and, having asserted it, they were strangely content with someone else finishing the actual work or leaving the sketch unfinished and unpublished.
I'm not sure that writing specs is the solution to your problems (or mine which seem similar) however in the case where I want to make something more than a throwaway experiment there are a few things that help me slightly without taking the fun out of it.
Specs really are quite tight and should be technical but for a hobby approach you could write up a little bit of something similar much more loose that outlines some of the things you would like to feature and shows how they fit together in a sort of design draft. Though not as detailed or restrictive as a proper spec it might help to keep the tinkering leading in the right direction.
Secondly you could break it down and depending on your time allowances maybe add a few goals in. If you focus on building one part of the project as a time breaking it into subprojects that can be linked together at the end, it gives a feeling of progress as you move from part to part rather than feeling like you have been working on the same thing for ages and can't be bothered any more. It works if you tick it off on a list, since usually it has to happen atleast mentally anyway.
In saying this if your goal is to play with certain concepts and not actually create a final product then you probably won't because you aren't working towards it. One way might be to take the above mentioned idea of breaking it up and then find a way of adding something personally interesting into each part that bores you, maybe trying to add a challenge into it or something.
I'm not particularly experienced still learning, but this is how I keep my tinkering together(sometimes unless I hit a total block cause by inexperience) and how I've approached many multimedia and web projects on a hobby basis in past years. Though the guy who said open-source it when you get bored and let someone else pick it up, that was a good idea if you want to see your code used but have satisfied your personal goals.
I have much the same problem. One thing I've noticed that HAS helped though, is lowering my ambitions. like WAY WAY low. Writing a spec is one way to reign in the ambitions, if you have some kind of limiting rule for the spec, like "The spec can only be one page", or "the spec can be no longer than 300 words long", or "Spec only something that I can get done in one day of coding". Getting the balance right can take some practice. If you go with the last limit, you can impose the rule of MANDATORY dismissal of the project if you can't finish it in one day.
The nice thing about this, is it limits you to achievable goals. This might sound really stupid or wrong at first. Or maybe it sounds reasonable, but you just can't help it, you wanna do amazing things, not ordinary things! Not small things that you can only get done in a few hours!
but keep this in mind:
“A complex system that works is
invariably found to have evolved from
a simple system that worked. The
inverse proposition also appears to be
true: A complex system designed from
scratch never works and cannot be made
to work. You have to start over,
beginning with a working simple
system.”
—John Gall
It is SO MUCH easier to make that ambitious project, if you already have a FINISHED and WORKING project to base it on. Then the "more complex thing" CAN be a project that fits in a day. This is the ideal and philosophy I'm working towards, because I think it has the best chance of succeeding. Looking at past successful projects, the vast majority of them evolved in this way, whether it was intentional or not.
What helps me a lot is to split a new feature into small tasks that could each be done in an evening hacksession. So if I have time, I simply pick one task from the list and just finish it. This is often enough to get "in the flow" and do "just one more".
I do this only for one feature at a time so I don't get distracted by all the other cool things I could add to my application.
I constantly write specs for my projects, in work, at university and outside in my free time. The biggest weakness of a programmer is his/her memory, so I find it good to keep myself busy during my thinking time by writing down my every thought into some sort of structured document. Before you know it you've written a full database schema or have a Requirements Specification.
At the moment I'm working on improving my SQL skills, and I've been spending a lot of this free time between writing queries writing down my experienced. After a couple of tweaks I had a decent document outlining what needed to be done.
I think the core problem is not the lack of specs, but rather that finishing something (anything) is hard.
It is hard work. It may seem as if your program is 90 % done. But doing those last 10 % (rooting out all bugs, getting the application to release quality, writing documentation, etc) requires as much work as the first 90 %. And if you want to be serious about marketing your program, answering support emails, fixing other people's bugs, that's more work still. And perhaps not the kind of work you are most interested in.
It is also hard mentally. An unfinished project has unlimited potential. It is an empty canvas where you can project your unbridled ambitions, lofty ideals and revolutionary thoughts. Once it is finished and made real you have to see it for what it is. Limited. Flawed. Never as pretty as the idea that spawned it.
That said, finishing something can also be very rewarding. You learn a lot, get a reality check on your ideas, the satisfaction of having completed something and you get to see what other people think of your work.
Some advice:
Make sure that you really want to finish the project. I.e., that the rewards are worth all the hard work. (If not, then accept that fact and remain a happy tinkerer.)
Find ways of motiviating yourself through the "boring" parts. Specs, maybe, if it keeps you focused. But find whatever works for you, whether it is ticking of todo-items, rewarding yourself with a cookie or dreaming of fame and fortune.
Release early, release often. The more you save for a "big release" the bigger is the chance that that release never happens.
First release, then rewrite. When you feel the urge to do a major rewrite, do a release first, then do the rewrite (if you are still up for it). Software is never perfect. If you strive for perfection without any pressure to release your half-baked (but existing) code, then you will never be done.
Most hobby projects of mine don't really get finished either. As long as I'm working on something and learning though I don't think thats a problem. Currently I'm not writing specs, but I am practicing/training TDD. I bring it up as I write tests that are the specs. Some days I'll sit down and just create a bunch of tests outlining what the software should do. Some days I make those tests pass. Its enjoyable in that I don't have to keep the code all in my head, and at any point I can sit down and make further progress by fixing the broken tests. Things just work, its kind of surreal.
Joel's article about the Evidence Based Scheduling works for me. Though I implemented it differently.
The idea is to break the project into small tasks and give estimates, then make a forecast when your project will finish based on the time the finished tasks took to finish them.
You may think your project will take years to finish, but actually from the estimate it's just two months or less. If you work more and finish tasks quickly, you will see the finish date coming earlier.
I think the most motivating thing to proceed forward is seeing the goal coming closer you run towards.
Plus: create something you will use later. Using stuff gives you incentive to improve it later.
Say there are two possible solutions to a problem: the first is quick but hacky; the second is preferable but would take longer to implement. You need to solve the problem fast, so you decide to get the hack in place as quickly as you can, planning to start work on the better solution afterwards. The trouble is, as soon as the problem is alleviated, it plummets down the to-do list. You're still planning to put in the better solution at some point, but it's hard to justify implementing it right now. Suddenly you find you've spent five years using the less-than-perfect solution, cursing it the while.
Does this sound familiar? I know it's happened more than once where I work. One colleague describes deliberately making a bad GUI so that it wouldn't be accidentally adopted long-term. Do you have a better strategy?
Write a test case which the hack fails.
If you can't write a test which the hack fails, then either there's nothing wrong with the hack after all, or else your test framework is inadequate. If the former, run away quick before you waste your life on needless optimisation. If the latter, seek another approach (either to flagging hacks, or to testing...)
Strategy 1 (almost never selected): Don't implement the kluge. Don't even let people know it's a possibility. Just do it the right way the first time. Like I said, this one is almost never selected, due to time constraints.
Strategy 2 (dishonest): Lie and Cheat. Tell management that there are bugs in the hack, and they could cause major problems later on. Unfortunately, most of the time, the managers just say to wait until the bugs become a problem, then fix the bugs.
Strategy 2a: Same as strategy 2, except there really are bugs. Same problem, though.
Strategy 3 (and my personal favorite): Design the solution whenever you can, and do it well enough that an intern or code-monkey could do it. It's easier to justify spending the small amount of code-monkey money than to justify your own salary, so it might just get done.
Strategy 4: Wait for a rewrite. Keep waiting. Sooner or later (probably later), someone is going to have to rewrite the thing. Might as well do it right then.
Here is a great related article on technical debt.
Basically, it is an analogy of debt with all the technical decisions you make. There is good debt and bad debt... and you have to pick the debt that is going to achieve the goals you want with the least long term cost.
The worst kind of debt is small little accumulating shortcuts that are analogous to credit card debt... each one doesn't hurt, but pretty soon you are in the poor house.
This is a major issue when doing deadline driven work. I find that adding very detailed comments about why this way was chosen and some hints at how it should be coded help. This way people looking at the code see it and keep it fresh.
Another option that will work is add a bug.feature in your tracking framework (you do have one, right?) detailing the rework. That way it is visible and may force the issue at some point.
The only time you can ever justify fixing these things (because they're not really broken, just ugly) is when you have another feature or bug fix that touches the same section of code, and you might as well re-write it.
You have to do the math on what a developer's time costs. If software requirements are being met, and the only thing wrong is that the code is embarrasing under the hood, it's not really worth fixing.
Whole companies can go out of business because over-zealous engineers insist on a re-architecture every year or so when they get antsy.
If it's bug-free and meets requirements, it's done. Ship it. Move on.
[Edit]
Of course I'm not advocating that everything be hacked in all the time. You have to design and write code carefully in the normal course of the development process. But when you do end up with hacks that just had to be done quickly, you have to do a cost-benefit analysis on whether or not it's worth it to clean up the code. If over the lifetime of the application you will spend more time coding around a messy hack than you would have fixing it, then of course fix it. But if not, it's way too expensive and risky to re-code a working, bug-free application just because looking at the source makes you ill.
YOU DON'T DO INTERIM SOLUTIONS.
Sometimes I think programmers just need to be told this.
Sorry about that, but seriously--a hacky solution is worthless and even on the first iteration can take longer than doing a portion of the solution correctly.
Please stop leaving me your crap code to maintain. Just ALWAYS CODE IT RIGHT. No matter how long it takes and who yells at you.
When you are sitting there twiddling your thumbs after delivering early while everyone else is debugging their stupid hacks, you'll thank me.
Even if you don't think you are a great programmer, always strive to do the best you can, never take shortcuts--it doesn't cost you ANY time to do it right. I can justify this statement if you don't believe me.
Suddenly you find you've spent five years using the less-than-perfect solution, cursing it the while.
If you're cursing it, why is it at the bottom of the TODO list?
If it's not affecting you, why are you cursing it?
If it is affecting you, then it's a problem that needs to be fixed NOW.
I make sure that I'm vocal about the priority of the long term fix ESPECIALLY after the short term fix has gone in.I detail the reasons why it's a hack and not a good long term solution and use those to get the stakeholders (managers, clients, etc) to understand why it needs to be fixed Depending on the case, I may even inject a bit of worst case scenario fear in there. "If this safely line snaps, the whole bridge could collapse!"I take responsibility for coming up with a long term solution and make sure that it gets deployed
It is a hard call. I have done hacks personally cause, sometimes you HAVE to get that product out the door and into the customers hands. However, the way that I take care of it is to just do it.
Tell the project lead or your boss, or the customer: There are some spots that need to be cleaned up, and coded better. I need a week to do it, and it is going to cost less to do it now, then it will be to do it 6 months from now, when we need to implement an extension onto the subsystem.
Usually problems like this arise from bad communication with management or the customer. If the solution works for the customer then they see no reason to ask for it to be changed. So they need to be told about the tradeoffs you made beforehand so they can plan extra time to fix the problems after you've implemented the quick solution.
How to solve it depends a bit on why it's a bad solution. If your solution is bad because it's hard to change or maintain then the first time you have to do maintenance and have a bit more time then that is the right time to upgrade to a better solution. In this case it helps if you tell the customer or your boss that you took a shortcut in the first place. That way they know that they can't expect a fast solution next time around. Cripling the UI can be a good way to make sure the customer comes back to get stuff fixed.
If the solution is bad because it's risky or unstable then you really need to talk to the person doing the planning and have some time planned in to fix the problem asap.
Good luck. In my experience this is almost impossible to achieve.
Once you go down the slippery slope of implementing a hack because you are under pressure then you might as well get used to living with it for all time. There is almost NEVER enough time to re-work something that already works, no matter how badly it is implemented internally. What makes you think you will magically have more time "at some later date" to fix the hack?
The only exception I can think of to this rule is if the hack completely prevents you from implementing another piece of functionality that is needed by a customer. Then you have no choice but to do the re-work.
I try to build the hacky solution so that it can be migrated to the longterm way as painlessly as possible. Say you got a guy who is building a database in SQL Server cuz that's his strongest DB, but your corporate standard is Oracle. Build the db with as few non-transferable features (like Bit datatypes) as possible. In this example, it's not hard to avoid bit types, but it makes transitioning later an easier process.
Educate whoever is in charge of making the final decision why the hacky way of doing things is bad in the long-run.
Describe the problem in terms they can relate to.
Include a graph of cost, productivity, and revenue curves.
Teach them about technical debt.
Regularly refactor if you're pushed forward.
Never call it "refactoring" or "going back and cleaning up" in front of non-technical people. Instead, call it "adapting" the system to handle "new features".
Basically, people who don't understand software don't get the concept of revisiting things that already work. The way they look at it, developers are like mechanics who want to keep taking apart and reassembling the entire car every time someone wants to add a feature, which sounds insane to them.
It helps to make analogies to everyday things. Explain to them how when you made the interim solution, you made choices that suited building it quickly, as opposed to being stable, maintainable, etc. It's like choosing to build with wood instead of steel because wood is easier to cut, and thus, you could build the interim solution quicker. The wood, however, simply can not support the foundation of a 20-story building.
We use Java and Hudson for continuous integration. 'Interim solutions' must be commented with:
// TODO: Better solution required.
Every time Hudson runs a build it provides a report of each TODO item so that we have an up to date, highly visible record of any outstanding items that need improved.
Great question. This bothers me a lot, too - and most of the time I'm the sole person responsible for prioritizing issues in my own projects (yep, small business).
I found out that the problem that needs to be fixed is usually just a subset of the problem. IOW, the customer that needs an urgent fix does not need the whole problem to be solved, just a part of it - smaller or larger. That sometimes enables me to create a workaround that is not solution to the complete problem but just to the customer's subset and that allows me to leave the bigger issue open in the issue tracker.
That may of course not apply at all to your work environment :(
This reminds me of the story of "CTool". In the beginning CTool was put forward by one of our devs, I'll call him Don, as one possible way to solve the problem we were having. Being an earnest hard-working type, Don plugged away and delivered a working prototype. You know where I am going with this. Overnight, CTool became a part of the company work flow with an entire department depending on it. By the second or third day, bitter complaints started streaming in about CTool's shortcomings. Users questioned Don's competence, commitment and IQ. Don's protests that this was never supposed to be a production app fell on deaf ears. This went on for years. Finally, someone got around to re-writing the app, well after Don had departed. By this time, so much loathing had become attached to the name CTool that naming it CTool version 2 was out of the question. There was even a formal funeral for CTool, somewhat reminiscent of the copier (or was it a printer?) execution scene in Office Space.
Some might say Don deserved the slings and arrows for not making it go right to fix CTool. My only point is that saying you should never hack out a solution is probably unjustifiable in the Real World. But if you are the one to do it, tread cautiously.
Get it in writing (an email). So when it becomes a problem later management doesn't "forget" that it was supposed to be temporary.
Make it visible to the users. The more visible it is the less likely people are going to forget to go back and do it the right way when the crisis is over.
Negotiate before the temp solution is in place for a project, resources, and time lines to get the real fix in. Work for the real solution should probably begin as soon as the temp solution is finished.
You file a second very descriptive bug against your own "fix" and put a to-do comment right in the affected areas that says, "This area needs a lot of work. See defect #555" (use the right number of course). People who say "don't put in a hack" don't seem to understand the question. Assume you have a system that needs to be up and running now, your non-hack solution is 8 days of work, your hack is 38 minutes of work, the hack is there to buy you time to do the work and not lose money while you're doing it.
Now you still have to get your customer or management agree to schedule the N*100 minutes of time required to do the real fix in addition to the N minutes needed now to fix it. If you must refuse to implement the hack until you get such agreement, then maybe that's what you have to do, but I've worked with some understanding people in that regard.
The real price of introducing a quick-fix is that when someone else needs to introduce a 2nd quick fix, they will introduce it based on your own quick-fix. So, the longer a quick-fix is in place, the more entrenched it will become. Quite often, a hack takes only a little bit longer than doing things right, until you encounter a 2nd hack which builds on the first.
So, obviously it is (or seems to be) sometimes necessary to introduce a quick fix.
One possible solution, assuming your version control supports it, is to introduce a fork from the source whenever you make such a hack. If people are encouraged to avoid coding new features within these special "get it done" forks, then it will eventually be more work to integrate the new features with the fork than it will be to get rid of the hack. More likely, though, the "good" fork will get discarded. And if you are far enough away from release that making such a fork will not be practical (because it is not worth doing the dual integration mentioned above), then you probably shouldn't even be using a hack anyways.
A very idealistic approach.
A more realistic solution is to keep your program segmented into as many orthogonal components as possible and to occasionally do a complete rewrite of some of the components.
A better question is why the hacky solution is bad. If it is bad because it reduces flexibility, ignore it until you need flexibility. If it is bad because it impacts the programs behavior, ignore it and eventually it will become a bug fix and WILL be addressed. If it is bad because it looks ugly, ignore it, as long as the hack is localized.
Some solutions I've seen in the past:
Mark it with a comment HACK in the code (or similar scheme such as XXX)
Have an automatic report run and emailed weekly to those that care which counts how many times the HACK comments appear
Add a new entry in your bug tracking system with the line number and description of the right solution (so the knowledge gained from the research before writing the hack isn't lost)
write a test case that demonstrates how the hack fails (if possible) and check it into the appropriate test suite (i.e. so that it throws errors that someone will eventually want to cleanup)
once the hack is installed and the pressure is off, immediately start on the right solution
This is an excellent question. One thing I've noticed as I get more experience: hacks buy you a very short amount of time, and often cost you a huge amount more. Closely related is the 'quick fix' that solves what you think is the problem -- only to find when it blows up that that it wasn't the problem at all.
Setting aside the debate about whether you should do it, let's assume that you have to do it. The trick now is to do it in a way that minimizes long range affects, it easily ripped out later, and makes itself a nuisance so you remember to fix it.
The nuisance part is easy: make it issue a warning every time you execute the kludge.
The ripped out part can be easy: I like to do this be putting the kludge behind a subroutine name. That makes it easier to update since you compartmentalize the code. When you get your permanent solution, you're subroutine can either implement it or be a no-op. Sometimes a subclass can work nicely for this too. Don't let other people depend on whatever your quick fix is, though. It's difficult to recommend any particular technique without seeing the situation.
Minimizing long range effects should be easy if the rest of the code is nice. Always go through the published interface, and so on.
Try to make the cost of the hack clear to the business folks. Then they can make an informed decision either way.
You could intentionally write it in way that is overly restrictive and singe purposed and would require a re-write to be modified.
We had to do this once - make a short term demo version that we knew we did not want to keep. The customer wanted it on a winTel box, so we developed the prototype in SGI/XWindows. (We were fluent in both, so it wasn't a problem).
Confession:
I have used '#define private public' in C++ in order to read data from some other code layer. It went in as a hack but works well and fixing it has never become a priority. It is now 3 years later...
One of the main reasons hacks do not get removed is the risk that one introduces new bugs while fixing the hack. (Especially when dealing with pre-TDD code bases.)
My answer is a bit different from the others. My experience is that the following practices help you stay agile and move from hackey first iteration/alpha solutions to beta/production ready:
Test Driven Development
Small units of refactoring
Continous Integration
Good Configuration management
Agile database techniques/database refactoring
And it should go without saying you have to have stakeholder support to do any of these correctly. But with these products in place you have the right tools and processes to quickly change a product in major ways with confidence. Sometimes your ability to change is your ability to manage the risk of the changes and from the development perspective these tools/techniques give you surer footing.