Native UX or Conway's Law?

organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs
which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations
— M. Conway

A pet peeve of mine is applications that are available on different platforms, but are substantially different on each platform. I realize that I'm probably unusual in working roughly equally on Windows and Mac. But even if most people work on a single platform, why make the application unnecessarily different? Isn't that just more work for support and documentation.

I recently listened to a podcast where an employee mentioned that her focus was on making sure their Windows and Mac versions weren't "just" identical, but matched the native user experience. That sounds like an admirable goal. The problem is, their versions have differences that are nothing to do with native UX.

Obviously standards vary between platforms. Do you call it Settings or Preferences? And it makes sense to match the native conventions. But in general those are minor things.

But changing the layout of the screen? Or the way things are displayed? Or the text on buttons? There really aren't any "standards" for those things. And therefore "native" doesn't justify making them different.

I suspect that "matching the native UX" is often a justification for Conway's law. Different teams are developing the different versions and they do things different ways. Coordinating to make them consistent would take more effort so it doesn't happen, or not completely.

My company contracted out the development of our mobile app. The company we contract to believes in "native" (i.e. not portable) apps. They also have a process where different teams develop different versions, so they can be platform experts. The end result - our app is unnecessarily different on different platforms. And any change takes twice as much work. Not to mention having to fix bugs in multiple implementations.

It's sad that after all these years we still don't have a good story for developing portable applications.

Except that's not quite true. We have the web and browsers. And tools like Cordova and Electron that leverage that. And contrary to belief, users don't seem to have a lot of problems with using web apps that don't have native UX.

Gimme Structure

"I believe that it may happen that one will succeed, and one must not begin to despair, even though defeated here and there; and even though one sometimes feels a kind of decay, though things go differently from the expected, it is necessary to take heart again and new courage. For the great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together. And great things are not something accidental, but must certainly be willed. What is drawing? How does one learn it? It is working through an invisible iron wall that seems to stand between what one feels and what one can do.”

-- Vincent Van Gogh

I used to think what I was looking for was good design. On more cynical days I'd settle for any design, or not even design, just some kind of structure.

I guess that's a bit like saying you want "quality". Would that be good quality or bad quality? Obviously, good structure is better than bad structure. But even bad structure is better than no structure.

I see, and work with, a lot of bad code, some of it written by my programmers, some of it (sadly) written by myself. The code seems to be split up into methods and classes more or less randomly. Names of variables and methods make no sense or are even outright misleading. It might work (most of the time) but it is difficult to understand, usually has duplication, commonly has logic errors, often old dead code, incorrect comments, etc. It will come as no surprise that it is hard to modify.

Part of the problem is incremental development. Even if there was some structure at some point, unless everyone modifying the code pays attention to maintaining that structure, it will degrade. And if it didn't have much structure to begin with it's even worse.

I don't think you can blame this on "evolution". Bad code is not very "fit". Natural selection would soon kill it off. Evolution is not intelligent design, but it comes up with lean, efficient solutions. It's not sloppy.

Much of the blame goes back to a common weakness in programmers - thinking that you are done when you have something that appears to work. Not going the extra distance to make sure it's readable, understandable, logically complete and correct. Often not even bothering to take care of the low hanging fruit like variable and method names.

And of course, once the code is a tangled mess no one wants to touch it to clean it up. Understandably, since it's a lot of work. And there's no doubt unobvious behavior in that code that you need to figure out and preserve. And there's a high risk of breaking things, and many programmers pay more attention to fear than to any desire for good code.

I have no silver bullets. Just a plea - please try to write code with some sort of comprehensible structure, for your own sake if nothing else.

Fixing a Suneido Design Problem

In Suneido object.Delete(key) returns false if the member isn't found, otherwise it returns the object.

Several times we've had bugs resulting from doing things like:

object.Delete(key).Add(...)

which works as expected, except when key isn't found and Delete returns false.

It's likely the worst of possible designs. It would have been better if it returned nothing, or true/false, or my favorite - always the object.

I've been aware of this problem for quite a while but I was hesitant to change it because I was afraid I'd break existing code. I finally decided to go through our code and see if it would actually break much.

There were about 800 uses of Delete.

By far the majority ignored the return value.

I didn't find a single place where we made use of the false return value.

I did find a number of uses which assumed that it always returned the object - i.e. potential bugs.

Other than being tedious, the worst part was seeing all the ugly code. I wonder if it's possible to write code that doesn't make you cringe when you come back to it later.

I found quite a few places where we were doing multiple deletes so while I was at it, I changed Delete to handle multiple arguments.

This is a small change, but I think it's just as important to get the details right as it is to work on the big picture.