I have an article up on InfoQ finally, about when correctness matters the most, and when it isn’t really a thing: https://www.infoq.com/articles/correctness-versus-change/
On recommendation from @mtnygard and others, I have acquired a copy of How Buildings Learn (Stewart Brand, 1994). Highlights so far:
Buildings are designed not to adapt, but they adapt anyway, because the usages are changing constantly. “The idea is crystalline, the fact fluid.” They’re designed not to adapt because “‘Form ever follows function’ … misled a century of architects into believing that they could really anticipate function.”
We think of buildings as static, because they change at a timescale slower than our notice. They change over generations. Humans operate at some natural timescale, and we see things slower as unchanging, and things faster as transient, insignificant. We are uncomfortable with change in stuff we think of as permanent, like buildings or culture or language. It isn’t permanent, just slower than us.
A jar of honey on its side will leak. The lid doesn’t trap the honey, just slows it down. Imperceptible movement is invisible, until the whole cupboard is sticky.
Software’s pace of change can be unnaturally fast, the opposite of buildings. That makes people uncomfortable. Updating buildings, “we deal with decisions taken long ago for remote reasons.” In software, “long ago” might be last year.
As usages change, so must our environs, in brick and in computers.
What changes faster than usages? Fashion. “Buildings are treated by fashion as big, difficult clothing, always lagging embarrassingly behind the mode of the day. This issue has nothing to do with function.” The latest hot tech may not improve on the value of your legacy software. “The meaningless change of fashion often obstructs necessary change.”
Around 1900, when modernist art was emerging, art historians talked about the significance of art in context: the painting is not complete without the beholder.
Before that, the beholder wasn’t so important. People looked for art to express some universal truth through beauty.
Before cultures and artists considered the role of the beholder, they made art that didn’t need you. The art has inner coherence.
A lot of software development aims for inner coherence. Code that is elegant, that is well-designed and admirable on its own.
I used to like that, too. But now I want to think about code only in context. Software is incomplete without use.
If my code is full of feature flags and deprecated fields for backwards compatibility, that’s a sign that it is used. The history of the software is right there to see. I don’t want to hide that history; I want to make it very clear so that I can work within it.
My job isn’t to change code, it’s to change systems, so that we can adapt and grow increasingly useful instead of obsolete.
This old painting may be beautiful, but it doesn’t affect me the way Gustav Klimt’s work does. (some drawings, NSFW) He was one of the early modernist artists to speak of contextual, rather than universal, truths.
Within our teams, contextual truths have the most power. In my software, it’s a contextual coherence of its larger system that I care about.
It is better to practice risky things often and in small chunks with a limited blast radius, rather than to avoid risky things.Charity Majors, “Test in production? Yes“
Charity is writing about deploys. Not-deploying may be safer for tonight, but in the medium term it leads to larger deploys and bigger, trickier failures.
In the long term, slow change means losing relevance and going out of business.
In relationships, the same applies. If I have some feeling or fact that my partner might not like, I can say it or not. It never feels like the right time to say it. There is no “right time,” there is only now. There is positive reinforcement for holding back, because then our evening continues pleasantly. No drama.
This leads to an accumulation of feelings and facts they don’t know about. Then when it does become urgent to talk about those, they react with feelings of betrayal: Why didn’t you tell me about this sooner?
In the long term, lack of sharing means growing apart and breaking up.
My new strategy in relationships is: tiny dramas, all the time. The more tiny dramas we have, the fewer big dramas. Also we get practice at handling drama in a way that is safe, because it’s minor. I take any mental question of “should I say this?” as a clue, an opportunity! Yes, say it. Unless it’s a really bad time, it’s the best time.
And the complementary strategy: whenever my partner tells me something scary, like something I did that they don’t like or some feeling they had that might upset me, my first response is “Thank you.” Usually it is not a drama anyway, it’s fine. When I do have feelings about it, we can talk about them. Reassurance helps a lot, especially when I recognize and appreciate the risk they took by telling me in this moment.
If a small deploy causes failure, please respond with “Thank you for not making this part of a bigger deploy.”
We have built a glass castle, where we ought to have a playground.Charity again, on our lack of safe tooling and therefore fear of production
Our job as developers is to change software. And that means that when we decide what to do, we’re not designing new code, we’re designing change.
Our software (if it is useful) does not work in isolation. It does not poof transition to a new state and take the rest of the world with it.
If our software is used by people, they need training (often in the form of careful UI design). They need support. hint: your support team is crucial, because they talk to people. They can help with change.
If our software is a service called by other software, then that software needs to change to, if it’s going to use anything new that we implemented. hint: that software is changed by people. You need to talk to the people.
If our software is a library imported by other software, then changing it does nothing at all by itself. People need to upgrade it.
Designing change means thinking about observability (how will I know it worked? how will I know it didn’t hurt anything else?). It means progressive delivery. It often means backwards compatibility, gradual data migrations, and feature flags.
Our job is not to change code, it is to change systems. Systems that we are part of, and that are code is part of (symmathesy).
If we look at our work this way, then “Change Management” sounds ridiculous. Wait, there’s a committee to tell me when I’m allowed to do my job? Like, they might as well call it “Work Management.”
It is my team’s job to understand enough of the system context to guess at the implications of a change and check for unintended consequences. We don’t all have that, yet. We can add visibility to the software and infrastructure, so that we can react to unintended consequences, and lead the other parts of the system forward toward the change we want.