Here is a little game: match the manifestos with the software insanities they push back on:
|Big methodology and design up-front||Software craftsmanship manifesto|
|Army of flying monkeys testing||Agile manifesto|
|Snake-oil vendors and ivory tower architecture||QA manifesto|
|Reckless programmers and incompetent coders||SOA manifesto|
(One manifesto I see missing here is the "recruiter manifesto", which should push back on inane keyword-driven head hunting schemes solely able to put the wrong people at the wrong spots)
If we dig deeper, we become tempted to ask why is our industry suffering from such insanities? What does make software different? Could it be because of complexity?
Complexity. Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any other human construct because no two parts are alike (at least above the statement level). If they are, we make the two similar parts into a subroutine--open or closed. In this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers, buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound.Frederick P. Brooks, Jr., No Silver Bullet
The natural reaction to complexity is to try to escape it at all cost, even if it means wilfully practising self-deception. Hence silver bullets, hence snake oil vendors, hence all these methodologies, governance committees and ivory towers that are there to nurse the insecurity of higher levels of management by giving them the impression software creation is under control and, finally, out of the hands of programmers.
Of course, it doesn't work that way: years and millions of dollars later, reality comes knocking at the door, manifestos are getting written and everyone is sent back to the same fundamental question they've been trying so hard to avoid: how to build trust in software developers?
And that's of course a question for us, software developers. How can we build such a trust in us when so many forces are pushing towards the opposite?
Granted that software development is unpredictably complex and that this complexity reveals itself when the devil shows up (those pesky details), it is clear that the overall battle of trust is fought during each decision, when tackling each detail and writing each line of code.
I think we could learn a few lessons from the world of aviation, where trust in pilots has been built progressively and methodically. When you fly an airplane, you have plenty of decisions to make and losing any of these battles can end up very badly for everyone. So why are pilots trusted? Aren't they fully superseded by ATC anyway? Answer is no: even if ATC has authority, the PIC (Pilot In Command) has the last word because he is the one out there dealing with the ultimate reality of flight. Despite its authority, ATC doesn't micro manage the pilot: the pilot is in-command.
To have the privilege to be a PIC, you have to remain current and regularly prove that you can be trusted for your judgement based on your skills, experience and training.
If the acronyms didn't sound so bad, I would dare suggesting programmers should become DICs, ie Developers In Command. Though working under different forms of authority, DICs would be fully trusted for taking the final decisions in the daily battle of writing code. In this world, it wouldn't be an heresy to say that developers could build large and complex software systems from the ground up, without the need for snake oil, committees or big design.
When trust will be manifested, we won't need manifestos anymore.