Quick and dirty is a skill

Being clean coders we build our software based on quality and reflect on how we do it. We set internal standards in code and UIs, we write tests, we polish.
But there are times when all this focus on quality is obstructive. Times when we need to learn something. For example: at a start of a project when fundamental questions like is it feasible, how should this interaction work, what’s the right order of steps are unanswered, learning needs to be as cheap as possible.
Here quick and dirty is important. The problem is our ego. We want to polish it, we want to build real software with a sound structure. But quality takes time. The problem is quality is not important when answering the fundamental project questions, learning is. May be a mockup in Powerpoint is enough? (not even writing code? ugh). A simple sketch on a piece of paper. Or maybe just a quick demo hacked together in an afternoon.
I know these suggestions may insult our pride. But we need to focus on what’s important: sometimes that’s quality, sometimes that’s speed.
Decades ago when I started coding, quick and dirty wasn’t a problem. Everything I wrote was quick and dirty. I was learning all the time. Over time I got better at developing software, structuring applications and building robust systems. But quick and dirty was lost along the way.
When you write something for the purpose of learning it can happen that you are wrong and all the code has to be thrown away. If it was just 2 hours patching something together that’s okay, but what if you spent a whole week? Just like writing quality software, quick and dirty is a skill in itself and as with other skills we need to practice it.
But beware this is not only a problem at the start of a project: often as developers we tend to overthink something, we plan for every possible outcome, imagine scenarios with weirdly acting users or systems. This is the time to stop and implement something to learn. To get feedback. Not to overanalyse or overdesign. Just release something and test it with real users, it doesn’t need to be part of the software in production, just use a demo or a staging environment. But if you need to learn something, focus on that, not on quality.

Advertisements

There should be a stakeholder for simplicity

Usually in every project ideas are abundant. Your client has many ideas what features he wants. You and your coworkers have a rich background in the problem domain and the technologies you use so that solutions are not sparse. But often this experience and confidence leads to abandoning an important trait: simplicity.
Most of the time you are focused on getting good solutions for the problems that arise. From past experiences with clients who could not exactly explain what they really need (which is different from what they want most of the time) you tend to include a little extra flexibility in your system. Maybe you need this and that variation some time in the future but at this very moment it’s a guess at best. And often this guess costs you. You could argue that you are investing into your project. But how many times did this investment really pay off? And how many times did you have a hard time just because you did not want to make restrictions? At first it seems like a little work. But with the next feature you have to continue supporting your little ‘extra’. Over time it infuses your system like leaven does it with bread. In the end it is more work to make it simple than to keep it simple.
So with every project you approach there should be a stakeholder for simplicity. Someone who focusses on simple solutions. Sometimes you have to cut a bit away from the feature or you have to view the problem from a different angle. Some other time you have to dig deeper into the problem domain or you need real data from your users (which is always better than what you can make up in your mind). Finding simple solutions is work but it is much more work to support your over-engineered solutions.