22 March, 2013

Why Defined Coding/Operational Standards Matter in Modern Software Engineering Environments

After a brief stint in the hellish 1990's world of programming in Perl for a half-billion dollar company for a few months before the realisation that it was indeed a living code base designed and maintained (I used the word loosely) as if it were still two decades prior, I accepted a new client in the position of Lead Software Engineer & Architect at a local company in Montgomery County, PA, USA.

Much akin to what I experienced at the aforementioned company, I found myself in a microcosmic variant of my former employer save for the fact that the system I am to replace is written in ASP Classic on an older IIS windows centric system.

These situations are not at all uncommon in the real-world, and hopefully they are diminishing at an increasing rate.  This is not me condoning the carte blanche manner of always re-writing an existing system from scratch whether than includes changing the existing infrastructure (for better or worse).  Each instance/environment must be assessed individually along with company goals, available budgeting and forecast to ascertain whether or not such an approach is viable.

Bringing this back to the core reason for this post is that a well defined coding standard didn't exist for either environment, not to mention a revolving door of people assigned and/or employed which had a hand in touch either system.  Both environments differed in that one was a fairly modern agile approach with daily scrums, open communal work spaces and solid department leads for projects and that the other was very much waterfall design based, separated (officed) individuals with little communication and a lack of leadership in terms of working environment understanding (though a solid understanding of the business logic and customer relations carried this disconnect for without it, all would have faltered).   Neither environment possessed nor utilized any semblance of coding standards.

What kind of standards are we talking about here.  The whole gamut is my best response.  How are function names derived, how are attributes accessed, how are constants, classes, variables, methods, etc. named (verbs for methods, ambiguous/nonsensically, etc), typed (cAmElCaSe, alllowercasewithoutbreaks, properly_divided_with_underscores, ALLUPERCASE, MixTUREoFMeans, wthtvwls, etc.).  No set rules for braces or brackets (K&R vs same line), indentations (2, 4, tabs, spaces?).  Lengths of lines, length of method calls before being broken down.  Use of native data constructs.  Rampant string concatenation and massive use of type casting instead of a well kept control of expected content.  Complete lack of logging and little if any use of exception handling (where available).  Poor hiring practices which allowed for a single point of decision to be made either based on a inconsequential question about the language du jour at a given company or because the hiring manager lacks any breadth regarding software engineering both in practice and theory and does not do group interviews with potentials as a precautionary measure.  Lack of enforcement (or implementation at all) of code versioning systems/controls, proper QA practices, etc.

All of those situations were (and still are) prevalent in the existing systems, as well as many more which I will not get into now (solely because there isn't enough brain bleach to forget that they still exist.)   What I can do is point out that because of the lack of all of the above, both companies (while still in existence):

- Find themselves over the years running into longer lead times for changes which would otherwise be quick and simple.
- Experience bug fixes which require lead times of weeks due to lack of documentation, version control, communication amongst peers and of course proper reviews up front before production pushes.  - Struggle to keep current due to lack of faith in the infrastructure of existing systems that any new code would cause massive breakage and production down time.

This is never the way to run a company and after roughly two decades in the field professionally, it is disheartening to have to endure.  There is a light at the end of the tunnel.  The former company mentioned has a few good remaining people that provide a glimmer of hope for change in the right direction if they can convince the powers that be (ego and all) through all the crimson coloured tape that  these changes are necessary which could lead to the arduous process of modernizing.  The latter company referenced has already made that investment both with full ownership backing down the entire hierarchy of the org chart, and in that case, influenced heavily by yours truly.  I see much greater things for that latter company because it has done the realistic self assessment and see that much is lacking, ultimately choosing to do something aggressive to resolve the situation with a great outlook towards future business.

Hopefully we can see more and more existing companies learn from these examples before they find their up and coming competitors who embrace a method to their madness soaring by and taking their bread and butter in the process.


No comments:

Post a comment