What, when, and how is your IDE telling you?

A programmers.stackexchange question basically asks if there’s an ideal frequency to compile your code. Surely not,¬†as¬†it completely depends on what kind of work you’re doing and how much focus you need at any given moment; breaking¬†to ask for feedback is not necessarily a good idea if you’re plan¬†is solid and you’re¬†in the zone.

But a related topic is more interesting to me: What’s the ideal form¬†of automated information flow from IDE to programmer?

IDEs can now¬†potentially compile/lint/run static analysis on your code with every keystroke. I’m reminded of that when writing new Java code in NetBeans. “OMG the¬†method you started writing two seconds ago doesn’t have the correct return type!!!” You don’t say. And¬†I’ve used an IDE that dumped a huge distracting¬†compiler message in the middle of the code due to a simple syntax error that I could’ve easily dealt with a bit later. I vaguely remember one where¬†the feedback interfered with my typing!

So on one side of the spectrum the IDE could be needling you, dragging you out of the zone, but you do want to know about real problems at some point.¬†Maybe the ideal notification model is progressive, starting out very subtle then becoming more obvious as time passes or it becomes clear you’re moving away from that line.

Anyone seen any unique work in this area?

Stepping back to the notion of when to stop and see if your program works, I think the trifecta of dependency injection,¬†sufficiently strong typing, and solid¬†IDE static analysis has really made a huge difference in this for me. Assuming my design makes sense, I find the bugs tend to be caught in the IDE so that programs are more solid by the time I get to the slower—and more disruptive to flow—cycle of¬†manual testing. YMMV!

On Frameworks

Building any non-trivial app, one of the toughest decisions to make is which¬†development framework to base your work on. And there’s no way around this decision once you realize¬†there’s no such thing as “not using a framework.”

Even if you’re just binding together 3rd party components, a framework will be born out of any development work, and it will¬†have its own tradeoffs¬†to consider.

  • Will it be documented?
  • Will it be tested?
  • Will it have a community of people working on/within it?
  • Will it have a plugin architecture encouraging code reuse?
  • Will you have access to plugins¬†written by people outside your team?
  • Will configuration be easy/reusable?
  • Will it address code/UX scenarios you hadn’t considered?
  • Will you get free bug fixes/features from outside developers?
  • Will it securely handle password and protection against XSS, CSRF, etc.?
  • Will other developers be able to jump into the project?

Developers, plugins, sub-frameworks, tools, and shops all form an ecosystem around a framework that tends to build value as it grows. A strong ecosystem can make up for product weaknesses; a trip through the Drupal and WordPress codebases will have some seasoned developers shuddering at some architectural choices made (long ago), yet that code runs great due to the work of tons of people over time. And, thanks to the wealth of plugins available, and to the continual transfer of knowledge from one developer to the next, devs who are experienced on those platforms can build impressive systems quickly.

On the flip side, there are properties of mature frameworks that are important to consider:

  • They can be slow to change, which¬†may mean maintaining a separate git branch with your own fixes.
  • They rarely bend to support the use cases of individual sites.
  • They tend to have older code that may¬†be harder to integrate with the latest practices.
  • They can be large;¬†any framework that solves a lot of problems out-of-the-box will be. Microframeworks can be a great choice, but their value tends to be limited to plumbing.

Thankfully the ideal framework needn’t be chosen¬†first.¬†You may be better off prototyping something as quickly as possible—by any means—then rebuilding¬†after¬†the requirements are clearer. The danger is the temptation to ship prototypes as production systems, where they grow to become liabilities over time.