If the users aren't motivated to help with software development by answering questions or reviewing the results of a sprint, then the software isn't creating any value. Stop work now and find something the users really want. — Stephen Lott

The number of times I‘ve wanted to do that! Some customers I‘ve worked with are really averse to engaging in the development process. However, it makes those customers that do eagerly engage in the process all the more a delight to work with. Guess which customers had most success with their projects…

Dave and Jen work for software companies that produce exciting and clever software products. Both Dave and Jen understand design patterns. They both know about encapsulation, inheritance, composition and all that jazz. They‘re both good software developers. The only difference is that Jen has taught herself to develop test-driven. Dave thinks his time is better spent writing production code.

Dave and Jen started their current project at the same time. Dave spent some time up–front to carefully design his architecture to the requirements and implemented all the features. Dave added some unit tests, but only as an afterthought. Dave is confident that his architecture is well suited to providing a maintainable solution to the requirements specified. Dave is OK with the fact he has less than 25% test coverage.

Jen used TDD, she started off by adding some tests to represent some of the requirements and implementing production code to pass those tests. She did this iteratively and in small digestible chunks until she had satisfied all of the requirements. Jen changed the architecture of the project frequently. She refactored as she went, renaming classes and methods so that they better represented their function, moving code and responsibilities between classes to continually improve the design of the software. She did this safe in the knowledge that her tests would pick up any errors introduced. Jen builds up test coverage of over 80%.

As always happens in a software project, the requirements change. In Dave‘s case, management decided that – for political reasons – Dave needed to completely change the way his product worked. Jen‘s customer‘s priorities changed. To stay competitive, they needed to have different features. In both cases – as ever – time was short and deadlines were tight.

Both Jen and Dave found that their existing design wasn‘t really suited to the new requirements. Dave was concerned about the deadline and the time it would take to evaluate the correctness of any change he made in the design of the software. He has no timely or repeatable means of doing this. So Dave added the feature without changing the design. He knew it wasn‘t ideal and that the he would need to change the architecture at some point in the future. Given the time constraints, Dave believed he was being pragmatic.

Jen – on the other hand – had been refactoring the code extensively throughout the development of the project. Jen recognises an alternative design that would elegantly accommodate this new requirement and refactors. She runs the tests to see if she broke something. A few of them fail. So she fixes them and runs the tests again, safe in the knowledge that her tests represent the requirements.

Over the next few years a number of new features are requested by both Dave‘s and Jen‘s customer(s). Each time, Dave opts for the change that least affects the existing code-base. Each time Dave‘ project becomes more like a ball of mud. Dave becomes more and more resistant to new features. He started asking management for some “engineering time“ to refactor the code and have the time to evaluate it‘s correctness. This – he knew – would take some time.

In the same time, Jen‘s team have been doing nothing but implementing new features. The design of the software has changed frequently in that time. She doesn‘t need any “engineering time”, her tests evaluate the correctness of every feature she adds.

Dave has become scared of changing the code, he doesn‘t know what he might break.

Jen breaks the code every day. She‘ll know in seconds what she‘s broken and what she needs to do to fix it.

The design patterns link above is an affiliate link. Any and every software developer should have a well–thumbed copy of this book.

Software Engineering is not dead, it has never lived! There has been a lot of controversy about that, some people arguing it's more of an art, others saying it's science, yet others that it's more like craftsmanship. At the end of the day, the only fact that there is a controversy shows that it doesn't fit in the hole we're trying to stick it into. And yes, this blog is called Software Artist, but I have to tell you that it's more as a reaction to those who are fiercely trying to 'industrialize IT processes'. Oh man, that makes me angry! In the end, I have to say that the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of craftsmanship.

Because craftsmanship is all about finding the right balance between the techniques that you've learnt and the intuition that you have about what you're doing. And finding this right balance requires a lot of practice.