This is taken from<br><br><A HREF=" TARGET="_new"> Joel Spolsky,<br><br>Made me think a bit....<br><br><br><font color=green><br>Netscape 6.0 is finally going into its first public beta. There never was a version 5.0. The last major release, version 4.0, was released almost three years ago. Three years is an awfully long time in the Internet world. During this time, Netscape sat by, helplessly, as their market share plummeted.<br><br>It's a bit smarmy of me to criticize them for waiting so long between releases. They didn't do it on purpose, now, did they?<br><br>Well, yes. They did. They did it by making the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make:<br><br>They decided to rewrite the code from scratch.<br><br>Netscape wasn't the first company to make this mistake. Borland made the same mistake when they bought Arago and tried to make it into dBase for Windows, a doomed project that took so long that Microsoft Access ate their lunch, then they made it again in rewriting Quattro Pro from scratch and astonishing people with how few features it had. Microsoft almost made the same mistake, trying to rewrite Word for Windows from scratch in a doomed project called Pyramid which was shut down, thrown away, and swept under the rug. Lucky for Microsoft, they had never stopped working on the old code base, so they had something to ship, making it merely a financial disaster, not a strategic one.<br><br>We're programmers. Programmers are, in their hearts, architects, and the first thing they want to do when they get to a site is to bulldoze the place flat and build something grand. We're not excited by urban renewal: tinkering, improving, planting flower beds.<br><br>There's a subtle reason that programmers always want to throw away the code and start over. The reason is that they think the old code is a mess. And here is the interesting observation: they are probably wrong. The reason that they think the old code is a mess is because of a cardinal, fundamental law of programming:<br><br>It's harder to read code than to write it. <br><br>This is why code reuse is so hard. This is why everybody on your team has a different function they like to use for splitting strings into arrays of strings. They write their own function because it's easier and more fun than figuring out how the old function works.<br><br>As a corollary of this axiom, you can ask almost any programmer today about the code they are working on. "It's a big hairy mess," they will tell you. "I'd like nothing better than to throw it out and start over."<br><br>Why is it a mess?<br><br>"Well," they say, "look at this function. It is two pages long! None of this stuff belongs in there! I don't know what half of these API calls are for." <br><br>Before Borland's new spreadsheet for Windows shipped, Philippe Kahn, the colorful founder of Borland, was quoted a lot in the press bragging about how Quattro Pro would be much better than Microsoft Excel, because it was written from scratch. All new source code! As if source code rusted.<br><br><br>The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code has been used. It has been tested. Lots of bugs have been found, and they've been fixed. There's nothing wrong with it. It doesn't acquire bugs just by sitting around on your hard drive. Au contraire, baby! Is software supposed to be like an old Dodge Dart, that rusts just sitting in the garage? Is software like a teddy bear that's kind of gross if it's not made out of all new material?<br><br><br>Back to that two page function. Yes, I know, it's just a simple function to display a window, but it has grown little hairs and stuff on it and nobody knows why. Well, I'll tell you why: those are bug fixes. One of them fixes that bug that Nancy had when she tried to install the thing on a computer that didn't have Internet Explorer. Another one fixes that bug that occurs in low memory conditions. Another one fixes that bug that occurred when the file is on a floppy disk and the user yanks out the disk in the middle. That LoadLibrary call is ugly but it makes the code work on old versions of Windows 95.<br><br>Each of these bugs took weeks of real-world usage before they were found. The programmer might have spent a couple of days reproducing the bug in the lab and fixing it. If it's like a lot of bugs, the fix might be one line of code, or it might even be a couple of characters, but a lot of work and time went into those two characters.<br><br>When you throw away code and start from scratch, you are throwing away all that knowledge. All those collected bug fixes. Years of programming work.<br><br>You are throwing away your market leadership. You are giving a gift of two or three years to your competitors, and believe me, that is a long time in software years.<br><br>You are putting yourself in an extremely dangerous position where you will be shipping an old version of the code for several years, completely unable to make any strategic changes or react to new features that the market demands, because you don't have shippable code. You might as well just close for business for the duration.<br><br>You are wasting an outlandish amount of money writing code that already exists.<br><br>Is there an alternative? The consensus seems to be that the old Netscape code base was really bad. Well, it might have been bad, but, you know what? It worked pretty darn well on an awful lot of real world computer systems.<br><br>When programmers say that their code is a holy mess (as they always do), there are three kinds of things that are wrong with it.<br><br>First, there are architectural problems. The code is not factored correctly. The networking code is popping up its own dialog boxes from the middle of nowhere; this should have been handled in the UI code. These problems can be solved, one at a time, by carefully moving code, refactoring, changing interfaces. They can be done by one programmer working carefully and checking in his changes all at once, so that nobody else is disrupted. Even fairly major architectural changes can be done without throwing away the code. On the Juno project we spent several months rearchitecting at one point: just moving things around, cleaning them up, creating base classes that made sense, and creating sharp interfaces between the modules. But we did it carefully, with our existing code base, and we didn't introduce new bugs or throw away working code.<br><br>A second reason programmers think that their code is a mess is that it is inefficient. The rendering code in Netscape was rumored to be slow. But this only affects a small part of the project, which you can optimize or even rewrite. You don't have to rewrite the whole thing. When optimizing for speed, 1% of the work gets you 99% of the bang.<br><br>Third, the code may be doggone ugly. One project I worked on actually had a data type called a FuckedString. Another project had started out using the convention of starting member variables with an underscore, but later switched to the more standard "m_". So half the functions started with "_" and half with "m_", which looked ugly. Frankly, this is the kind of thing you solve in five minutes with a macro in Emacs, not by starting from scratch.<br><br>It's important to remember that when you start from scratch there is absolutely no reason to believe that you are going to do a better job than you did the first time. First of all, you probably don't even have the same programming team that worked on version one, so you don't actually have "more experience". You're just going to make most of the old mistakes again, and introduce some new problems that weren't in the original version. <br><br>The old mantra build one to throw away is dangerous when applied to large scale commercial applications. If you are writing code experimentally, you may want to rip up the function you wrote last week when you think of a better algorithm. That's fine. You may want to refactor a class to make it easier to use. That's fine, too. But throwing away the whole program is a dangerous folly, and if Netscape actually had some adult supervision with software industry experience, they might not have shot themselves in the foot so badly.<br></font> <p>Mike<br><a href=mailto:michael.j.lacey@ntlworld.com>michael.j.lacey@ntlworld.com</a><br><a href= Cargill's Corporate Web Site</a><br>
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations gkittelson on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Things You Should Never Do, Part I
- Thread starter MikeLacey
- Start date
Wow Mike, that was a mouthfull!<br>Very well written, but I had to write and say I'm looking forward to Netscape comming out with their new version. I never liked ie, infact I think it crashes much more then Netscape. <br>I only use it because it's part of the operating system (which will change once the courts get done with Microsoft).<br>I like 95 much more then 98 (crashes also).<br>I was reading an article on Netscape, and one of it's pluses is it can not get all these love viruses that Outlook can (because of MS's open arch.).<br>I would like to see Netscape kick MS's ass all over the place in the internet world.<br><br>(but we all know that MS is the only game in town).<br><br>Gary<br>
Karl Blessing
Programmer
"looking forward to?" you can grab it at home.netscape.com I'm not a big fan of netscape as it limits my programming ability extremly. In any case Netscape 6 , isnt written from scratch they copied the codebase from the latest Mozzila browser. <p>Karl<br><a href=mailto:kb244@kb244.8m.com>kb244@kb244.8m.com</a><br><a href= </a><br>Experienced in : C++(both VC++ and Borland),VB1(dos) thru VB6, Delphi 3 pro, HTML, Visual InterDev 6(ASP(WebProgramming/Vbscript)<br>
Karl Blessing
Programmer
you actually have a dig just a lil, the latest they have is Netscape 6 Beta. Dont try to go to their autopage, you'll have to look at their product listings, and what not. and Yes I do ASP, but ASP is serverside so should be browser compatible, but the client side is where it bugs me, even with Javascript(since I do Javascript on client, and vbscript on server) in netscape yer pretty limited to what yuo can do, it has a limited DOM, and you can only call a script by either a button, or by an anchor(link) so it kind of makes it hard to easily resubmit data back via events, I like IE alot better for it's programatical capabilities. <p>Karl<br><a href=mailto:kb244@kb244.8m.com>kb244@kb244.8m.com</a><br><a href= </a><br>Experienced in : C++(both VC++ and Borland),VB1(dos) thru VB6, Delphi 3 pro, HTML, Visual InterDev 6(ASP(WebProgramming/Vbscript)<br>
Karl Blessing
Programmer
hmm, you could attack their home system OS, um their PWS server, oh oh I know watch Java Crush C# as soon as C# comes out in the public. <p>Karl<br><a href=mailto:kb244@kb244.8m.com>kb244@kb244.8m.com</a><br><a href= </a><br>Experienced in : C++(both VC++ and Borland),VB1(dos) thru VB6, Delphi 3 pro, HTML, Visual InterDev 6(ASP(WebProgramming/Vbscript)<br>
- Status
