Sometimes the little things aren’t so little

In my last post, I gave myself and all the devs a beating for being passive-aggressive about marketing-driven name and terminology changes.  For not being-with-the-program when the product team wanted to make an itty-bitty change they’re entirely within their right to make.  In thinking back over some of those types of situations, there was really only one good reason for being a dick about that stuff – when we had the old name embedded in the source code of the product itself.

babynamesLet’s say we have a product called BottleRocket.  Well, then we probably have a java package named com.pointyhairedstartup.bottlerocket.  Then let’s say we rename the product to Kite.  Okay, renaming a package is no big deal.  We probably also have a class named BottleRocketMain.java.  Again, renaming a class isn’t a big deal.  But maybe it’s a webapp and we have a war file called BottleRocket.war.  Ooh, that’s a little uglier, because that means we have URLs calling https://pointyhairedstartup.com/BottleRocket.  And the tools for refactoring URLs within a project are not as good as the ones for refactoring class names.  And URLs are also abused – called willy-nilly from wherever someone who wants to call it can jam a hard-coded URL in.  They live in config files or are constructed dynamically in ways that are hard to detect.  And you won’t catch them in the build like a bad class name.  You’ll catch them at run-time, when some sad little user clicks a dynamically constructed URL that has the old name in it.  If you’re lucky, you have tests that exercise the URLs.  If you’re lucky.

So you rename the war file, march with the new URL and alias the old URL to the new one, which adds inexplicable cruft to your web configuration.  Two years from now, the new guy will delete the alias as being nonsensical (WTF is a BottleRocket?) and of course end up breaking something that nobody knows how to debug.

And of course no product is useful without a database, and databases need names so we have a database named BottleRocket.  Hmmm, this is a tough one.  Having a DB with a legacy product name isn’t THAT bad.  But it’s not good either.  But doing a database upgrade is ugly and dangerous, so doing it just for the DB name doesn’t make sense.

Wow says the product guy, this is way more complicated than it looked.  But let’s make it really ugly.  We’ve decided to go full touchy-feely because that’s what marketing is all about and now we refer to our users not as “customers” but “guests”.   Well that’s good for our customers … er guests … but guess what?  We have a table in the DB named “customer”.  And as I said before, database upgrades are ugly and dangerous.  But table names are different than database names.  If you don’t rename that table then engineering will always call users “customers” and they’ll have every right.  At the same time, they’ll have every right to bitch you out about doing a DB upgrade to change a table name.  One of the perks of being a dev – you can look down on product guys because situations like this prove that God does not love them.

It gets worse.  There are probably references to “customer” all over the code, in field prompts, embedded in graphic assets … If you’ve been good about your strings, that refactor is probably safe (unless you’re localized), but the graphics are another problem altogether.  Somebody has to own verifying the assets.  Shitty job.  And remember Mister Product, you’re doing all this work and getting not even one little bit of added functionality.  This drives devs crazy.

I could go on, but you get the idea.  Product guys – rename shit at your own peril.   Devs – protect yourself.  If you use marketing terminology internally in the product then the minute that terminology changes you’re actually going to be worse off than if you’d adopted an abstraction to begin with.  Know going in that terminology will change and abstract stuff right from the get-go.

And if you still end up with an ugly name change, suck it up, do the refactor and march to the new terminology like a good soldier all the way to that Facebook style exit.  And be nice to the product guys.  They make less than you, have to talk to customers and as was pointed out earlier, God does not love them.

Next week: why doing what I said in this post (i.e. abstraction) is a bad idea too.

It’s the little things …

… that make the difference between good/fun and not-so-good/not-so-fun.

Terminology for example. (Oy, here he goes again on the name thing!) There are a fair number of things that have to be named when you’re trying to make something from nothing.  The company, the product, individual projects, components, workflow states and transitions, interfaces, even the term you use to describe customers (guest, client …).  They all have to be named.  And as close readers of this blog know (Hi Mom!) the first name you pick for something usually sucks.  Which means that not only does everything have to be named, it usually also has to be renamed.

When product (and seriously it’s always those guys leading the renaming charge) decides to rename something it takes a while for the terminology to work its way through the org, whether your company is 4 people or 400.  For some things, in some organizations, you never really flush out the old name.  The dual names then become a form of low-level, everyday friction.  C’est la guerre, right?  Well, no, it’s not.

I was forced to think about this by a stark counter-example.  I was sitting in a meeting one day, not paying much attention when I realized that we’d been talking for awhile and all three people from one particular group had nailed the just-changed-yesterday name for the product in question every single time.  The rest of us were all over the map.  It stuck in my head as a data point that probably meant something.

bossPersonally, I was always bad at this and tended to hang on to the old names.  I’m not very good at remembering people’s names so why should it be any different for things?  But when I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t hang on to old names for things because I couldn’t remember the new ones, at least not most of the time.  It was because I thought that renaming things was stupid and I was annoyed and often had “the juice” politically to get away with hanging on to the old name.  Passive aggression at its finest.

Very occasionally I see product people get annoyed by this phenomenon, but I’ve never seen anyone take it seriously.  From the product side of the house I suspect that this inability to make a name-change and have it stick quickly is a low-level irritant that decreases their effectiveness and quality of life, but never rises to the level of “I have to do something about this”.  It’s one of those things that leaves you pissed off but you’re not really sure why.  Well now you know why – you’ve been passively aggressed.

When you’re building a team and trying to get some momentum this is one of the little things you can watch, and use to prevent problems you’d otherwise have to ‘fix’ later, probably by firing someone’s sorry ass.  Somebody who consistently uses old terminology is actually arguing with your right to name things.  He’s saying “you’re not the boss of me”.  Fix him now, or fire him later.

For my part, hereby resolved – the next time I’m leading a crew, this is one of the things I’ll be paying attention to, for myself and for the crew.  Perhaps I’ll make a point of explaining it up-front. Or now that I recognize the root of the issue maybe I’ll just jump on anyone who’s not with the program.  Fair warning.  And to all the product people in my past – my bad.