Misadventures with Customer "Service": With Service like This, Why Bother?

Doing a job search using various Websites became really popular about ten years ago as an easy way for candidates and companies to find each other without any (visibly obvious) middlemen directly involved. I understand that in some geographic and employment areas, it's still a useful tool. I've had myself registered on fewer than half a dozen for several years, even though my last 6 jobs were all found through other means.

Job sites aren't typical consumer Websites in that they're really trying to target two distinct groups of customers: companies with jobs on offer (who generally pay the bills) and jobseekers (who generally don't). Even though jobseekers don't have any up-front money dangling in front of the site operator, wise (or experienced) operators of such systems know that they should "take care" of these site users well, since:

• Companies will be less likely to pay to advertise on general-audience sites with few users, and
• Users who have negative experiences (on any site) are often motivated to "spread the word".

Any business which is heavily dependent on its Website for revenue or for customer service knows (or quickly learns) that locking actual or potential customers out of their site through defective, easily-correctable site implementation has a direct and negative impact. The pathologically clueless operators don't seem to know or care why this happens; they just notice their monthly traffic figures dwindling over time, with revenues to match.

This even applies, although to a lesser extent, when the market being served by the site encourages a lack of competition. This is the case quite often here in South Asia, and notably in Singapore. Only two media companies serve the English-language market here, both with apparent Government ties. Broadcast television and radio are similarly throttled. This becomes apparent to anyone who spends more than a few days here. Individuals are engaged in frenetic, all-consuming competition with each other, while favoured companies and industries don't (visibly) engage in such grubbiness.

All of this went through my mind again over the last few days, after I'd had a series of consistently unpleasant experiences with one particular Website operator. Necessary background: I have been essentially Windows-free (and thus virus-free and botnet-free) for some five years now, initially using Linux systems like Ubuntu and then the Apple Mac. What has made this change practical, for me and for tens of millions of other people, has been the emergence of open standards in desktop computing, particularly with regard to open data formats. A classic example with which anyone reading this is familiar is HTTP. Any device, from large mainframes to appliances to mobile phones, can be used to produce or access information via HTTP, most commonly in the form of Web pages. Other "standards", like MP3 for audio or Microsoft Office document formats, are proprietary to a company or organisation but widely implemented by competing or collaborating systems. This reliance on actual or de facto standards, as much as any other single factor, is what has enabled much of modern technology, particularly the Internet (which many think of as synonymous with the World Wide Web).

Not everybody has always "played fair" with these standards, however. Microsoft, in particular, have been infamous for their commonly-used practice of "embrace, extend and extinguish" has led to several instances where they support an existing standard (such as HTML for Web pages or Kerberos for network authentication) and either introduce incompatible features or defective versions of standard features into their implementation. This has the effect of "locking in" users who support Microsoft's implementation rather than the actual standard. These usees, as they are often called, face significant actual or perceived costs and difficulties were they to switch away from their now-Microsoft-specific infrastructure. Microsoft have by no means been the only ones to do this sort of thing; they are, however, often quite brazen about it — and their usees don't always have an accurate understanding of the true costs of their "investment."

In particular, during the "dark ages" of Web development in the mid- to late 1990s, it was common for sites to have text on each page proclaiming "Best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer"; the tools which they were using to create the Web pages (often Microsoft FrontPage), did not always (or easily) generate valid HTML, CSS or standard JavaScript — all of which are needed to make interactive, "dynamic" Web sites work. As the relevant standards have become better-known to amateur and semiprofessional Web developers, the tools used by professional developers mature, and those using Web browsers become more aware of the importance of these standards, we have seen an increasing Web "Enlightenment", where once again, anybody (or anything, like a Google search crawler) can access all content for a site.

There are exceptions to this, however, just as there are trailing-edge sluggards in any social or technical change. These can give excuses about lack of resources, perceived lack of need ("We're doing fine the way things are") and so on — which quite often attempt to mask either ignorance of the issues involved or, at a fundamental level, disrespect for their current and actual customers. When a well-equipped, motivated (outside) organisation is in a position to gain from that ignorance or contempt — as Microsoft for so long was with regard to Web development and standards — those "sluggards" will continue to pat themselves on the back for their "prudence" and "conservatism" — right up to and often past the point at which the business dies.

One such organization appears to be the company which owns and operates the JobsDB.com group of employment Web sites. With "specialised" sites for Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia and other countries, and an apparently large advertising and promotion budget, it's safe to speculate that millions of people have at least seen their advertisements, if not actually made use of their site. Those who actually do try to browse for a job there, however, can face significant problems — if they're using anything other than Internet Explorer on Windows as their browser. (And the message seems to be finally getting through to many users — Microsoft Internet Explorer and Windows itself cause numerous security and stability problems that are comparatively unheard of on any other system.)

I browsed jobsdb.com.sg, the Singapore-themed version of their online job service. I got as far as entering my details in an application form for a position, when I ran into insurmountable difficulties. Numerous pages display poorly in any of the browsers I tried. "Obviously using archaic design," I thought, "but as long as the function isn't too badly broken, I can still deal with this." I eventually got to the a page with a form to be filled in by those wishing to apply for a specific job (at SingTel) and ran into fatal problems. I clicked on the link to report a problem with the site, and included the following description:

SingTel application page misbehaves horribly with Safari 4.0.2/Mac. An ASP alert box, (URL omitted for this blog post), is displayed in a new tab, taking the entire browser window; the message "Please correct the field(s) with red exclamation mark(s) (!). You can click on the exclamation mark for instruction and input relevant information." indicates that there was an error on the initial page (which is still open in its original tab), but no red exclamation marks appear.

Very 1998ish.

Sixteen hours after filing the initial report, and getting an auto-generated email indicating that it had been received and entered into their ticketing system, I get the following email from "sg-cshelpdesk@jobsdb.com.sg"):

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please clear the cache of your browser by deleting the cookies and temporary internet files, enable the java and javascript, disable the popup blocker, open a new browser and try from there.

Otherwise, please try other browsers like firefox or Internet Explorer 6.0 & above to access the Career Portal and verify that your Internet Settings are configured correctly against http://sg.career.jobsdb.com/faq/documents/Internet_Explorer_Settings.pdf. Then open a new browser and submit from there.

Best Regards, Customer Service

Absolutely no problem-specific content whatsoever. This could easily have been (and in my opinion probably was) an automatically-generated message that was sent when no relevant response would be forthcoming within 24 hours after filing the problem (the '16:44' in the timestamp, or 4:45 PM local time, sounds suspiciously like "it's the end of the day, nobody got to this, blow him off and hope he goes away.") There continues to be an explicit assumption within the fluff mail that I'm using Internet Exploder; even though the second paragraph mentions "firefox" (sic), the PDF link supplied says that it relates to IE.

I'm getting used to companies, particularly the all-pervasive oligopolies, here in Singapore treating the customer with contempt. Knowing that no living human would probably ever read it, however, I did send one last complaint email.

Dear Customer “Service”,

Did you actually read the report I filed? Here are a few Statistically Improbable Phrases to clue you in:

• “standards-compliant (non-IE) browsers”. I tested your site with ten different browsers on four different operating systems. In no case did it operate correctly. By the way, Microsoft does not make a version of Internet Exploder for non-Windows systems.
• “Safari” — Safari is the standard, comes-with-the-system browser for Macs and iPhones, and is available for those wishing to upgrade their Internet experience on Windows as well.
• “an ASP alert box...is displayed in a new tab” — obviously not what was intended by the coder; however, competent JS wouldn’t do this.

I am a Web developer with nearly 15 years experience. I have been teaching Web development for ten years. If a student of mine from my very first class, back in 1999, had submitted work with such grossly defective JavaScript, he would have been required to redo it. You see, even since the early days of the World Wide Web, there have been standards that even Microsoft can comply with – though they also “support” their own proprietary, non-standard version of HTML and JavaScript and have encouraged careless or inexperienced “developers” to lock themselves in, breaking sites for anyone using a non-IE browser. That includes half the smartphones on the planet, every single non-Windows desktop or laptop system, and search engines like Google.

You should take http://www.amazon.com/Novelty-Sign-Brain-before-engaging/dp/B000K62V92 as a gentle but firm recommendation.

Sincerely,

No, I don't expect a relevant reply. Yes, I do feel better. No, I won't be using JobsDB or any related site, and will happily explain to any who ask my opinion precisely why.

A final note: There is a nice little site called yougetsignal.com which offers a nice set of network (Internet) diagnostic and information tools. One page on the site, http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/web-sites-on-web-server/, does what's called a "reverse IP address lookup". I used this page to find out what other sites are hosted by the same server as jobsdb.com.sg. Try it yourself; the results included apparently all "country-specific" jobsdb.com sites — as well as the site for Target, an American retailer. Interesting.

Not that I expect it, but if any of the parties mentioned here were to reply to what I've written here, I'd be happy to publish their response.

Expanding the Omniverse

Anybody who's worked with me in about the last 25 years knows that I've been preaching the idea that software craftfolk should never stop learning. Further, I've always believed that learning new languages or tools is one of the easiest ways to accomplish this, keeping the mind supple and open to new ways of doing things. And by and large, I've kept this up, learning enough of a new or long-neglected language to at least be able to read and patch code every two or three months. (You do the math.)

One of the languages that I learned rather early on in its lifecycle is Ruby. (Wikipedia has a rather good article summarizing the history, if you're unfamiliar with it.) Early 1.0-1.4 or thereabouts releases were interesting — they showed the power and promise of the concepts that Ruby is built on, without the bloated inscrutability of, say, perl. As so often has happened, I'd learned just enough to be dangerous, and then got sucked back into the charnel house that is Microsoft Windows development. By the time I had the time and inclination to start messing with Ruby again, an unfortunate thing happened.

Ruby on Rails.

Not that Rails isn't a great tool for building 37signals-type Websites; it clearly is. But it became a victim of its own hype and started being used for everything imaginable — famously including Twitter (a hype explosion in its own right.) Rails was enough to push me — and apparently a good number of other folks — away from Ruby and onto other languages, notably Python. And so I spent the bulk of the next couple of years in PHP, Python, C++, Objective-C, D (another bit of unsung genius), and managed to keep busy.

We developers have a well-known cliché for what drives us to do new things or participate in development projects; "scratching an itch". To scratch an itch in this context is to solve a problem that we ourselves are facing, or to do something that otherwise interests us. What got me motivated to get back up to speed in Ruby wasn't the Rails hype, or even seeing all the nice APIs that Twitter and Repertoire had made available. My problem was a bit simpler and more immediate.

Apple's Mail app started crashing under the load I was giving it. For about a year, I'd had a mail store that averaged about 2 GB and I was getting on the order of 600 to 800 emails a day. I don't mean to be critical of the app; it just wasn't designed to do what I was asking it to, certainly not when sharing 2 GB of RAM with the rest of the system. By the time I migrated away from Mail, I had over 400 filtering rules defined, to slice and dice incoming emails into appropriate folders where I could deal with them as I chose.

In late May, 2009, I up and migrated my email from Apple Mail to Microsoft Entourage. For those of you whose only exposure to Microsoft email software has been Exchange or Lookout! ("Outlook") Express, you're in for a pleasant shock. Entourage runs quite happily in the system as it is (even if I can't run certain other apps at the same time without upgrading RAM), and doesn't give me the maddening ten-minute freezes that were common with Apple Mail as it tried to figure out what to do next. Importing my existing mail store was a breeze. The filtering rules even came along for the ride, and Microsoft's rules editor is a real treat. There was, however, one small problem.

Somehow, the ordering of rules had become scrambled during the import, and after a few weeks of hand-editing to fix the biggest problems, I started looking for a program that would let me import, export, reorder and bulk-edit Entourage's rules. So far, I haven't been able to find one. (If anybody knows of anything useful, please add a comment or email me.) OK, I thought, no problem; nearly everything on the Mac is scriptable. I should just need to learn how to access Entourage's rule set from AppleScript or something similar, then I can write the tool I want. Not trivial, but certainly something that seemed conceptually quite practical.

So I started learning AppleScript, and casting about for tools and sample code that talked to Entourage from AppleScript. While searching, I ran across Matt Neuberg's site. Dr. Neuberg wrote the definitive guide on AppleScript — and then found something that worked better for him: rb-appscript. He's written an online book about it (eventually to be published on dead trees). At this point, I said "ok, let's get started with Ruby again and see what we can do."

If anybody has any pointers or suggestions, please comment. Thanks for reading.

"You can have my...when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands"

One of the, shall we say, unusual things about being in this line of work is that you develop stronger-than-is-healthy bonds to particular bits and pieces of technology, both hardware and software. For example, I think that anybody who's worked on a Mac as their main system for a year or so would take a catastrophic productivity hit if they were required to work in a Windows-only environment. Further, I assert, based on experience and observation, that this hit would actually increase in severity commensurate with previous Windows experience, as the nature of the problems and hassles encountered on a continuous basis would be that much more familiar.

But, believe it or not, this isn't a hit piece on Windows. If anything, Mac OS X takes the brunt here, in more or less a continuation of a previous post.

Don't get me wrong. The Mac itself is still one of the very few things I'd plug into that quote in the title. But the differences between it and the BSD Unix heritage it's based on, at an architecture-implementation level, sometimes drive me up the wall; it's as though I'm caught in the old Saturday Night Live "It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!" skit.

Case in point: the Web developer's Swiss Army Ginsu Knife, PHP. On Unix and Linux systems, it's very straightforward to build a scripting engine that contains just the features and extensions needed, with security and debugging features added in to taste. The last few releases have even made that process humanly feasible for Windows usees. On Mac OS X, however, it's a different story entirely. (Item: As of Friday 11 July, the search "mac php configuration" returned some 5.22 million hits. Applying Sturgeon's Second Law to this leaves us with at least half a million pleas for and/or offers of help.)

The practical result is that, on Mac OS X, one uses one of the various prebuilt binaries for PHP (from Apple, MacPorts, MAMP or similar — or goes without. If you're interested enough in PHP to want it to work on a Mac, you probably have some urgent deadline breathing down your neck; you don't have time to figure out how/why there are unique runes and incantations involved in making it work. This is the dark flip side of "almost everything Just Works"; the things that don't Just Work tend to average the entire experience out.

So, what's the most efficient solution for the reasonably serious Mac-loving Web developer? Simple: max out the memory in your Mac (and I do mean "as much as Steve&Co let you put in and not one byte less, blastit!"). Then, add one of the software tools that's going to be on that Mac somebody pries out of my "cold, dead hands"; VMWare Fusion. Once you have Fusion installed, grab an ISO image of your BSD version or Linux distro of choice, install it, and use that for your PHP and other web-dev activities.

Better still, you can still use your fave Mac editor, browser and so on during development in the VM; you'll want to set up ssh on your VM, and then use sshfs to mount your Linux/BSD filesystem as a disk volume in your Mac. From that point — a file is a file is a file; you're just taking advantage of the *ix VM's tools. This is how I do my PHP 5.3 and PHP 6 testing now.

And, after going through all this extra effort, you may well pray that the new version of Mac OS X enables a better native solution. I know I do.

Nothing is perfect in this world, and all technologies have speed bumps in some fashion. The good bad thing about OS X is that there aren't nearly as many as in some other systems I could name — but when you hit the ones that are there, you hit them hard.

---

EDITED 2010/11/03: At the time this was originally written, there was a prerelease bit of software that lots of people, including the vendor and the opportunistic authors and publisher of at least one programming book, thought was going to eventually become PHP version 6. Not quite; one of the long-promised features for PHP 6 went down a rabbit hole and ultimately killed the whole thing. Most of the usable "PHP 6" features were incorporated into version 5.3.2.

The Best Tool for the Job

One of the nice things about growing up around (almost exclusively) men who were master mechanics, carpenters or other such highly skilled tradesmen was that I developed an appreciation both for "the best tool for the job at hand" and "making do with what's available" — and whichever of these applied, accomplishing the task at hand to the best of anyone's ability.

As I've progressed through my software and Web career, I've become highly opinionated about the tools I use, just like any other experienced software craftsperson I've ever known. You and I might use different tools to accomplish what functionally is the same task, but so long as we each have practical, experiential bases for those preferences, we should just go ahead and get what needs doing done. (There's an argument in there for open standards as a requisite for that to happen, but that's another post.)

Too many people who should know better have religious-level devotion to or hostility towards certain companies and/or products. Yes, that includes me; I know I've said some pretty inflammatory things, usually when I felt someone was expressing a religious belief masked as a technical opinion. No doubt they've felt the same about me and any others who were incautious enough to oppose their evangelism (or reactionism, depending on the circumstances). In general, it should be pretty evident to everyone with a personal or professional involvement in IT or personal electronics that trends are driven as much by "what I say three times is true!" as what actually can be shown to be true. That's how mediocre-at-best products become "industry Leaders"; inertia and close-mindedness set in, reinforced by a well-funded, continuous and strident marketing/branding campaign.

I was having a discussion about this online recently, with a former associate who's long had me pegged as an ABMer ("Anything but Microsoft"). I can understand how he formed that opinion; I've long complained about the (innumerable) defects in the "market-leading" operating system, and about how slowly progress has been made in cleaning up the most egregious faults (such as security). But I've also worked at Microsoft in Redmond — three different times — and I've always been impressed by the number of truly gifted people working there. They've had their triumphs and tragedies (anyone used Microsoft Bob lately?). They've had to deal with widely differing process and management effectiveness as they transfer between or liaise with different groups. They've ignored a lot of what has been done outside the company, but they've also created some amazing things inside; too many of which unfortunately never make it into public products.

And the quality of their work product varies as much as any of the factors that go into it. Cases in point: compare, say, Windows Vista with Windows Mobile or the XBox; compare Microsoft Outlook (forever known as "Lookout!" to security/admin people) with Entourage; compare Word for Windows to Word for the Mac — what I understand is a completely different code base (and visibly so) that "just happens" to be able to flawlessly read and write documents shared with Word for Windows.

I also reread a blog post I wrote last December where I detailed the issues I was starting to have with Apple's own Mail app for the Mac. I have a mail store that's hovered somewhere above 2 GB for the last year. I receive 100-200 legitimate emails per day (and up to 700 spams). I presently have over 230 filtering rules defined for how to handle all that mail. Those rules have been built up over the last five years or so — first using Mozilla Thunderbird, then Apple's Mail.app, and now a new system; a progression that also speaks eloquently about the value of open standards. I have never, to my knowledge, lost a saved message whilst transferring from one package to its successor. The few hiccups each transition has had with filtering rules have all been relatively easy to find and fix, with the newest app making that process breathtakingly simple.

The new mail app? As you've no doubt guessed, Microsoft Entourage. It, like every other Mac app I've ever used, Just Works as expected (at least until you get out to the far, bleeding edges). If Microsoft made Windows and Office for Windows as well as they make Entourage (and the rest of their Office:Mac products), they really wouldn't have to worry about competition — and they'd richly deserve that. The market-friendly price for their Mac product (where their major, worthy competitor sells for US$79) is just icing on the cake.

I don't hate Microsoft. I just wish they would stick to what they do as well or better than anyone else, and leave the crappy products that can never be anything but hypersonic train wrecks — like Windows and Internet Exploder. I wish that ever more fervently every time I'm asked to help some hapless Windows usee fix "why my computer doesn't work". That would also make Microsoft's long-suffering stockholders — including current employees, former employees and myself, among others — feel a lot better.

Another item from the "That's obvious - in hindsight" dept.

Since upgrading to Safari 4 (why haven't you yet?), I ran into a problem with the single add-in that I've bothered keeping in Safari — Pith Helmet. If you're familiar with AdBlock Plus on Firefix, you've got the basic idea; an add-in to your browser(s) of choice that lets you block advertising, annoying Flash, or pretty much anything else you can identify by file name (e.g., "*.swf*) or by URL (e.g., "http://www.doubleclick.net"), and "magically" removes it from the final content displayed by your browser. This feature has gotten so popular that several browsers are building in more-or-less-competent versions of it by default.

Getting back to the problem... PithHelmet, the Safari ad blocker, was incompatible with Safari 4 because the framework it depended on, called SIMBL, has not had an update since October 2006 — which, as far as Safari or WebKit, equates to "forever". So I do a Google search for "greasekit safari 4", and then start whittling down the results (English language only, please, and only within the last year). Eventually, I ran across a forum post (which I have since lost) saying basically "Yes, PH crashes Safari 4 but has anybody else tried out Fanboy's AdBlock CSS sheet?"

Which, if you know anything about Web development, should have sent the palm of your hand rocketing toward your forehead in a major "D'oh! moment. Of course! Why didn't I (or we all) think of that about 6 or 8 years back?

For those of you who aren't as knowledgeable about the detailed workings of your browser, let me explain. Every Web browser, probably since at least Netscape 1.0, has included support for "user style sheets"; where individual users (or organisations of such users) can choose to instruct their browsers to display certain specific content differently than it was originally specified. For this to work, the user in question (or someone s/he depends on) have to be very literate in HTML and particularly CSS, the languages of Web pages. To do simple blocking, like 'block all SWF files", isn't hard with modern browsers, but the Web developers themselves can make life significantly easier by following modern "best practices". The "practices" particularly relevant here are "add 'id' attributes to all structural and semantic elements." (hmm; what's the difference between that and "all elements"? Another blog post...) If the developer does that, including for the body tag, then it's very easy for even a neophyte user to start filtering just what's wanted.... and learn something about how Web pages work into the bargain.

Thanks for reading — and commenting.

Remember to test your testing tools!

I've been doing some PHP development lately that involves a lot of SPL, or Standard PHP Library exceptions. I do test-driven development for all the usual reasons, and so make heavy use of the PHPUnit framework. One great idea that the developer of PHPUnit had was to add a test-case method called setExpectedException(), which should eliminate the need for you (the person writing the test code) to do an explicit try/catch block yourself. Tell PHPUnit what you expect to see thrown in the very near future, and it will handle the details.

But, as the saying says, every blessing comes with a curse (and vice versa). The architecture of PHPUnit pretty well seems to dictate that there can only be one such caught exception in a test method. In other words, you can't set up a loop that will repeatedly call a method and pass it parameters that you expect it to throw on; the first time PHPUnit's behind-the-scenes exception-catcher catches the exception you told it was coming, it terminates the test case.

Oops. But if you think about it, pretty expectable (pardon the pun). For PHPUnit to catch the exception, the exception has to get thrown and unwind the call stack past your test-case method. That makes it very difficult (read: probably impossible to do reliably inside PHPUnit's current architecture) to resume your test-case code after the call that caused the exception to be thrown — which is what you'd want if you were looping through these things.

This leaves you, of course, with the option of writing try/catch blocks yourself — which you were hoping to avoid but which still works precisely as expected.

Moral of the story: Beware magic bullets. They tend to blow up in your face when you least expect it.

News Flash: Microsoft Reinvents Eiffel, 18 Years On

One of the major influences on the middle third of my career thus far was Bertrand Meyer's Eiffel programming language and its concept of design by contract. With such tools, for the first time (at least as far as I was aware), entire classes of software defects could be reliably detected at run time (dynamic checking) and/or at compile time (static checking). I worked on a couple of significant project teams in the mid- to late '90s that used Eiffel quite successfully. Further, it impacted my working style in other languages; for several years, I had a reputation on C and C++ projects for putting far more assert statements than was considered usual by my colleagues. More importantly, it made me start thinking in a different way about how to create working code. Later, as I became aware of automated testing, continuous integration and what is now called agile development, they were all logical extensions of the principles I had already adopted.

This all happened over a period of 15 or so years, in a field where anyone with more than 2 or 3 years' experience is considered "senior". But for me, and most other serious practitioners who I knew and worked with, two to three years was really just about as long as it took to answer more questions than we raised. That, in most crafts, is considered one of the signs of becoming a journeyman rather than a wet-behind-the-ears apprentice.

Then, a few hours ago, I was reading a blog entry by one David R. Heffelfinger which mentioned a project at Microsoft DevLabs called "SmallBasic". Another project that the same organization developed is called "Code Contracts"; there's a nice little set of tools (which will be built into the upcoming Visual Studio 2010 product), and a nice introductory video. Watch the video (you'll need Silverlight to view it), and then do some research on Eiffel and design-by-contract and so on, and it's very difficult not to see the similarities.

So, on the one hand, I'm glad that .NET developers will finally be getting support for 20-year-old concepts (by the time significant numbers of developers use VS 2010 and .NET 4.0). Anything that helps improve the developer and user experiences on Windows (or, in fact, any platform) is by definition a Good Thing™.

On the other hand, I see more evidence of Microsoft's historical Not Invented Here mentality; beating the drum for "new and wonderful ideas for Windows development" that developers on other platforms have been using effectively for some time. While the Code Contracts project indirectly credits Eiffel — the FAQ page links to Spec# at Microsoft Research, which lists Eiffel as one of its influences — it would have been nice to see acknowledgement and explanation of precursor techniques be made more explicitly. Failure to do so merely reinforces the wisdom of Santayana as applied to software: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", as well as "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim." This last is something that we who wish to improve our craft would do well to remember.

What do you all think?

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.)

Professionalism, Web development, and giving oxy to morons

Whereas a poor craftsman will blame his tools, poor tools will handicap even the most skilled craftsman.

As I insinuated in my previous post, I'm getting up to speed on the Zend Framework, the "900-kg elephant" of PHP application frameworks.

One major bone I have to pick with the ZF team is with regard to documentation: each time I've checked the site in the last couple of months, there's been an apparently current HTML version (now clocking in at some 300 HTML pages). There is also a PDF version, the promise of which is used as an enticement to register for their content distribution network (and, presumably, marketing info). As of this moment, however, the framework is at version 1.8.0, but the PDF version of the programmer's reference manual only covers version 1.6.0 (from September, 2008); some 12 releases earlier. It no longer fully matches the actual code, to the point where it is not difficult for a new developer to get deeply confused.

After spending a half-hour browsing the HTML version of the document, I am unable to find any declaration as to which version of the Framework is documented. However, the README.TXT file included with the source distribution states that it covers the 1.8 release, revision 15226, released on April 30, 2009. Classes which are listed in the README as being new, such as Zend_Filter_Encrypt, are documented in the HTML programmer's guide. Establishing a match between the (HTML) doc and the current code is non-trivial, however. While it may be argued that people unfamiliar with browsing a Subversion repository are not likely to be common within Zend's target audience, I would indirectly refute that: a product release, particularly one with a strong industry following, should be

• properly documented;
• easy for a (prospective) user to verify that he has the complete package; and
• with a definite, intuitive learning curve.

In my view, the Zend Framework fails on at least two of these points. The assertion within large segments of the PHP community that it is the "gold standard" of PHP application frameworks should be a disturbing, cautionary omen: if Web development, particularly PHP development, wishes to be taken seriously by the software industry at large, then some major improvements and attitude shifts need to occur quickly, publicly and effectively. It is still far too easy for potential developers outside the "early-adopter" leading edge to scoff that PHP development (and, by extension, Web development as a whole) is still far too immature and amateurish to be taken seriously. As someone who has developed professionally in PHP for some ten years now, that is a disturbing state of affairs; one that I would love to see (and participate in) a free-ranging discussion of.

OMFG, or Holy Deforestation, Batman!

As some of you know, I'm working on a book on Web development, using off-the-shelf tools (frameworks, template engines, JavaScript libraries, etc.) to leverage semantic, standards-compliant, accessible, search-friendly Websites. (That's more a matter of adjusting your development philosophy and workflow than anything else, but I digress). As part of that, I'e been doing a (reasonably) comprehensive review of PHP 5 application frameworks. You might have heard of ezComponents or CakePHP, but the 900-kg elephant in the room is definitely the Zend Framework. It ships with the Dojo JavaScript toolkit, but doesn't make it excessively difficult to mix and match others (Scriptaculous, Prototype, jQuery, etc.) if desired.

And here's another reason to call ZF the '900-kg elephant' — the programmer's reference guide (for version 1.7) weighs in at a <sarcasm>svelte</sarcasm> 1170 pages. Don't print this at home, folks. Better yet, just don't print it... either browse it online or download the PDF. Save a forest or six. For you old-timers, this will remind you quite a bit of US DOD Standard 2167A, "fondly" remembered as "documentation by the boxcar load".

Mac OS X is BSD Unix. Except when it's Different.

One of the things that a BSD Unix admin learns to rely on is the "ports" collection, a cornucopia of packages that can be installed and managed by the particular BSD system's built-in package manager: pkgsrc for NetBSD, pkg_add for FreeBSD, and so on. In nearly all BSD systems, the port/package manager is part of the basic system (akin to APT under Debian Linux).

Mac OS X is BSD Unix "under the hood," specifically Darwin and, indirectly, FreeBSD.

This provides the Mac user who has significant BSD experience with a nice, comfy security blanket. This blanket has a few stray threads, however. One of these is the package-management system and ports.

Software is customarily installed on Mac OS X systems from disk images, or .dmg files. When opened, these files are mounted into the OS X filesystem and appear as volumes, equivalent to "real" disks. The window that the Finder opens for that volume customarily contains an icon for the application to be installed and a shortcut to the Applications folder. Installation usually consists of merely dragging the application icon onto the shortcut (or into any other desired folder). Under the hood, things are slightly more complex, but two points should be borne in mind.

First, there is no true Grand Unified Software Manager in Mac OS that is comparable to APT under Debian Linux, or even the "Add or Remove Programs" item in Microsoft Windows' Control Panel. Uninstalling a program ordinarily consists of dragging the program icon to the Trash or running a program-specific uninstaller (usually found on the installation disk image).

Second, while there is a "ports" implementation for Mac OS X (MacPorts), it isn't a truly native part of the operating system. More seriously, the versions of software ports which are maintained in its ports list are not always the most recent version available from their respective maintainer. Installing an application via MacPorts, installing a newer version through the customary method, and attempting to use MacPorts to maintain the conflated software can quite easily introduce confusing disparities into the system, with potentially destabilizing effect.

Go back and read that last paragraph again, especially the final sentence. Mac OS X, meet BSD Unix. Touch gloves, return to your corners, and wait for the bell.

Most users will never run into any problems, simply because most Mac users make little or no use of MacPorts (or any other command-line-oriented system management tool). MacPorts users are (almost by definition) likely to be experienced Unix admins who pine for the centralized simplicity of their workhorse software-management system. Informal research suggests that many, if not most, MacPorts users are active developers of Unix and/or Mac software. In other words, we're all expected to be grown-ups capable of managing our own systems, trading away the soft, easy-to-use graphical installation for a wider variety of nuts-and-bolts-level packages.

So why is any of this a problem for me? Why am I consuming your precious time (and mine) blathering on about details which most interested people already know, and most who don't, probably aren't? As a bit of a public mea culpa and a warning to others to pay attention when mixing installation models.

I had previously installed version 8.2 of the PostgreSQL database server on my Mac via MacPorts. Returning to it later, I realized that the installation had not completely succeeded: the server was not automatically starting when I booted the system, and the Postres tools were not in my PATH. After a bit of Googling, I came across a few links recommending the PostgreSQL 8.3.6 disk images on the KyngChaos Wiki. The server failed to start as expected.

Remembering that I had previously installed 8.2 the "ports" way, I first uninstalled the newly-installed and -broken 8.3.6. I then ran port uninstall postgresql82 && port clean postgresql82 in an apparently successful attempt to clean up the preexisting mess, after which the KyngChaos disk images installed correctly and (thus far) work properly.

This once again points out the usefulness of keeping a personal system-management Wiki as a catchall for information like this — both to help diagnose future problems, and (especially) to avoid them altogether. These can be dirt simple; I use Dokuwiki, and have for over a year now. Forewarned (especially by yourself) is forearmed, after all.

Just thought I'd get this off my chest.

Maybe not eating 'crow', specifically, but..... DUCK!!!

As in, "bend over, here it comes again..."

One of the things I have greatly appreciated about the Mac, especially with OS X, is how simple and straightforward software management is, compared to Linux and especially Windows (where every system change is a death-defying adventure against great odds). Operating system or Apple-supplied apps need an update? Software Update is as painless as it gets: the defaults Just Work in proper Mac fashion, but you can set your own schedule, along with a few other options. There is a well-established convention for third-party apps to check for updates via a Web service "phoning home" at app startup; this has been very easy to deal with. Application and file layout is regular and sensible; libraries and resources are generally grouped in bundles at the system or user level. After a few years of DLL hell in Windows and library mix-and-match in Linux, this was shaping up to be a real pleasure.

Then, as some of you know, I updated Mac OS X on my iMac from 10.5.5 to 10.5.6. As expected, that apparently went as smooth as glass. I even blogged about it. XCode worked; MS Office 2008 for the Mac worked; Komodo Edit worked; all my IM clients worked; all seemed customarily wonderful in the omniverse. I even started up Mail; it opened normally and happily downloaded my regular mail and Google mail, just as it had done every day for months. (I didn't actually open any messages then; that will turn out to be important.) Satisfied that everything Just Worked as always, I went back to working on a project for a few hours before turning in for the night.

Next morning, I went through the usual routine. Awake the Mac from hibernation; log in; start Yahoo, MSN and Skype; start Mail; open Komodo; open Web browsers (Safari, Opera and Camino) and I'm ready to get started. First thing...here's an interesting-sounding email message; let's open that up and... *POOF* — Mail crashes.

WTF? It started up just fine; I even got the "Message for you, Sir" Monty Python WAV I'd set Mail to use as my new-mail-received notification. I start Mail again. Picking a different message, I double-click it in the inbox. A window frame opens with the message title, sits empty for a few hundred milliseconds, then Mail goes away again. Absolutely, totally repeatable. Reboot changes nothing. Safe Boot (the Mac equivalent of Windows' "safe mode") changes nothing. The cold fingers of panic stroke my ribs like Glenn Gould at the piano. On a bad-karma scale of 0 to 10, initial reaction is an "O my God"; we're not dead, but we're hurt bad; the karma has definitely run over the dogma. 

The next couple of days are spent using my ISP's Webmail service, and a set of Python scripts I'd previously written to search mailbox contents — Apple Mail, like any sensible email program, adheres to established standard formats. If I'd been using Microsoft Lookout! in a similar situation, I'd have been up the creek.

Finally, I come across some Web-forum items that indicate that GPGMail needs to be updated; if it's not, Mail will crash under OS X 10.5.6 — which is exactly what was happening. (If you're not using GPGMail, GNU Privacy Guard, or any of the various GPG interfaces for Windows such as Enigmail for Mozilla Thunderbird, you don't know how many people are recording and/or reading your email — but if it transits a server in the US or UK, it's guaranteed that it will be.

Installing the upgraded GPGMail bundle was the work of less than two minutes (hint: remove or rename the old bundle before copying the new one over. You probably don't need the insurance, but consider how we got here...). Then start up Mail as usual. It should, once again, Just Work — complete with being able to read and reply to messages, with or without GPG signatures.

OK, so what lessons can we take away from this experience, both as users and developers?

Time Machine may well be the single most rave-worthy piece of software I've touched in 30 years, but it can't (obviously, easily) do everything, and in a crisis, even experienced users may well not want to risk bringing too much (or too little) "back from history". There's definitely a market for addons to TM to do things like "look in my user and system library directories, the Application directory structure, MacPorts, etc., and bring application Foo back to the state it was in last Tuesday morning, but leave my data files as they are." I almost certainly could do that with the bare interface -- but, especially since it was "broken" as part of an OS upgrade, and (with the Windows/Linux experience fresh in mind) not comfortable exploring hidden dependencies... I was without my main email system for three days. Sure, I had workarounds -- that I wouldn't have had if I'd been in a stock Windows situation -- but that's not really the point, is it?

Also, app developers (Mac or other), add this to your "best practices" list: If your software uses any sort of plug-in/add-on architecture, where modules are developed independently of the main app, then you can have dependency issues. The API you make available to your plugin developers will change over time (or your application will stagnate); if you make it easy for them (and your users) to deal with your latest update, you'll be more successful. There's (at least) two ways to go about doing this:

The traditional "brute force" approach. Have a call you can use to tell plugins what version of the app is running, and allow them to declare whether or not they're compatible with that version. Notify the user about any that don't like your new version. For examples of this, see the way Firefox and friends deal with their plugins. Yes, it works, but it's not very flexible; a new version may come out that doesn't in fact modify any of the APIs you care about — which means that the plugin should work even though it was developed against version 2.4 of your app and you're now on 4.2.

Alternatively, a more fine-grained approach. Group your API into smaller, functional service areas (such as, say, address-book interface or encryption services for an email program). Have your plug-in API support a conversational approach.

1. The app calls into the plugin, asking it which services it needs and what versions of each it supports.
2. The app parses the list it gets back from the plugin. If the app version is later than the supported range for a specific feature identified by the plugin, add that to a "possibly unsupported" list. (If the app version is earlier than the range supported by the plugin, assume that it's not supported and go on to check the next one.)
3. If the "possibly unsupported" plugin list is empty, go ahead and continue bringing up the app, loading the plugins normally; you're done with this checklist.
4. For each item in the "possibly unsupported" list, determine whether the API for each feature required for the plugin has changed since the plugin was explicitly supported. (This is how a plugin for an earlier release, say 2.4, could work just fine with a later version, like 4.2.) If there's no change in the APIs of each feature required by the plugin, remove that plugin from the "possibly unsupported" list.
5. If any plugins remain in the list, check if there's an updated version of that plugin on the Net. This might be done using a simple web-service-to-database-query on your Web server. If your Web server knows of an update, ask the user for permission to install it. If the user declines, or no upgrade is available, unload the plugin. (You'll check again next time the app is started; maybe there's an update by then.)
6. Once the status of each plugin has been established, and compatible plugins loaded, finish starting up your app.

Of course, there are various obvious optimisations and convenience features that can be built into this. Any presentation to the user can and likely should be aggregated; "here's a list of the plugins that I wasn't able to load and couldn't find updates for." Firefox and friends are a good open-source example of this. The checks for plugin updates can also be scheduled, so as not to slow down every app startup. This might be daily, weekly, twice a month, whatever; the important thing is to let the user configure that schedule and view a list of plugins that are installed but not active.

As I started this post by saying, I've been very favorably impressed by Mac apps' ease of use (including installation and maintenance). Mail fell down and couldn't get up again without outside assistance; this is unusual. The fact that this was caused by a plugin and that Mail could not detect and work around the conflict just amazes me; I expect more from Apple. I'm not ready to decrease my use of the Mac because this happened — but I am going to pay more attention to how things work under the hood. The fact that I have to even be aware of this -- which is one of the features that hitherto distinguished the Mac from the grubbier Windows and Linux alternatives -- is worrisome.

Again, your comments are welcome.

Things that make you go 'Hmmmm', continued

Very much picking up from the mindset expressed in my earlier post... with the knowledge that this could (and probably should) be broken up into at least three different rants...

I've been working heavily in Python for the past couple of months, regrettably letting some other projects slide a bit. Now done with that, I spent yesterday picking up where I'd left off in a moderately-sized, reasonably well-designed PHP 5.2 project. (Bear in mind that my PHP experience is easily 5 or 6 times as much as my Python.)

And... while I'm not ready to jump on the "PHP sucks" bandwagon, it does feel clunky. Occasionally obscure (though never up to the standards of obscurity a good Perl hacker deals with every day).

Why is this? Three years ago, Joel Spolsky wrote an excellent rant on The Perils of JavaSchools. His point essentially boils down to that how you're trained (or "educated") as a developer shapes the way you look at problems; if all you know is a "Hammer", you try to visualize every problem as a "Nail" (even when it's a "Glass Figurine"). You may well have less-than-satisfying success with that view.

More importantly, the tools and techniques you know shape whether you can properly understand a problem at all. Not having certain features in a language (or not being knowledgeable in their use) means that you'll write clunky, hard-to-understand (and therefore -maintain) code to achieve the desired result...and wind up with (an attempt at) calculus using Roman numerals. Just as having a positional numeric system (e.g. Arabic or "modern" numerals) makes whole classes of problems possible that weren't otherwise, languages and their features make programming problems practical or more efficient.

What we don't want is one language that tries to do everything, in every way possible. We already have that; it's called Perl, and one ramification of its overriding philosophy, "There's more than one way to do it", is that there's always a better way to do it; the search for same can and often does suck in resources faster than a Sol-sized black hole. This also illustrates the failing of most of the more recent practitioners of software development that I've worked with. While those of us who've been working since before oh, about 1988 or 1990 generally make a point of reading at least one new technical book a month, I recently led a group of about 20 young (less than 5 years experience as of 2006) developers where not a single one admitted to reading more than one technical book a year since graduation. These people didn't know how to solve the problem we were working on because the two or three tools which they were familiar with encourage their users to think in ways that do not lead to effective solutions for this problem.

A language, any language, can really only do a limited number of things well. If you are fluent in more than one human language, say, English and Mandarin Chinese, think for a moment about concepts and sayings that are natural in one language but just don't work well in the other. Computer languages are like that, too, which is one reason why your computer's operating system is much less likely to be written in COBOL than your company's accounting program is (with benefits for all concerned).

Getting back to what started this rant....coming back to PHP after a sojourn in Python....

PHP gets the job done. Recent versions, particularly the current 5.2, are much more pleasant to work in than previous versions were for those of us who "think in objects". But it has taken years to get here.

As I look at one class in particular in this PHP project's code base, part of my mind is working on "if this were Python code, I'd write it like..." — and a two-hundred-line unit of code would be about 60 or 80, and much cleaner and easier to understand to boot. Why is that? Think "original intent".

PHP was originally developed as an adjunct to HTML for Web pages, to provide some simple dynamic content. It then "just growed", adding new features and capabilities (database access, object orientation) as it became used in a wider variety of problems. It is, quite simply, a tool that grew into a reasonably useful — if not quite general-purpose — language. There are a number of things it does quite well, especially since it can be used to do useful work without requiring a steep learning curve beforehand.

Python is different. A general-purpose language, with functional-programming features, it is useful for Web application development (e.g., with mod_python for the Apache Web server). Whereas Perl has the idea that "There's more than one way to do it" — and therefore neither a best way, nor strictly an advance certainty that anything in particular will work — Python argues that "there should be one — and preferably only one — obvious way to do it", whatever "it" is.

So am I suggesting that PHP developers ditch everything and go with Python? Of course not. What I am arguing is the seemingly quaint notion that developers, especially those who aspire to work in the craft for a living, should continually strive to learn new tools, techniques, languages and processes. Your abilities are like every other living thing; they're either growing, or they're dying.

Happy Updating....

If you're a Windows usee with a few years' experience, you've encountered the rare, monumental and monolithic Service Packs that Micorosoft release on an intermittent basis (as one writer put it, "once every blue moon that falls on a Patch Tuesday"). They're almost always rollups of a large number of security patches, with more added besides. Rarely, with the notable (and very welcome at the time) exception of Windows XP Service Pack 2, is significant user-visible functionality added. Now that SP3 has been out for seven months or so, it's interesting to see how many individuals and businesses (especially SMEs) haven't updated to it yet. While I understand, from direct personal experience, the uncertainty of "do I trust this not to break anything major?" (that is, "anything I use and care about?"), I have always advised installing major updates (and all security updates) as quickly as practical. Given the fact that there will always be more gaping insecurities in Windows, closing all the barn doors that you can just seems the most prudent course of action.

I got to thinking about this a few minutes ago, while working merrily away on my iMac. Software Update, the Mac equivalent of Windows' Microsoft Update, popped up, notifying me that it had downloaded the update for Mac OS X 10.5.6, and did I want to install it now? I agreed, typed my password when requested (to accept that a potentially system-altering event was about to take place, and approve the action), and three minutes later, I was logged in and working again.

Why is this blogworthy? Let's go back and look at the comparison again. In effect, this was Service Pack 6 for Mac OS X 10.5. Bear in mind that 10.5.5 was released precisely three months before the latest update, and 10.5.0 was released on 26 October 2007, just under 14 months ago. "Switchers" from Windows to Mac quickly become accustomed to a more pro-active yet gentle and predictable update schedule than their Windows counterparts. The vast majority of Mac users whom I've spoken with share my experience of never having had an update visibly break a previously working system. This cannot be said for Redmond's consumers; witness the flurry of application and driver updates that directly follow Windows service packs. XP SP2, as necessary and useful as it was, broke more systems than I or several colleagues can remember any single service pack doing previously...by changing behavior that those programs had taken advantage of or worked around. Again, the typical Mac customer doesn't have that kind of experience. Things that work, just tend to stay working.

Contrast this with Linux systems, where almost every day seems to bring updates to one group of packages or another, and distributions vary wildly in the amount of attention paid to integrating the disparate packages, or at least ensuring that they don't step on each other. Some recent releases have greatly improved things, but that's another blog entry. Linux has historically assumed that there is reasonably competent management of an installed system, and offers resources sufficient for almost anyone to become so. Again, recent releases make this much easier.

Windows, on the other hand, essentially requires a knowledgeable, properly-equipped and -staffed support team to keep the system working with a minimum of trouble; the great marketing triumph of Microsoft has been to both convince consumers that "arcane" knowledge is unnecessary while simultaneously encouraging the "I'm too dumb to know anything about computers" mentality — from people who still pony up for the next hit on the crack pipe. Show me another consumer product that disrespects its paying customers to that degree without going belly-up faster than you can say "customer service". It's a regular software Stockholm syndrome.

The truth will set you free, an old saying tells us. Free Software proponents (contrast with open source software) like to talk about "free as in speech" and "free as in beer". Personally, after over ten years of Linux and twenty of Windows, I'm much more attracted by a different freedom: the freedom to use the computer as a tool to do interesting things and/or have interesting experiences, without having to worry overmuch about any runes and incantations needed to keep it that way.

Modern Tools and Archaic Practices Shouldn't Mix

Sun have released NetBeans 6.5, which, among many other (potentially) useful and interesting features, claims to officially support Web development using PHP. This is, on the face of things, a major improvement from the situation under NB 6.1 and prior, which treated PHP essentially as other unsupported languages were treated: you could do raw text editing, but the features that are the entire point of using an IDE - auto-completion, search/cross-reference, and so on - were completely absent. Not so in 6.5; at least minimal support for features like code completion, auto-display of PHPDoc during code entry, and so on can be found here. After a few minutes of poking around, I was starting to get optimistic; here was a decent, if somewhat more heavyweight, alternative to the Komodo Edit which I had been using for some months. Why look for alternatives when I was extremely happy with Komodo Edit for the Mac? Because, almost every day, I sat down in front of Komodo Edit for Linux, and became frustrated with the inconsistencies, limitations and general less-polished feel (Why can't ActiveState include KE for Mac key emulation along with vi and emacs?)

So, back to NetBeans and PHP. I spent a few minutes putting together toy code just to see how the editor felt. Then I created the really one-and-only sample PHP project that came with NB 6.5, a site for a fictional India-based budget airline. Go through the 'New Project' wizard, select the project type, the directory to be used to contain the entire thing (for development, at least), and hit The Magic "Finish" Button.

And, voilà, a new project is born:

At first blush, nothing too obviously catastrophic. Rather non-semantic names for the image files, and the files under 'include' generally presume that you'll only ever need one nav bar, for example, but hey, it's a sample project, I tell myself. It's not necessarily meant to be production-quality; it's supposed to give you a starting point to either see how to use NetBeans to work in the PHP you already know, or how to use this PHP that's all over the Web in the NetBeans you've been using earlier versions of.

And then I double-click on the index.php file in the Projects pane. And my jaw hits the floor as I see... 1996-ASP-style intermingling of PHP code and raw HTML. OK, the DTD is from 1999 and the PHP code uses superglobals, which date from 2001, but you get the idea.

We've spent the better part of a decade, as a craft, running screaming away from this style of work. No sane, experienced PHP developer would write code like this today; we may not have (quite) advanced to the point where "everybody" uses the same tools for similar projects, but separation of presentation (HTML) and logic (PHP) is pretty universally seen as not just a Good Thing® but a Necessary Thing® if the site is ever going to be debugged/maintained. There are just so many problems that conmingled code and markup create, unnecessarily, in living code. I'm well aware that a 'toy' example for a general-purpose editor-with-benefits can not (and arguably should not) try to teach tyros the basics of the language in question.

But is it really too much to ask that such an example be written in a reasonably modern and correct style, or at least put big red (say, 144-point Comic Sans) warnings to the effect, "DANGER: If you don't know why this is  horrible practice, please go buy a book! The job you save may well be your own."

Still using the free Komodo Edit on the Mac, trying to justify shelling out for the "real" Komodo IDE... but that's a deliberation for another post.

Things that make you go 'Hmmmm'

...or 'Blechhhh', as the case may be... I've been using PHP since the relative Pleistocene (I recently found a PHP3 script I wrote in '99). I've been using and evangelising test-driven development (TDD) for about the last five years, usually with most such work being done in C++, Java, Python or other traditionally non-Web languages (with PHP really only being amenable to that since PHP 5 in 2004). So here I am, puttering away on a smallish PHP project that I've decided to TDD from the very beginning. For one of the classes, I throw together a couple of simple constructor tests in PHPUnit, to start, such as:

require_once( 'PHPUnit/Framework.php' );

require_once( '../scripts/foo.php' );

class FooTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
    public function testCanConstructBasic();
    {
        $Foo = new Foo( 'index.php' );
    }
    
    public function testCanConstructBasicWildcard()
    {
        $Foo = new Foo( '*.php' );
    }
};

And, as is right and proper, I code the minimal class necessary to make that pass:

class Foo
{
};

That's it. That's really it. No declaration whatever for the constructor or any other methods in the class. Since it doesn't subclass something else, we can't just say "oh, there might be a constructor up the tree that matches the call semantics."  PHPUnit will take these two files and happily pass the tests. I understand what's really going on here - since the class is empty, you've just defined a name without defining any usage semantics (including construction). I would say fine; not a problem. But I would think that PHPUnit should, if not give an error, then at least have some sort of diagnostic saying "Hey, you're constructing this object, but there are no ctor semantics defined for the class." I can see people new to PHP and/or TDD, who are maybe just working through and mentally adapting an xUnit tutorial from somewhere, getting really confused by this. I know I did a double-take when I opened the source file to add a new method (to pass a test not shown above) and saw nothing between the curly braces. On one level, very cool stuff. On another, equally but not always obviously important level, more than enough rope for you to shoot yourself in the foot. Or, to put it another way, even though I've been writing in dynamic languages off and on for ages, I still tend to think in incompletely dynamic ways. Sometimes this comes back and bites me.  Beware: here be (reasonably friendly, under the circumstances) dragons.

( C/C++ != C) && (C/C++ != C++)

A thought which ran through my mind as I was browsing some job requirements recently... Why are recruiters still hung up on "C/C++", years after even Microsoft got around to shipping a reasonably compliant compiler (depending on your prejudices and code needs, anywhere from Visual Studio 6 in 1998 to VS.NET 2003)? "C/C++" started life (or zombiehood) as a Microsoft marketing term back in the late 1980s with the release of Version 7 of their C compiler, which included "some C++ features". MSC 7 wasn't a "real" C++ compiler, but companies such as Borland (now CodeGear), Watcom (now part of Sybase), IBM and others, were shipping compilers that implemented the bulk of the (then-) Draft Standard in a (largely) portable, consistent fashion, so Microsoft was able to muddy the waters by calling their product "C/C++", secure in the knowledge that many of their customers had too little C++ experience to see through the marketing. Incidentally, this (non-Microsoft) competitive innovation spurred numerous advances, such as Alexander Stepanov's (of AT&T, later at HP) Standard Template Library (STL). Microsoft, in response, introduced a "Container Class Library" which was in practice quite inferior (since it required contained objects to be derived from the Microsoft Foundation Class library's CObject class and (if memory serves) did not support either multiple inheritance or thread safety. Since Microsoft's compilers at the time did not properly support important Standard C++ features such as templates and runtime type information (RTTI) that were needed for the STL, the compiler defects created market opportunities for companies like Rogue Wave and Dinkumware to create products with similar but not identical function. Timewise, this was really when Microsoft was starting to really push developer lock-in - the practice of introducting non-standard and/or proprietary "features" which were made central to the development process. Despite the existence of numerous superior (in design, function and in productivity) class libraries such as Borland's ObjectWindows Library, Inmark's zApp library, the previously-mentioned Rogue Wave toolkits, and others, Microsoft's MFC carved out huge market share and mindshare, largely because:

• it was bundled with the Microsoft C ("C/C++") compiler;
• its limitations and defects mapped most closely to those of the underlying compiler;
• it came with a primitive but usable GUI builder, for "click-and-drool" development; and
• it was relentlessly praised by the Microsoft-beholden tech press of the day.

That last point should never be underestimated; publishers of less-than-laudatory articles, such as C Users Journal and Will Zachmann (when he was writing for PC Magazine) would find themselves cut off from Microsoft's press briefings, rumor mil and other means of "keeping up with the competition". This was meant as punitive, to "hurt" the "offenders"...who promptly wrote up the entire sordid affair, built a certain amount of loyal sympathy from the industry grass-roots, and survived quite well, thank you very much. Getting back to "C/C++"... the term was a marketing fix to a technical problem which rapidly gained "mindshare" with its intended audience: marginally to non-technical people (senior managers, HR people, etc.) who wanted or needed to sound technically knowledgeable. Microsoft was able to play on their lack of real language knowledge coupled with follow-the-herd instincts to help force adoption in enterprises, from the top down. While this helped to increase sales, and helped preserve Windows' market share and lock-in in the enterprise for nearly two decades, it seriously retarded the take-up of standard, portable C++ in the industry (as intended). It also gave companies like ParcPlace (with Smalltalk) and NeXT, later Apple (with Objective-C) incentives to use "alternative" languages, either to gain some "control over their own destiny" independent of a competitor, or simply because C++ at the time was not up to the tasks which they wanted to accomplish. In any event, by around 2000 (plus or minus a half-decade), Microsoft had caught up with where the rest of the industry had been for a decade or so (bringing serious, proprietary backward-compatibility baggage along with them). The marketing need for the 'C/C++' Newspeak was gone - but the corporate world that had learned the newfangled technical language back in the day was still in place, bound only by the Peter Principle (whose bar, thanks to the new technology throughout the enterprise, had been set depressingly high). Consequently, you still run across job ads with text like this (from the Singapore Straits Times of 13 August 2008):

C/C++ EMBEDDED SOFTWARE Engr. Contract. Call 6xxx7085

Truly informative about the needs; at first blush, seemingly written by a completely non-technical HR person. (I didn't follow up the advertisement to actually verify this, however). What's the point of this whole rambling rant? To try to impress upon you, my half-dozen Loyal Readers, a technical truism that has been around as long as there have been technical gadgets: "80% of what you know will be obsolete in n months; the other 20% will never be obsolete. Using that 80% beyond its shelf life just makes you look silly." Or, if not 'silly', then at least 'locked in to an out-of-date technology or idea.' And that, with very high likelihood, does not deliver a competitive advantage to your organization.

Test Infection Lab Notes

In a continuing series... As current and former colleagues and clients are well aware, I have been using and evangelizing test-driven development in one flavor or another since at least 2001 (the earliest notes I can find where I write about "100% test coverage" of code). To use the current Agile terminology, I've been "test-infected". My main Web development language is PHP 5.2 (and anxiously awaiting the goodness to come in 5.3), using Sebastian Bergmann's excellent PHPUnit testing framework. PHPUnit uses a well-documented convention for naming test classes and methods. One mistake often made by people in a hurry (novices or otherwise) is to neglect those conventions and then wonder why "perfectly innocuous" tests break. I fell victim to this for about ten minutes tonight, flipping back and forth between test and subject classes to understand why PHPUnit was giving this complaint:

There was 1 failure:
1) Warning(PHPUnit_Framework_Warning)
   No tests found in class "SSPFPageConfigurationTest".

FAILURES!
Tests: 1, Failures: 1.

about this code:

class SSPFPageConfigurationTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
    public function canConstruct()
    {
        $Config = new SSPFPageConfiguration();
        $this->assertTrue( $Config instanceof SSPFPageConfiguration );
    }
};

which was "obviously" too simple to fail. The wise programmer is not afraid to admit his errors, particularly those arising from haste. The novice developer proceeds farther on the path to enlightenment; the sage chuckles in sympathy, thinking "been there, done that; nice to be reminded that other people have, too". May you do a better job of keeping your koans in a nice, neat cone.

Differences that Make Differences Are Differences

(as opposed to the Scottish proverb, "a difference that makes no difference, is no difference")

This is a very long post. I'll likely come back and revisit it later, breaking it up into two or three smaller ones. But for now, please dip your oar in my stream of consciousness.

I was hanging around on the Freenode IRC network earlier this evening, in some of my usual channels, and witnessed a Windows zealot and an ABMer going at it. Now, ordinarily, this is as interesting as watching paint dry and as full of useful, current information as a 1954 edition of Правда. But there was one bit that caught my eye (nicknames modified for obfuscation):

FriendOfBill: Admit it; Microsoft can outmarket anybody.
MrABM: Sure. But marketing is not great software.
FriendOfBill: So?
MrABM: So... on Windows you pay for a system and apps that aren't worth the price, on Linux you have free apps that are either priceless or worth almost what you pay (but you can fix them if you want to), and on the Mac, you have a lot of inexpensive shareware that's generally at least pretty good, and commercial apps that are much better. THAT's why Microsoft is junk... they ship crap that can't be fixed by anyone else.
FriendOfBill: So you're saying that the Linux crap is good because it can be fixed, and the Mac being locked in is OK because it's great, but Windows is junk because it's neither great nor fixable?
MrABM: Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Now...that got me to thinking. Both of these guys were absolutely right, in my opinion. Microsoft is, without question, one of the greatest marketing phenomena in the history of software, if not of the world. But it is unoriginal crap. (Quick: Name one successful Microsoft product that wasn't bought or otherwise acquired from outside. Internet Explorer? Nope. PowerPoint? Try again.) Any software system that convinces otherwise ordinary people that they are "stupid" and "unable to get this 'computer' thing figured out" is not a net improvement in the world, in my view. I've been using and developing for Windows as long as there's been a 'Windows'; I think I've earned the opinion.

Linux? Sure, which one? As Grace Hopper famously might have said, "The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." (Relevant to The Other Side: "The most dangerous phrase in the language is, 'We've always done it this way.'") As can be easily demonstrated at the DistroWatch.com search page, there are literally hundreds of active "major" distributions; the nature of Free Software is such that nobody can ever know with certainty how many "minor" variants there are (the rabbits in Australia apparently served as inspiration here). Since every distribution has, by definition, some difference with others, it is sometimes difficult to guarantee that programs built on one Linux system will work properly on another. The traditional solution is to compile from source locally with the help of ingenious tools like autoconf. Though this (usually) can be made to work, it disproportionately rewards deep system knowledge to solve problems. The "real" fix has been the coalescence of large ecosystems around a limited number of "base" systems (Debian/Ubuntu, Red Hat, Slackware) with businesses offering testing and certification services. Sure, it passes the "grandma test"....once it's set up and working.

The Macintosh is, and has been for many years, the easiest system for novice users to learn to use quickly. Part of that is due to Apple's legendary Human Interface Guidelines; paired with the tools and frameworks freely available, it is far easier for developers to comply with the Guidelines than to invent their own interface. The current generation of systems, Mac OS X, is based on industry-standard, highly-reliable core components (BSD Unix, the Mach microkernel, etc.) which underpin an extremely consistent yet powerful interface. A vast improvement over famously troubled earlier versions of the system, this has been proven in the field to be proof against most "grandmas".

A slight fugue here; I am active in the Singapore Linux Meetup Group. At our July meeting, there was an animated discussion concerning the upcoming annual Software Freedom Day events. The question before the group was how to organize a local event that would advance the event's purpose: promoting the use of free and open source software for both applications and systems. What I understood the consensus to be basically worked out as "let's show people all the cool stuff they can do, and especially let's show them how they can use free software, especially applications, to do all the stuff they do right now with Windows." The standard example is someone browsing the Web with Firefox instead of Internet Explorer; once he's happy with replacement apps running under Windows, it's easier to move to a non-Windows system (e.g., Linux) with the same apps and interface. That strategy has worked well, particularly in the last couple of years (look at Firefox itself and especially Ubuntu Linux as examples). The one fly in the ointment is that other parts of the system don't always feel the same. (Try watching a novice user set up a Winprinter or wireless networking on a laptop.) The system is free ("as in speech" and "as in beer") but it is most definitely not free in terms of the time needed to get things working sometimes... and that cannot always be predicted reliably.

The Mac, by comparison, is free in neither sense, even though the system software is based on open-source software, and many open-source applications (Firefox, the Apache Web server) run just fine. Apache, for instance, is already installed on every current Mac when you first start it up. But many of the truly "Mac-like" apps — games, the IRC program I use, a nifty note organizer, and so on) are either shareware or full commercial applications (like Adobe Photoshop CS3 or Microsoft Word:mac). You pay money for them, and you (usually) don't get the source code or the same rights that you do under licenses like the GNU GPL.

But you get something else, by and large: a piece of software that is far more likely to "just work" in an expectable, explorable fashion. Useful, interesting features, not always just more bloat to put a few more bullet items on the marketing slides. And that gives you a different kind of freedom, one summed up by an IT-support joke at a company I used to work for, more than ten years ago.

Q: What's the difference between a Windows usee and a Mac user?
A: The Windows usee talks about everything he had to do to get his work done. The Mac user...shows you all the great work she got done.

That freedom may be neither economic or ideological. But, especially for those who feel that the "Open Source v. Free Software" dispute sounds like a less entertaining Miller Lite "Tastes Great/Less Filling" schtick, for those who realize that the hour they spend fixing a problem will never be lived again, this offers a different kind of freedom: the freedom to use the computer as an appliance for interesting, intellectually stimulating activity.

And having the freedom to choose between the other, seemingly competing freedoms... is the greatest of these.