Skip to content

Best practices for software development

July 24, 2013

There’s no shortage of advice about best practices. Naturally, commercial enterprises like IBM and Construx have advice. Their advice is designed to lead people toward their products and services. Of course, that’s because they believe their products and services support best practices. After all, they designed their products and services on the basis of what they consider to be best practices. So, it’s all good, right? They’re financially successful, so we can trust them. Besides, everyone knows that commercially-packaged best practices are carefully designed and well proven.

Individual practitioners are also eager to share the practices they have found "best" in their work. Their advice can be helpful, provided we remember it tends to be opinionated ("Git:Mercurial = Assembler:Java" — not "practices," BTW); haphazard and idiosyncratic (not to mention sexist and poorly written); specific to a single technology (and poorly written); or a rehash of generalizations (supported by questionable references). Like this Wikipedia article (as of 24 July 2013), such advice "has multiple issues."

So, what does "best" mean? There are various opinions. Urs Gattiker suggests "Best Practice is a superior method or innovative practice that contributes to the improved performance of an organization, usually recognized as ‘best’ by other peer organizations," while "Good Practice means to carry out a function or testing using only recommended or approved methods (e.g., food regulation)." That sounds pretty good, but Rob England cautions that "’Best practice’ does NOT mean state-of-the-art: there is no way to know yet whether unproven practice is ‘best’ or a blind alley or an awful destructive idea." Scott Ambler suggests a practice can only be ‘best’ or ‘good’ in context; he suggests we think in terms of contextual practices. Many others worry that people will latch onto a "best practice" and stop thinking about continual improvement. Today’s best practice is tomorrow’s yesterday’s news.

My rule of thumb for using any sort of tool effectively is (1) choose a tool that is appropriate to the task at hand, and (2) learn to use the tool well enough that you won’t hurt yourself (much). Software development practices are tools. Understanding the context is critical for choosing appropriate practices, and I think Ambler offers a balanced voice amidst the white noise of general discussion about practices.

But understanding the context and recognizing which practices are appropriate are easier said than done. In a post about one particular software development practice (pair programming), I mentioned a problem that seems widespread in our field: Binary thinking. People seem to expect any given development practice to be universally "good" or "best" or "bad" or "worst." The irony is that people who apply logic to their work every minute of every day seem unable to apply logic to the question of good practices. Some are quite vocal in their expression of binary thinking, like Ben Northrop and Jon Evans. I can certainly imagine that pairing with them would be just as unpleasant as they say it would be. Others try to be objective, but reveal their biases nonetheless, like Jeff Atwood, who grudgingly acknowledges that some people (not him) might get some value from pair programming, and C. Mountford, who grudgingly acknowledges that some people (not him) might not get value from it. All of that just comes back around to opinion in the end.

I don’t mean to harp on pair programming in particular. This applies to any and all software development practices. So, are there any "best" practices? What about "good" practices? The word "best" is problematic. It can be understood to mean "best that could ever be" or to mean "best currently known." I prefer the latter definition.

I’m more interested in outcomes than in practices; that is, I’m interested in the effectiveness with which the team delivers value more than in the techniques they apply along the way. I have opinions about all the various software development practices, just like everyone else has. I’ve also had the opportunity to observe many teams in action, and to coach teams in improving their effectiveness. One observation I’ve found useful is this: Teams (and individuals) perform best when they are using methods they understand well and that they have chosen for themselves. The outcomes I have observed tend to fall into four levels of performance. From best to worst they are:

  1. Team (or individual) uses "best currently known" practices because they understand the practices and have chosen the practices for themselves.
  2. Team (or individual) uses good practices that may not be "best currently known" but are the best they happen to know at the moment, and they have chosen the practices for themselves.
  3. Team (or individual) uses whatever methods and practices they are told to use, and they don’t particularly care one way or the other about debating the matter.
  4. Team (or individual) is being coerced into using methods and practices they do not wish to use.

Point #4 is critical, in my view. If a programmer does not "believe in" a practice, such as test-driven development, for instance, and management forces him/her to test-drive code, the results will (miraculously?) be poor. Later, he/she will point to the results as evidence that TDD "doesn’t work." Conversely, if a programmer swears by TDD and considers it the best or only way to deliver good software, and management or the team lead requires him/her not to use the practice, the results will (miraculously?) be poor. Later, he/she will point to the results as evidence that TDD is a critical success factor. The binary thinkers will selectively ignore one case or the other and conclude TDD categorically "works" or "doesn’t work," according to their individual beliefs. The same pattern applies to any other practice.

FWIW my advice is:

  1. "It" can neither succeed nor fail. Only people can do those things. "It" is just a tool. People have to learn how to use tools properly. Don’t kid yourself: The first time you use an unfamiliar tool, you will not use it well. That will be true even if you are very, very smart. Take responsibility for your own results. It’s the poor craftsman who blames his tools.
  2. Don’t look for best practices. Instead, find out what the effects of each practice actually are. Then determine whether you want those effects in your work. For example, if a practice is touted to help reduce defects, and you would like fewer defects in your code, then it might be worth your while to try it out.
  3. Adopt a mindset of continual improvement. Keep an open mind about unfamiliar practices. You don’t know everything, even if you have 20 years experience (or 6 months experience repeated 40 times). If you’re doing things the same way today as you did last year on this date, then you haven’t learned anything in the past year.
  4. If some people extol a practice while others vilify it, find out what actually happened in each case so you will be equipped to make an informed judgment. The reasons for their results are unlikely to be as simple as "it works" or "it doesn’t work."
  5. It’s quicker to try things for yourself than to learn about effective practices by reading studies. Studies are general; experimentation in context will provide practical insights you can use.
  6. Nothing prevents you from trying a practice you want to check out. You’re a professional; control your own work.
  7. Nothing prevents you from discontinuing a practice you’ve decided you don’t want to use. You’re a professional; control your own work.
  8. Be happy. You don’t have to be hyper-productive. Your company probably wouldn’t be able to keep up with you if you were, anyway. If you are satisfied with the way you are presently working, there is no problem to solve.

From → Uncategorized

  1. Jon Evans permalink

    Out of curiosity, where did you get the idea that I was strongly pro- or anti- anything?

    • Hello Jon,

      I saw your question just before I left for work this morning, and I spent the drive mulling it over. The more I thought about it, the more interesting I found the question.

      I’d like to respond on two levels. First, on the individual, narrowly-focused level which I think is what you’re asking about. Then I’d like to explore the question of how any of us can really know which methods or techniques another practitioner considers useful.

      The short answer to the narrower question is that I got the idea directly from this article: The piece contains a number of invalid assertions about how pair programming is implemented, about the effects of an open-plan work space, about the nature of creativity, and so forth. These statements cannot come from a person who has used pair programming implemented on a real team and taken the time to learn how to apply the technique well. They are the sort of statements that often come from people who are looking at the practice "from the outside" and trying to make sense of it by reading articles and studies (which may, in turn, have been written by others who are looking at the practice "from the outside" and trying…wait; hall of mirrors).

      On the other hand, I did notice this bit: "what works best is a dynamic combination of solitary, pair, and group work, depending on the context, using your best judgement." Yes, of course. Really nice sentence, too. I can’t match that level of professional writing. Kudos. But how good is your best judgment if it’s based on all those misconceptions? The answer to that question is in the post: It can be no better than the second level of performance in the list of four. The general tenor of the piece, then, still seems anti- on the merits. The "best judgment" bit feels like sleight of hand to make the negatives appear objective. I could be wrong, but, you know, some people do that sort of thing, and readers have to be careful. I could change my mind on further reflection. For the moment, the piece does seem to be an argument against pair programming, on balance. Sorry.

      In view of the broader interpretation of the question, I can only guess that you might be pro- or anti- anything, based on your writing. To know whether you’re pro- or anti- anything, I would have to work with you on a real project; something that had time constraints and real stakes, and not something that was in the nature of an experiment. In that setting, the things you actually do reflect the things about which you are pro-, because those are the things you depend on to see you through when the going gets tough. Those are the conditions under which theory doesn’t matter, and research papers serve no purpose except maybe to level a table. But that’s a subject for a separate post. Thanks for the inspiration!


      • Jon Evans permalink

        (rolls eyes, long and loud) Ah, yes, obviously any viewpoint which is not your own must be based on “invalid assertions” which “cannot come from a person who [knows what they're doing.]” How could anyone possibly question your infallible wisdom?

  2. Yes, it’s astonishing, isn’t it? ;-)

    BTW, how do you roll your eyes loud?

    Here’s an example of an assertion from your article that’s objectively wrong, and nothing to do with my (or anyone’s) “viewpoint”:

    “Solitude seems to be essential for creativity: but paired programmers have no on-the-job solitude, ever.”

    Kidding aside, this is the sort of thing I meant. It’s just not credible that a person who has used pair programming in a serious way with an experienced team would say that. The “solitude” part is okay, but the “never” part is inconsistent with real-world applications of the practice. It seems like something a person might say if he had read about pair programming and was trying to visualize what it might be like, but had never seen it in use.

    And it is pure binary thinking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers

%d bloggers like this: