Suggestions not to make when starting a new programming job

When starting a new programming job, it can be risky to suggest certain things. Others at the company do not know you well enough, and saying the wrong thing will immediately create a bad first impression, branding you as too inexperienced for your role or not a team player. Make one of the following suggestions, and your new job may not even last you a week.

Let's rewrite the codebase for the application in another language.

If you weren't hired as a design consultant or to re-engineer the big-picture, suggesting to rewrite a key application in another language is almost certainly going to get you fired close to immediately.

There can be many good reasons why an existing code base is in a particular language:

• It's a language all the other developers at the company already know.
• It's the only language certain key libraries exist in.
• The language for whatever reason excels at what is being accomplished with it.

In any of these situations, your suggestion is saying to switch to something the existing talent is unfamiliar with, or an admission of not understanding the scope of what is being done. In the former, you've just admitted to not being a team player, in the latter, you've admitted to having too little experience. Further, such a suggestion will indicate you probably are not as experienced with the language as your resume or initial interview seemed to convey, and perhaps you're a liar as well.

Additionally, even if none of the above reasons are valid for the case at hand, no manager wants to delay a project to rewrite everything. Furthermore, rewrites are nearly every manager's nightmare, as they fear new bugs being introduced. All this combined, expect little job security when making such a suggestion early on.

If you're tasked from the get go with fixing some small script, you can probably get away with changing the language - if you get approval first. But ask about it in a way where it is clear you are concerned what is best for maintaining it by others in the future, not as what is easiest for you and shows indifference to the company's needs.

This applies to any sizable rewrite in general. Few will care about rewriting some small script or component. But offering up front when no one knows you to rewrite a large project, even in the same language, is just asking for trouble. Sizable rewrites normally aren't done unless there's a team in place that are already known to be able to work together, and can do so reasonably quickly and with relatively few bugs in the process.

Let's switch to another version control system.

You may find yourself on your first day having to use a version control system you are unfamiliar with. Do not blurt out that you'd prefer an alternate system. Doing so is tantamount to demanding the rest of the company cater to your familiarity or preferences, instead of you trying to conform with the rest of the company.

Existing version control systems may also be entrenched into much of the existing infrastructure and work-flows. There can be many scripts in place that were written long ago and only work with the particular version control system in use. The entire business may even depend on these scripts for managing all deployments or builds. If so, you just asked to flush the entire company down the drain.

I've had the recent displeasure of hiring a short-lived employee who demanded and fought for us to switch to Github from his second day at work, before even learning about what our needs were and if Github was or wasn't a good fit. Github may be terrific for working with Git for an open source project, but it's not necessarily a good fit for proprietary projects. Github for private repositories costs money, and even if it were free, you don't necessarily want to share your code with a third party when you are quite capable of locally hosting Git repositories and tools. It was pretty clear from this employee's passionate backing of Github that he had little idea of what our source code hosting objectives were, too inexperienced to realize there are considerations other than the features Github offers, and his passion revealed he wasn't going to be a team player. He was let go fairly quickly.

Let's move everything to another hosting provider such as Amazon Web Services.

Amazon's web services provide a continuously growing offering of all kinds of web services to run your business. It is getting quite popular due to being a one-stop-shop for many kinds of businesses, and offering very low prices for various use-cases. Amazon also provides elaborate APIs for developers to make use of in order to manage their services and maintain interesting software. Similar kinds of hosting services are showing up from Microsoft, Google, and others as well.

Some developers who have experience with these services want everything hosted there due to their existing experience or ease they know they can get certain tasks accomplished with them. But that doesn't mean these services are necessarily right for a business.

These services, such as AWS, bill according to every kind of individual usage they can meter. Their costs are very low and highly competitive for minimal usage. However, once you get into large amounts of usage, competing services from smaller companies which offer flat rates may be more cost effective. Some business will also choose a flat rate service over AWS and those like them, because with those metered services, pricing is unpredictable. One doesn't necessarily know up front how much usage will be occurring, and that can make it difficult to work out a budget or be profitable with certain pricing models for applications built upon these services. These businesses will choose a flat rate model even if AWS or others like them are cheaper, simply because there are no surprises later.

Whatever existing service is in use may also be entrenched for a variety of reasons. So before making a suggestion which may show you have zero business sense, or disregard for how things are currently running, get an understanding of what is presently being used and what the pros and cons of a switch are. There can be very good reasons why some hosting company's service is not already in use by the company before you arrived at your new job.

Let's switch the servers to a different Operating System, Application Server, or Database System.

For many of the same reasons described by previous statements, such a suggestion is revealing inexperience, incompetence, or a demand for everyone else to revolve around you. Various OSs, servers, or DB systems are better geared towards working in certain areas. Demanding a change will make people think you don't understand why something is being used. Even if you are correct that something else is better, the existing system is probably entrenched, or the existing talent can't work with anything else. Such demands only show you have little business sense, or can't be a team player. Unless you're specifically asked for an opinion in these matters, don't offer one!

Conclusion

Nobody likes change. Change is hard. Change may even be a very bad idea. Change can fail. Others may be unable to adapt to change.

Before suggesting changes like those above or similar things, really understand why something is being used, and what others are able to deal with. If you can't work out the pros and cons or understand what the impact of a change is going to be, nobody wants your opinion. If you're a new and lowly employee on the corporate ladder, it is best to keep your mouth shut.

If you feel strongly a change is needed, this is usually an indication you are inexperienced or cannot be a team player. Experienced programmers will find a way to do almost anything with anything, they aren't locked into a single tool to solve a problem. If you've been somewhere a while, and your colleagues respect you, then approach these things very carefully. Ensure your proposal is in the spirit of being a team player and in the company's best interest. Otherwise, prepare for a pink slip.

If you're a manager, it may be useful to note that all these above kinds of statements, if made early on, are symptomatic of programmers who are incompetent. Probably best to fire them immediately and not waste resources on them that can be better spent training their replacement.

Progression and Regression of Desktop User Interfaces

As this Gregorian year comes to a close, with various new interfaces out now, and some new ones on the horizon, I decided to recap my personal experiences with user interfaces on the desktop, and see what the future will bring.

When I was younger, there were a few desktop environments floating around, and I've seen a couple of them at school or a friend's house. But the first one I had on my own personal computer, and really played around with was Windows 3.

Windows 3 came with something called Program Manager. Here's what it looked like:




The basic idea was that you had a "start screen", where you had your various applications grouped by their general category. Within each of these "groups", you had shortcuts to the specific applications. Now certain apps like a calculator you only used in a small window, but most serious apps were only used maximized. If you wanted to switch to another running app, you either pressed the alt+tab keyboard shortcut to cycle through them, or you minimized everything, where you then saw a screen listing all the currently running applications.

Microsoft also shipped a very nice file manager, known as "File Manager", which alone made it useful to use Windows. It was rather primitive though, and various companies released various add-ons for it to greatly enhance its abilities. I particularly loved Wiz File Manager Pro.



Various companies also made add-ons for Program Manager, such as to allow nested groups, or shortcuts directly on the main screen outside of a group, or the ability to change the icons of selected groups. Microsoft would've probably built some of these add-ons in if it continued development of Program Manager.

Now not everyone used Windows all the time back then, but only selectively started it up when they wanted something from it. I personally did everything in DOS unless I wanted to use a particular Windows app, such as file management or painting, or copying and pasting stuff around. Using Windows all the time could be annoying as it slowed down some DOS apps, or made some of them not start at all due to lack of memory and other issues.

In the summer of 1995, Microsoft released Windows 4 to the world. It came bundled with MS-DOS 7, and provided a whole new user experience.


Now the back-most window, the "desktop", no longer contained a list of the running programs (in explorer.exe mode), but rather you could put your own shortcuts and groups and groups of groups there. Rather running programs would appear at the bottom of the screen in a "taskbar". The taskbar now also contained a clock, and a "start menu", to launch applications. Some always running applications which were meant to be background tasks appeared as a tiny icon next to the clock in an area known as a "tray".

This was a major step forward in usability. Now, no matter which application you were currently using, you could see all the ones that were currently running on the edge of your screen. You could also easily click on one of them to switch to it. You didn't need to minimize all to see them anymore. Thanks to the start menu, you could also easily launch all your existing programs without needing to minimize all back down to Program Manager. The clock always being visible was also a nice touch.

Now when this came out, I could appreciate these improvements, but at the same time, I also hated it. A lot of us were using 640x480 resolutions on 14" screens back then. Having something steal screen space was extremely annoying. Also with how little memory systems had back at the time (4 or 8 MB of RAM), you generally weren't running more than 2 or 3 applications at a time and could not really appreciate the benefits of having an always present taskbar. Some people played with taskbar auto-hide because of this.

The start menu was also a tad ridiculous. Lots of clicks were needed to get anywhere. The default appearance also had too many useless things on it.

Did anyone actually use help? Did most people launch things from documents? Microsoft released a nice collection of utilities called "PowerToys" which contained "TweakUI" which you could use to make things work closer to how you want.

The default group programs installed to within the start menu was quite messy though. Software installers would not organize their shortcuts into the groups that Windows came with, but each installed their apps into their own unique group. Having 50 submenus pop out was rather unwieldy, and I personally organized each app after I installed it. Grouping into "System Tools", "Games", "Internet Related Applications", and so on. It was annoying to manually do all this though, as when removing an app, you had to remove its group manually. On upgrades, one would also have to readjust things each time too.

Windows 4 also came with the well known Windows Explorer file manager to replace the older one. It was across the board better than the vanilla version of File Manager that shipped with Windows 3.

I personally started dual booting MS-DOS 6.22 + Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and Windows 95 (and later tri-booted with OS/2 Warp). Basically I used DOS and Windows for pretty much everything, and Windows 95 for those apps that required it. Although I managed to get most apps to work with Windows 3 using Win32s.

As I got a larger screen and more RAM though, I finally started to appreciate what Windows 4 offered, and started to use it almost exclusively. I still exited Windows into DOS 7 though for games that needed to use more RAM, or ran quicker that way on our dinky processors from back then.

Then Windows 4.10 / Internet Explorer 4 came out which offered a couple of improvements. First was "quick launch" which allowed you to put shortcuts directly on your taskbar. You could also make more than one taskbar and put all your shortcuts on it. I personally loved this feature, I put one taskbar on top of my screen, and loaded it with shortcuts to all my common applications, and had one on the bottom for classical use. Now I only had to dive into the start menu for applications I rarely used.

It also offered a feature called "active desktop" which made the background of the desktop not just an image, but a web page. I initially loved the feature, as I edited my own page, and stuck in an input line which I would use to launch a web browser to my favorite search engine at the time (which changed monthly) with my text already searched for. After a while active desktop got annoying though, as every time IE crashed, it disabled it, and you had to deal with extra error messages, and go turn it on manually.

By default this new version also made every Windows Explorer window have this huge sidebar stealing your precious screen space. Thankfully though, you could turn it off.

All in all though, as our CPUs got faster, RAM became cheaper, and large screens more available, this interface was simply fantastic. I stopped booting into other OSs, or exiting Windows itself.

Then Windows 5 came out for consumers, and UI wise, there weren't really any significant changes. The default look used these oversized bars and buttons on each window, but one could easily turn that off. The start menu got a bit of a rearrangement to now feature your most used programs up front, and various actions got pushed off to the side. Since I already put my most used programs on my quick launch on top, this start menu was a complete waste of space. Thankfully, it could also be turned off. I still kept using Windows 98 though, as I didn't see any need for this new Windows XP, and it was just a memory hog in comparison at the time.

What was more interesting to me however was that at work, all our machines ran Linux with GNOME and KDE. When I first started working there, they made me take a course on how to use Emacs, as every programmer needs a text editor. I was greatly annoyed by the thing however, where was my shift highlight with shift+delete and shift+insert or ctrl+x and ctrl+v cut and paste? Thankfully though I soon found gedit and kedit which was like edit/notepad/wordpad but for Linux.

Now I personally don't use a lot of windowsy type software often. My primary usage of a desktop consists of using a text editor, calculator, file manager, console/terminal/prompt, hex editor, paint, cd/dvd burner, and web browser. Only rarely do I launch anything else. Perhaps a PDF, CHM, or DJVU reader when I need to read something.

After using Linux with GNOME/KDE at work for a while, I started to bring more of my work home with me and wanted these things installed on my own personal computer. So dual booting Windows 98 + Linux was the way to go. I started trying to tweak my desktop a bit, and found that KDE was way more capable than GNOME, as were most of their similar apps that I was using. KDE basically offered me everything that I loved about Windows 98, but on steroids. KWrite/KATE was notepad/wordpad but on steroids. The syntax highlighting was absolutely superb. KCalc was a fine calc.exe replacement. Konqueror made Windows Explorer seem like a joke in comparison.

Konqueror offered network transparency, thumbnails of everything rather quickly, even of text files (no pesky thumbs.db either!). An info list view which was downright amazing:
This is a must have feature here. Too often are documents distributed under meaningless file names. With this, and many other small features, nothing else I've seen has even come close to Konqueror in terms of file management.

Konsole was just like my handy DOS Prompt, except with tab support, and better maximizing, and copy and paste support. KHexEdit was simply better than anything I had for free on Windows. KolourPaint is mspaint.exe with support for way more image formats. K3b was also head and shoulders above Easy CD Creator or Nero Burning ROM. For Web Browsers, I was already using Mozilla anyway on Windows, and had the same option on Linux too.

For the basic UI, not only did KDE have everything I liked about Windows, it came with an organized start menu. Which also popped out directly, instead from a "programs" submenu.

The taskbar was also enhanced that I could stick various applets on it. I could stick volume control directly on it. Not a button which popped out a slider, the sliders themselves could appear on the taskbar. Now for example, I could easily adjust my microphone volume directly, without popping up or clicking on anything extra. There was an eyedropper which you could just push to find out the HTML color of anything appearing on the screen - great for web developers. Another thing which I absolutely love, I can see all my removable devices listed directly on my taskbar. If I have a disk in my drive, I see an icon for that drive appearing directly on my taskbar, and I can browse it, burn to it, eject it, whatever. With this, everything I need is basically at my finger tips.

Before long I found myself using Linux/KDE all the time. On newer machines I started to dual boot Windows XP with Linux/KDE, so I could play the occasional Windows game when I wanted to, but for real work, I'd be using Linux.

Then KDE 4 comes out, and basically half the stuff I loved about KDE was removed. No longer is it Windows on steroids. Now KDE 4.0 was not intended for public consumption. Somehow all the distros except for Debian seemed to miss that. Everyone wants to blame KDE for miscommunicating this, but it's quite clear 4.0 was only for developers if you watched the KDE 4 release videos. Any responsible package maintainer with a brain in their skull should've also realized that 4.0 was not ready for prime time. Yet it seems the people managing most distros are idiots that just need the "latest" version of everything, ignoring if it's better or not, or even stable.

At the time, all these users were upset, and all started switching to GNOME. I don't know why anyone who truly loved the power KDE gave you would do that. If KDE 3 > GNOME 2 > KDE 4, why did people migrate to GNOME 2 when they could just not "upgrade" from KDE 3? It seems to me that people never really appreciated what KDE offers in the first place if they bothered moving to GNOME instead of keeping what was awesome.

Nowadays people tell me that KDE 4 has feature parity with KDE 3, but I have no idea what they're talking about. The Konqueror info list feature that I described above still doesn't seem to exist in KDE 4. You can no longer have applets directly on your taskbar. Now I have to click a button to pop up a list of my devices, and only then can I do something with them. No way to quickly glance to see what is currently plugged in. Konsole's tabs now stretch to the full width of your screen for some pointless reason. If you want to switch between tabs with your mouse, prepare for carpal tunnel syndrome. Who thought that icons should grow if they can? It's exactly like those idiotic theoretical professors who spout that CPU usage must be maximized at all times, and therefore use algorithms that schedule things for maximum power draw, despite that in normal cases performance does not improve by using these algorithms. I'd rather pack in more data if possible, having multiple columns of information instead of just huge icons.

KHexEdit has also been completely destroyed. No longer is the column count locked to hex (16). I can't imagine anyone who seriously uses a hex editor designed the new version. For some reason, KDE now also has to act like your mouse only has one button, and right click context menus vanished from all over the place. It's like the entire KDE development team got invaded by Mac and GNOME users who are too stupid to deal with anything other than a big button in the middle of the screen.

Over in the Windows world. Windows 6 (with 6.1 comically being consumerized as "Windows 7") came out with a bit of a revamp. The new start menu seems to fail basic quality assurance tests for anything other than default settings. Try to set things to offer a classic start menu, this is what you get:


If you use extra large icons for your grandparents, you also find that half of the Control Panel is now inaccessible. Ever since Bill Gates left, it seems Windows is going down the drain.

But hardly are problems solely for KDE and Windows, GNOME 3 is also a major step back according to what most people tell me. Many of these users are now migrating to XFCE. If you like GNOME 2, why are you migrating to something else for? And what is it with people trying to fix what isn't broken? If you want to offer an alternate interface, great, but why break or remove the one you already have?

Now a new version of Windows is coming out with a new interface being called "Metro". They should really be calling it "Retro". It's Windows 3 Program Manager with a bunch of those third party add-ons, with a more modern look to it. Gone is the Windows 4+ taskbar so you can see what was running, and easily switch applications via mouse. Now you'll need to press the equivalent of a minimize all to get to the actual desktop. Another type of minimize to get back to Program Manager to launch something else, or "start screen" as they're now calling it.

So say goodbye to all the usability and productivity advantages Windows 4 offered us, they want to take us back to the "dark ages" of modern computing. Sure a taskbar-less interface makes sense on handheld devices with tiny screens or low resolution, but on modern 19"+ screens? The old Windows desktop+taskbar in the upcoming version of Windows is now just another app in their Metro UI. So "Metro" apps won't appear on the classic taskbar, and "classic" applications won't appear on the Metro desktop where running applications are listed.

I'm amazed at how self destructive the entire market became over the last few years. I'm not even sure who to blame, but someone has to do something about it. It's nice to see that a small group of people took KDE 3.5, and are continuing to develop it, but they're rebranding everything with crosses everywhere and calling it "Trinity" desktop. Just what we need, to bring religious issues now into desktop environments. What next? The political desktop?

Happy "Holidays" From Google

If you use GMail, you probably got this message recently:

Happy Holidays from Google

Hello,

As we near the end of the year, we wanted to take a moment to thank you for the time, energy, commitment, and trust you've shared with us in 2009.

With sharing in mind, this year we've decided to do something a little different. We hope you'll find it fits the spirit of the holiday season.

We're looking forward to working with you to build lasting success in 2010.

Happy Holidays,
Your Google Team

While on the surface it seems like a nice gesture, wouldn't it be nice if these big companies actually put some thought into what they wrote?

The use of terms or "codewords" like "Happy Holidays" or "holiday season" is meant to be all inclusive of the various winter holidays celebrated by different religions or cultural groups, without singling out any one of them in particular. It's primarily meant to include minorities that celebrate Kwanzaa and Hanukkah.

But this letter was sent on December 21, after Hanukkah was already completed two days earlier. If they really wanted to be all inclusive, perhaps they should have sent it the first week in December, instead of waiting till soon after Hanukkah was over, portraying Antisemitism.

All these "codewords" used are actually born out of "Political Correctness", a practice designed to discriminate against your average white male, while not actually caring about the minorities you're trying to protect. Isn't it nice to see another big company show that they aim for Political Correctness, yet show they couldn't care less about those minorities?

On a similar note, a friend of mine tells me that he recently applied for a job at Google, and they sent him a form asking him to specify his Race on it. Wonder why?