by February 28, 2001 0 comments

The software industry has been fascinated by the idea of reusable software
components for a long time now. The earliest programmers working in assembler
and FORTRAN dreamed of having universal libraries of functions that could be
used time and again. Three decades later, thanks to the widespread adoption of
object oriented visual programming environments, this vision seems close to
becoming a reality. Has this vision worked? I don’t think so.

There are several problems with designing software with the help of class
libraries, object frameworks, or what you will. I will take up the problems one
at a time.

The continuous learning problem A modern-day development framework can
consist of hundreds of objects, each of which may have a dozen key methods. Many
programmers that I know spend a lot of time just looking up the help files for
the method they need or for information on the way a particular construct works.
One would think that learning how a framework operates would be a one-time
effort, but this is not the case. No sooner have you mastered one facet of the
library that another problem crops up. Add to this the burden of keeping up with
new releases of an existing tool or learning brand new tools and you realize why
continuing education is becoming a way of life.

Badly designed frameworks I have never met the people who design class
libraries or object frameworks but strongly suspect that they have never really
designed application software. No object ever seems to work just the way you
want it. Features are either too simplistic or too cumbersome. One can literally
spend weeks fixing the most trivial of interface problems.

Over-ambitious frameworks Products like Delphi or Visual C++ come with
frameworks that aim at encompassing everything. The theory is that you can use
the foundation classes to design everything from Internet applications to
communications software to sophisticated database applications. Unfortunately,
this flies in the face of having a small, neat, elegant, and orthogonal set of
routines in a component library.

A standards/middleware explosion New standards are being created
virtually by the day. Just keeping track of the acronyms is becoming impossible.
Development tools are struggling to keep pace by supporting every standard that
they can. This leads to a very strange situation–you may have mastered every
core feature in a language such as C++ or Java but will not understand half the
built-in classes because you are unfamiliar with the standard.

Increased programmer apprenticeships A fresh programmer now needs at
least six months with a new tool before he can be counted as a productive member
of the team. There are two implications of this fact: One, you are constantly
paying people to come to the office to learn and, two, a lot of valuable man
hours are lost in the process of mentoring.

Super-specialized resources It used to be that a
programmer was, within limits, a general resource. You could take a person and
assign him to varying projects with the knowledge that he would become
productive pretty soon. This is no longer the case. These days, to get the most
out of a programmer, you have to assign him more and more projects in the same
environment. There are serious repercussions on cost; you may have to hire more
people despite having idle staff because the existing staff has specialized in a
different environment.

Is there a simple way out? I, for one, don’t see much
improvement in the short run. It is only with the due process of time that
development tool vendors will begin to understand the diminishing returns in
providing too many features.

The bottomline Information overload is the single biggest factor that must be
addressed by software development houses today.

Gautama Ahuja, a contributing editor
of PC Quest, runs a turnkey software development company, AHC Infotek, in Delhi

No Comments so far

Jump into a conversation

No Comments Yet!

You can be the one to start a conversation.

<