(This is part two in a series I have titled “Soft Skills in Software”, which came out of points I came up with for a panel discussion at CodeMash 2008.)

When introducing change in a technology practice, you can save yourself some frustration by being aware of the “sales cycle” for new ideas within your group and maintaining a perspective that always bears the long-term in mind.

As technologists, we often have great enthusiasm for new ideas that we perceive to hold value in terms of their (potential) positive effects on our work. The value is so apparent to us that we often see no reason not to put this new idea to work right away. However, the speed with which a new idea can be adopted is affected by a number of factors. Let’s start with these:

• The organization’s general disposition toward change
• The change agent’s standing as a thought leader within the technology practice
• The resultant impact of adopting the idea in question
• The temporal context in which the new idea is introduced

Depending up on the value of each of those variables (and more), the length of time it takes for a change to be adopted can be anywhere from a few weeks to months to years — or a special category I have, “not for the foreseeable future”. I use that category instead of “never”, because there have been times when I thought there was no way a given thing would ever happen, and suddenly a merger or regime change or some other major external change suddenly opened the door for the previously-infeasible.

I use the term “sales cycle” because it was in a previous career of mine where I first learned this lesson. I used to sell industrial packaging and marking systems, and when I first started, I was greatly frustrated at the seemingly low number of sales that I would close. I would follow up with some clients to the point of irritating them, convinced that “something should have happened by now”. I eventually learned that the different types of systems that I sold had different sales cycles. Because of a given system’s cost and the role it played in the manufacturing process at large, there was a minimum amount of time it took to get approval, move through a cusotmer’s procurement process, and finally issue me a purchase order. Some systems took 4-6 weeks to sell, while others were 6, 12, and even 24 months. In general, the longer the sales cycle, the bigger the sale. Once I understood this, I found myself far less frustrated, and there were fewer of those awkward interactions between my customers and I.

Introducing new ideas to your development group is quite similar. There is a direct relationship between the level of change and the time it takes for a team to agree and then adopt the idea. I have witnessed more than a few programmers who had good ideas that they presented and expected everyone to just approve right away. Their frustration with what they perceived as stalling and/or rejection typically resulted in undesireable outcomes. Even the most-valued technical person is only indulged a few temper tantrums before being labeled as “damaged goods”. Recovery from this sort of thing within an organization is discouragingly rare. The person is usually avoided in discussions about strategic direction, and their ideas are usually dismissed or stifled. In general, if letting person Y talk about changes has resulted in discomfort in the past, the typical solution is to just not let that person talk about changes. It’s warped, dysfunctional, and counterproductive, but that’s mainstream corporate culture for you.

One area where technical change differs from sales is the possibility of incremental change. It’s not always possible to sell only a piece of a large system; changes in software development, on the other hand, are well-suited to incremental change. Being able to adjust one’s expectation from demanding a single big win to being content with a series of methodical, steady, small victories is a valuable skill in software. For some big changes, that can be the only way to introduce them. For example, a company may not be open to switching to Agile Software Development overnight, but having daily stand-up meetings and developing in 2-week iterations certainly seems benign enough.

Having said all that, there have been times where something with a 12 or 24-month sales cycle was adopted immediately for me. Urgency, crisis, severe failure with the current situation, any number of things can result in exceptions to the rule. The art is knowing when to spot these factors and acting appropriately to leverage them. If I could sum all that up in a blog post, I’d probably be in a different line of work ;-).

My post about a Python web frameworks OpenSpace convened at CodeMash drew a bit of attention, and looking over it again, I can see how it can send messages I did not intend. In order to break my trend of sitting on posts for weeks and months, I pushed myself to get this one out even though I wanted to finesse it more. The main person who could have taken this the wrong way would be Mark Ramm, who convened the talk and is also currently heading up my favorite Python web framework.

Instead of launching some missive or flaming the comments of my post, Mark took the time to further explain the situation for TurboGears both past and future. He even apologized if he may have unintentionally spoken ill of the JVM (which he did not). Mind you, I am no defender of the JVM, but I can see how I might seem like it from that post. Mark also sent an email which explained some of the discussion items and after hearing that, I was far less concerned about where things are heading with that project.

I have known Mark for about a year now. We have had dinner together and shared many funny stories (he has many, should you ever have occasion to hear them). I consider him a friend, and his reaction to that post is an example of what I have come to enjoy about the Python community. After reading Zed Shaw’s “Rails is a Ghetto” tonight, I am even more thankful for it. Man, even if you filter through the bile and profanity, it still sounds like this dude received some rough treatment for trying to do the right thing at times. And if some of it is true, then I need to rethink some of the folks whose work I endorse.

One OpenSpace topic convened at CodeMash was “Python Web Frameworks”. TurboGears seemed to be the most-represented citizen of the Python web world, but some asserted that they use Django. I had skipped Brian Goetz’s “Java Performance Myths” talk in favor of this, even though I am sure that would have given me more ammo to smack down the crusty turds in the Java world who are always denigrating the work of others for its lack of their arcane incantations that are allegedly “critical to performance”. I have to say I was pretty dismayed after attending the OpenSpace, but maybe that’s not a loss after all. Perhaps my Python web enthusiasm was due to be curbed. Also, maybe I shouldn’t let those crusty Java turds get to me so much, even if I do feel they are a key agent in keeping the Java community from being more inviting.

Coming away from the discussion, my impression is that the Python web framework community is perfectly content with the dilution of effort and momentum that is caused by the proliferation of web frameworks. We talked about the number of projects out there, laughed a little, and then folks seemed to be ready to move on. One participant fortunately asked the question “How are TurboGears and Django different, because they look the same to me?” That’s a paraphrase, but the gist of his whole question was, as the two leading Python frameworks, how are these two serving different needs, and if they’re not, why are there two? What followed was some dialog that choice was good, the usual stuff you’ll hear in Open Source discussions about duplication and fragmentation of effort.

I followed up on his question commenting that the degree of fragmentation has seriously hurt the credibility and perceived viability of Python web frameworks in larger shops that are entertaining dynamic web frameworks as possible alternatives to doing everything in Java or .Net. I added that the proliferation of choices in Python has really only served to dilute the attention and effort for those that are emerging as the leading ones. I also shared that those outside the Python community are perceiving its web offerings as momentary fascinations of the brilliant, yet quirky enthusiasts upon which nothing long-term should be based. This didn’t seem to be well-received by the group, but I may be wrong. I think most folks present may have been up for a Python love feast instead of some serious introspection on where we are and how we got here.

Another thing we had was Python fans without significant Java experience continually emitting FUD about the JVM, which blows my mind. I have been following Python pretty closely for over a year now, and the amount of ignorance about Java in the Python community still surprises me. The lack of hands-on experience with Java does not seem to deter the constant, half-formulated criticisms of it. Some even seemed to be implying that Python’s threading situation was better off than Java. The platform of Java quite frankly kicks the hell out of most all others in that arena; this is widely-known.

There is an unsettling meme that seems to be running through the Python web framework community of “doing what’s cool”, which is unsettling. Cool and pragmatic seldom keep close company. One of the most heartening things about Rails 2.0 has been the steps taken to pay down technical debt and bolster the soundness of the framework. Hearing that TurboGears is pursuing X because Django has it and that’s cool disturbs me. “Cooler than Y” doesn’t get me a framework I am comfortable building upon; robust and reasonably-documented does.

I viewed the merged effort with the Pylons project very positively when I learned of it. Collaboration and true sharing are all-too-absent in F/OSS these days. However, the more I learn about the culture and mantra of Pylons, the more I am inclined to think it may have been an ungainly partnership. I am wondering if TurboGears’ original “compose a mega-framework of best-of-breed” may have subtly morphed its perception of best-of-breed to be “coolest”. And cool, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

The need for a degree of stability in a web framework is not unlike the dilemma faced by technical authors and producers. Something I have heard from multiple technical writers is that one must resist the temptation to be forever revising the work in hopes of keeping pace with the changes occurring in the technology being covered. In software that rate of evolution is such that it is a Sisyphean undertaking. One must pick a point of time and stick to it. The hope is that said point is an acceptable level of stability so that the book is not useless weeks after it hits the shelves. (This begs the question of whether or not many technical books in print today should not have been published, but that’s a separate topic.)

My chief concern for TurboGears is that the apparent direction toward “cool” is in direct conflict with the need for stability and documentation. The quality of Open Source projects these days is such that few will tolerate a poorly-documented project that poses an unnecessary learning curve primarily brought on by the need to figure things out for yourself. Unless the documentation is shored up and the rate of significant component change slows, I think TurboGears will be challenged to gain more traction in the wider web framework world.

The reason I am even bothering to write about this is that I care about the TurboGears project. I chose it for my framework to explore at Bruce’s Dynamic Web Frameworks Jam, and was blown away by how much had been accomplished in so little time with the project. It had things I have been wanting for years in Java web development, and the learning curve was so low that I found myself running ahead of my own understanding of Python at times. The DRY-ness of TurboGears is another strong draw for me. Implementing your own components when superior, highly-tested ones exist is just silly these days, unless considerable mitigating factors are present. While I think it holds lots of promise, I can’t say that I am comfortable basing any significant projects on TurboGears right now.

So tomorrow I fly out to Cleveland for the 1-hour ride to Sandusky, Ohio for CodeMash. The first CodeMash ever took place last year, and I was very glad to have been a part of it. I had intended to submit proposed talks for this year, but alas my schedule was already a bit full and I honestly lacked the energy to put together the topics I would have wanted to present. I cannot wait to be there, several of my colleagues from Bruce Eckel’s OpenSpace conferences will be attending.

One benefit of being an independent consultant is that I am able to choose the conferences I attend without having to justify it to some management or department head. Most of the things I choose to attend would probably not be approved by an organization that insists on being able to directly relate the entirety of a conference’s content of focus to the attendee’s daily tasks. Still, there are numerous conferences throughout the year that appeal to me, and I can only afford to be unbillable for a certain number of weeks out of the year. CodeMash makes my shortlist, and here are a few reasons:

• CodeMash is a multi-language conference. There’s a breadth of exposure and a cross-pollenation of ideas that are simply not available at single-language events.
• The attendees drawn to such events are typically more open-minded about software development approaches and the fact that there is no “one way” or “one language” for anything.
• The speakers drawn to this type of conference tend to have a perspective that is broader and more in touch with software development realities than insisting on foisting some delusional monocultural vision for their language/platform/tool of choice.
• There’s a strong OpenSpace element to CodeMash, and I have experienced first-hand how amazing and energizing it can be.

So, that is why I am going to CodeMash. Looking forward to sharing my experience with my readers, all three of them.

Ever hear the parable of the prodigal son? If you have had any length of exposure to the Christian New Testament, the answer is probably yes. It’s this one parable Jesus shared, captured in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 15, verses 11-32. A depressingly large contingent of the Java™ community shares some annoying similarities to that prodigal son.

The parable is actually about two sons, not just the one who ran off with his share of the inheritance and blew it. There’s also an older son, who was always a good worker and didn’t run off. When you hear someone speak about this parable they usually point out how he’s bitter that the family celebrates when the kid who blew half of everything finally returns home, and that you shouldn’t be that way, et cetera.

A friend of mine once pointed out to me this subtlety; only the father comes out to speak with the older son. The younger son, who has just received this abundantly merciful treatment by the father, makes no gesture to come out and reconcile with the older son. He has quickly forgotten what it was like to be the alienated one. My friend John called that the “prodigal son syndrome”; I think of it often when I listen to and/or read reactions of Java ™ programmers to…just about anything other than Java™.

For those in the “Java™ will never cease to flourish” camp, recall some of the scoffing you experienced back in the early period of Java™’s adoption, the jeers from the C++, C, and maybe even COBOL camp, depending upon the nature of the shop you were in. Now, take those scoffs and perform a search-and-replace:

s/Java™/{Ruby,Rails,Python,etc.}/ && s/{C,C++,COBOL}/Java™/.

Listen to yourself when you respond to topics like Ruby on Rails. The resemblance is unsettling, don’t you think? Why must everything new (or non-Java, really; newness isn’t even a condition most of the time) be rejected out-of-hand as inferior and “a fad”? The unwillingness to acknowledge (much less embrace) the strengths of alternatives to Java™ ironically serve to undermine your puerile assertion that Java™ is the be-all, end-all in programming.

The ardent defensiveness in the Java™ community’s response to Bruce Tate’s Beyond Java™ awhile back is an example of what I am talking about. I’m too busy these days to catalog some of the shining examples from java.net and TheServerSide. But good grief, people, drop it already! And don’t be embittered when you’re overrun by the changes you continually dismiss as inferior to Java ™. There’s an open cubicle down by that grumpy COBOL guy; maybe you two can commiserate.

NOTE: Apologies in advance to the sed crowd for my cruddy syntax above.