All software has a life span – same as humans. In general a software’s life is much shorter – how much software is actually in use 10 years after it was written? – but it follows a similar pattern. In the childhood years it is nurtured and cared for, and grows relatively quickly, and is the proud achievement of its creators. Then for a while it stands on its own, though still receiving regular attention, getting minor improvements made, and generally being kept healthy. Slowly though it falls into a state of disrepair, it may have lost some of its former gloss, and parts may have fallen into disuse. Finally it is decommissioned, replaced with a newer solution.
My belief is that once software gets past middle aged there is no way back. It has become legacy code and the chances of restoring it to a healthy state are minimal. Unfortunately, some code transitions to legacy very quickly (often before it has even made it to production). Code transitions to this legacy state for a number of reasons:
- The software is written in an obsolete language / framework which very few good developers would want to work in (good developers choose the new technologies), resulting in C level developers maintaining the system.
- The language / framework is fine, but the architecture is brittle. Few good developers want to polish turds, resulting in C level developers maintaining the system.
- The architecture and language are fine but there are no automated builds, deployments, tests, comments, or documents explaining what it does. Good developers will work on this software, but prefer to work on new software, resulting in level C developers maintaining the system.
- The architecture and language and automation are fine, but the application is large and complex making it difficult to extend without a lot of investigation. Good developers will work on this software, but prefer to work on new software, resulting in level C developers maintaining the system.
- There are no good developers in your team because you have no new project work, resulting in C level developers maintaining the system. These developers have worked on the software for long enough to leave it in worse shape than they started. The slippery slope…
- The software was written entirely by C level developers in the first place. It is a tangled ball of mud and is legacy before it has even gone live.
- Software is considered ‘complete’ by the business rather than being reviewed regularly for improvements. Eventually, the business finds that the system cannot be modified efficiently and accurately enough to support their changing processes
We (development teams) need to address these issues. Let’s look at them one by one:
- Ensuring modern languages and frameworks are used is relatively easy, though we need to invest more time in planning upgrade paths for software – the progression of .Net Frameworks has been fairly straightforward migration (except for 1.0 to 1.1 in the very early days). Almost all modern languages share a common DNA and many frameworks are available in different flavours.
- A clean architecture and understandable design is basic coding practice, but all too often solutions are plain hacky. Using NDepend and similar code design inspection tools can help assess existing architectures, but really all that is required is some smart thinking and regular code reviews for compliance.
- All modern apps should be built using TDD / BDD, CI, with high code coverage and appropriate levels of commenting and documentation. Integrated wikis for both users and tech staff should be mandatory.
- Modern apps are complex, but we often make them more so by coupling the internals of the app needlessly. Designing apps as composites of services can decouple the component parts leaving each one more understandable to the developers charged with maintaining them, and more easily modified individually.
- Hire better developers – or at least only use C-level developers on project work with good developers.
- See above
- Create a culture of continuous improvement – state in every meeting you have with the business ‘Good Software is never complete’ – there will always be a way to effectively and efficiently extend it to bring more benefits to the business. This is not a negative statement ‘you’ll never see the end of this project’, it’s a positive statement ‘this software will be a long term partner for the business and will grow and evolve in ways we can’t even imagine right now’