Don't Waste My Time.

What follows is a critique and a complaint, not a rant. What's the difference, you ask? A rant, in my view, is a primal scream of frustration and near-impotent rage that often doesn't let a few (allegedly) non-essential facts get in the way of a good thrashing. It also takes far more energy than I'm able to summon at present, for reasons that may become clear below.

---

As I've mentioned previously, I've been kicking the tires on the (relatively new) Kohana 3.0 application framework for PHP Web development. I'd previously used (and enthused about) the 2.3.x ("KO2") release; I was itching to get my hands dirty with 3.0.1 After a couple of dozen hours spent plinking away at it, however, I'm reevaluating my choices.

Two of the things that endeared the earlier system to me were the good-to-excellent, copious documentation and the active, always-willing-to-help user community (which, quite frankly, are the backbones of any open-source project).

KO3 is a different proposition entirely than KO2. As I write this, the eighth bug-fix update to 3.0 is available on the Web site. Since this is a new "the same, but different" project, all the users are starting fresh, so there can't be the same level of everyone-helps-everyone-else camaraderie as with KO2. This puts a foreseeable, far greater burden on the documentation to help people get productive as quickly and effectively as possible. However, the documentation, quite charitably, remains in a beta-quality state. This is true in comparison to both the earlier release and to other PHP Web frameworks such as Symfony2, CakePHP, FLOW3 and (notoriously) Zend. With most of these other frameworks, as with KO2, it was a quick, straightforward process figuring out how to get from the "hello-world" style demos, to being able to create a useful-but-simple site, to branching out from there. It's taken four times longer to get half as far with KO3 as with KO2.

Judging by comments in the Kohana support forums, I'm not alone in this; the documentation has been roundly panned by virtually all users who've bothered to comment. There's been far too much defensive "no, it isn't bad, you just need to read a bit more, and use the source, Luke" attitude from the project folks. During the KO2 lifecycle, the attitude I understood from their responses was more along the lines of "we know there are a few problems; we're working on them," quickly followed by "take a look at this." I don't know if 3.0 is so much more complex than 2.x that they simply don't have the bandwidth to document things to their previous standards. Frankly, I don't care any more.

I've decided that my existing projects that have been started in Kohana 2.3 will remain there; possibly moving to 2.4 when it becomes the officially-supported release. But I do not plan to invest any more time and effort into Kohana 3.0, at least until the new project has had some time to mature. I fully recognise the potentially self-defeating attitude inherent in that viewpoint. Virtually any open-source project depends on its community to "plug the holes" that the "official" project maintainers don't have time for or deliberately leave as open questions for the community. Well-run community projects are extremely collaborative, communication-rich environments.

Other projects take a "vendor/product" approach, essentially saying "Here's everything you'll need, soup-to-nuts; we'd really appreciate it if you built around the edges and took things deeper in your direction of interest, but the core that we're responsible for is solid." Those "vendors", the Zends and Sensio Labs of the world, have rich open-source offerings that they use as a platform to build (or offer) what actually pays the bills.

While I have a strong philosophical and experiential preference for community-driven (or at least -oriented) projects, there have to be times when I just want to Get Things Done rather than embark on an endless voyage of discovery.3 It is at those times that I'll reach for something that "just works" well enough for me to accomplish whatever it is I'm trying to do at the moment, whether it's to write a book or to bring up a client's Web site. I know and accept that any new tool, or new version of a tool I've used previously, will require a certain amount of time to "get up to speed" on. I don't know everything (or necessarily anything) before I learn it; the most I can hope for (and what I really do insist on) is that things make sense within the logical and semantic frameworks4 that they're expressed in, and that that expression is accessible, complete and correct enough that I can feel like I'm making progress. This invariably involves some sort of documentation; whether a "conventional" or online manual, a Wiki, or a user forum; the format is less important to me than the attributes I mentioned earlier.

Kohana 3.0, as it currently stands, does not meet that standard for me. And so I'm back in a feverish learn-and-evaluate mode with at least two other frameworks. I have projects to finish, and I have several chapters of a book I'm working on that had initially been written around Kohana 2, and will now need to be substantially redone.5

I intend to give each of those new candidate frameworks the same amount of time that it took me to get productive in Kohana 2.x (which was significantly less than the "industry leader," as I've previously mentioned). This is going to be an interesting week and a half or so, in the Chinese-curse sense of the word.

Footnotes:

1. Technical reasons for moving to KO3 included the switch from a model-view-controller (MVC) architecture to hierarchical MVC (or HMVC); if you know what these mean, you should know this is a Very Big Deal™. Additionally, I've found it a Very Bad Thing to tie myself to a legacy (obsolescent) project, and the end of KO2 is being made very plain on the Kohana Web site.(Return)

2. If the new, pre-release Symfony 2 code is as good as the documentation, we're in for a real treat.

3. I am typing this on a Mac rather than a Linux box, after all (though I have three Linux VMs running at the moment).(Return)

4. This implies, of course, that there are "logical and semantic frameworks" sufficiently visible, understandable and relevant to the task at hand. (Return)

5. I certainly don't want to fall into the same trap as a previous series of PHP books, which relied on the obsolete and inadequate Ulysses framework. Ulysses has been justly and productively panned, which has to reflect poorly on the aforementioned book (which I happen to own) and its authors. (Return)

Blast from the Past

Another in a continuing series...

Microcomputer(as PCs were called before the IBM PC) veterans of a certain vintage well remember that most counterintuitively productive of productivity tools, WordStar 3.3 (and earlier). The hegemon of its day, WordStar used what at first (and usually fifth) inspection appeared to be whimsical, arbitrary key combinations for commands. Ctrl K-H for Help was invariably what new users first memorised. All through the 1980s and well beyond, any word-processing software that came onto the market had some degree of WordStar-compatible commands, either as their main command set or as a bolt-on to wean folks onto the "new" way of doing things. This was even true for the first several releases of WordPerfect and of Microsoft Word. (Word today has several available add-ons to add WordStar command compatibility.)

Why was this so popular? As noted in the Wikipedia article:

...the "diamond" of Ctrl-S/E/D/X moved the cursors one character or line to the left, up, right, or down. Ctrl-A/F (to the outside of the "diamond") moved the cursor a full word left/right, and Ctrl-R/C (just "past" the Ctrl keys for up and down) scrolled a full page up/down. Prefacing these keystrokes with Ctrl-Q generally expanded their action, moving the cursor to the end/beginning of the line, end/beginning of the document, etc. Ctrl-H would backspace and delete. Commands to enable bold or italics, printing, blocking text to copy or delete, saving or retrieving files from disk, etc. were typically a short sequence of keystrokes, such as Ctrl-P-B for bold, or Ctrl-K-S to save a file. Formatting codes would appear on screen, such ^B for bold, ^Y for italics, and ^S for underscoring.

Although many of these keystroke sequences were far from self-evident, they tended to lend themselves to mnemonic devices (e.g., Ctrl-Print-Bold, Ctrl-blocK-Save), and regular users quickly learned them through muscle memory, enabling them to rapidly navigate documents by touch, rather than memorizing "Ctrl-S = cursor left."

Why is this relevant (or even interesting) today? Besides the lessons to be learnt about interface design, it's interesting to note how many editors out there still pay homage to WordStar. I stumbled across joe again this morning; it's available on essentially all Linux and BSD distributions, with versions built for other systems as well (e.g., Mac OS X and Cygwin/Windows), and source freely available if your platform isn't yet supported or you just like to tinker around on one that is.

What makes this fairly scary for us old-timers is just how quickly the old finger habits come back. If you had more than a year's experience beating your head against the original WordStar, I dare you to work with joe or its ilk for more than a few minutes before "how do I do...?" completely falls away from your thoughts and you're just typing as fast as you can think.

For that's the real beauty of this type of "primitive", what-you-see-isn't-what-you-get interface: you're not distracted by the ephemera of making your work appear "just so", and can actually focus on the work of writing. And that, in our click-and-drool modern interfaces, is what we've lost -- and no amount of clever code wizardry on the part of the interface designers can bring us back to that. Why? Because of basic human nature - if we see a button, at some point we'll want to push that button - "just to make things look better." And, all of a sudden, we notice that the entire morning has flown past while we were focusing on the first three paragraphs of a major report that's due this afternoon. Oops.

There's a reason why almost every tool aimed at professional writers -- people who make their living at x cents per word -- have "stripped down", minimalist interfaces, at least as an option. It's the same reason that far too many truly "old-school" writers give for writing on paper and then typing (or having someone type) their words into a computer: the fewer distractions you have, while still being able to do what you're trying to do, the more productive you'll be at it.

That concept extends far, far beyond the writing of prose -- and has too often been lost or forgotten in those other areas as well. Pity.

Jaw-Droppers - Blast from the Past

Just when you thought it was safe to forget that the 1970s ever existed... this gem shows up on the XML Daily Newslink, a mailing list I follow intermittently. (Actually, this was included in the XMLDN from Wed 11 Feb — an indication of how "closely" I've been following lately.)

Developing a CICS-Based Web Service
G. Subrahmanyam, G. Mokhasi, S. Kusumanchi; SOA World Magazine

Web services have opened opportunities to integrate the applications at an enterprise level irrespective of the technology they have been implemented in. IBM's CICS transaction server for z/OS v3.1 can support web services. It can help expose existing applications as web services or develop new functionality to invoke web services. One of the commonly used protocols for CICS web services is SOAP for CICS. It enables the communication of applications through XML. It supports as a service provider and service consumer independent of platform and language. SOAP for CICS enables CICS applications to be integrated with the enterprise via web services as part of lowering the cost of integration and retaining the value of the legacy application. SOAP for CICS also comes along with the implementation encoder and decoder.

"SOAP for CICS"? Give it a REST, guys. On the other hand.... preserving this by-now more-solid-than-most-rocks 1969-era technology IS a signal achievement; an example of engineering stability on par with Soyuz.

On the other hand... support for legacy technologies like this looks set to become increasingly expensive and risky over time, since apparently:

1. Numerous surveys published in the last few years indicate that the sizable majority of "old mainframe" tech folk will have retired by 2010 (do the math on the years), and

2. partly as a result of (1), users risk become increasingly dependent on outsourced Indian providers — hardly conducive to effective project control.

In my own professional view, technological preservation activities like this are mainly useful for one thing: they can serve as the pattern against which a re-implementation of the business process using more currently-supportable tech can be verified. And once an organization has done this for its most valuable legacy systems (which wouldn't have been preserved this long if they weren't so valuable), the actual and perceived risk of migrating to new technologies as conditions warrant drops dramatically. After all, if you (or your internal colleagues) have successfully brought your line-of-business systems from CICS via REST to, say, PHP or Java, you're a lot more comfortable with the idea of migrating to whatever the mid-to-trailing technology is in ten years' time — while the support costs of the (then) existing system are still manageable.

Are any of you actually involved in any technological archaeology like this? When I was younger, I used to brag that half the systems I'd worked with were older than I was, but that stopped being true about 1995. (AFAIK, I was one of the last guys to professionally touch a working IBM 360 mainframe, in about 1989.)

(Original article at this entry's title link, which is also here.)