Skip to main content

New and Shiny Things

There is risk with upgrading anything, be it language, framework, library, OS or third parties.

In the past I was rather gung-ho about upgrading. New version out? We need it. In fact, this need is often a want. The new version often seems better. Developers seem addicted to the latest and greatest.

One of the best, but also one of the worst problems with software development is weekly there is something new to use or try. Keeping pace is impossible.

Internet Echo Chamber Effect

If you look at a news article on the release of something, you feel as if you are the only person not using it. Everyone is is using it, we need to as well.

In fact this is quite the opposite case. A site about the latest web framework will seem as if everyone is using the framework apart from yourself. This is known as the Internet Echo Chamber Effect.

Wait for a Patch

Wise advice I received and saw others follow was the minor or patch adoption. If version 2 comes out, wait for 2.1. Let others find the issues and wait for the version to stabilize. If you really must use version 2, use it in a low risk way. Personal projects or in house solutions make sense. You can keep pace but reduce risk in this manner.

Boring but Stable

Another approach is to take widely used, stable solutions. Avoiding anything new or cutting edge except for personal projects or internal projects.

If your job is to write software to sell widgets, focus solely on that, what you use behind the scenes really doesn't matter. As long as you can delivery value and aid the sale of widgets you're on track for success.

A similar alternative is to use boring solutions for anything that has high risk. While using newer, more exciting solutions for low risk projects. Again risk is managed and reduced. If the new, cutting edge solution becomes the norm, eventually you can adopt this in the future.

A younger, less experienced self would not find this advice at all appealing. After all if the tests pass why can't you upgrade to the latest and greatest? The main issue is risk, which will be the subject of a future post. Every single change, be it a single line of code has risk.

The one exception to this advice is security concerns. If a security release is available you should aim to upgrade as soon as possible. Usually such releases form minor releases, meaning risk is low and matches the delayed upgrade path above.


  • Any change has risk.
  • Reduce risk when handling new technology.
  • Either use stable versions or boring solutions.
  • Play and test new technology on the side, in low risk scenarios.
  • What technology you use to build something actually doesn't matter in most cases.


Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…