PC software, over time, has grown in size and complexity. For any product, any version had more features (and used more memory) than the previous version.
Microsoft Windows almost made such a change. The marketing materials for Windows offered many things; one of them was simplicity. Windows programs would be "easy to use", so easy that they would be "intuitive".
While software under Windows become more consistent (identical commands to open and save files) and programs could share data (via the clipboard), they were not simpler. The steady march of "more features" continued. Today, Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel are the standards for word processing and spreadsheets, and both are bulging with features, menus, add-ins, and sophisticated scripting. Competing PC software duplicates all of those features.
Software for tablets is following a different model.
The products for tablets released by Apple, Google, and even Microsoft are reduced versions of their PC counterparts. Apple's "Pages" is a word processor, but smaller than Microsoft Word. Google's "Drive" (the app formerly called "Docs") is a word processor with fewer features than Microsoft Word, and a spreadsheet with fewer features than Microsoft Excel. Even Microsoft's version of Word and Excel for Windows RT omits certain functions.
I see three drivers of this change:
The tablet interface limits features: Tablets have smaller screens, virtual keyboards, and the software generally has no drop-down menus. It is quite difficult to translate a complex PC program into the tablet environment.
Users want tablet software to be simple: Our relationship with tablets is more intimate than our relationship with PCs. We carry tablets with us, and generally pick the one we want. PCs, in contrast, stay at a fixed location and are assigned to us (especially in the workplace). We accept complexity in PC apps, but we push back against complexity in tablet apps.
Tablets complement PCs: We use tablets and PCs for different tasks and different types of work. Tablets let us consume data and perform specific, structured transactions. We can check the status of our systems, or view updates, or read news. We can bank online or update time-tracking entries with tablet apps. For long-form composition, we still use PCs with their physical keyboards, high-precision mice, and larger screens.
The demands placed upon tablet software is different from the demands placed upon desktop software. (I consider laptop PCs to be portable desktop PCs.) We want desktop PCs for composition; we want tablets for consumption and structured transactions. Those different demands are pushing software in different directions: complex for desktops, simple for tablets.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Monday, December 9, 2013
Off-the-shelf components still need attention
Typical advice for the builder of a system is often "when possible, use commercial products". The idea is that a commercial product is more stable, better maintained, and cheaper in the long run.
Today, that advice might be amended to "use commercial or open source products". The idea is to use a large, ready-made component to do the work, rather than write your own.
For some tasks, a commercial product does make sense. It's better to use the commercial (or open source) compilers for C#, Java, and C++ programs that to write your own compilers. It's better to use the commercial (or open source) word processors and spreadsheets.
Using off-the-shelf applications is a pretty easy decision.
Assembling systems with commercial (or open source) products is a bit trickier.
The issue is dependencies. When building a system, your system becomes dependent on the off-the-shelf components. It also becomes dependent on any external web services.
For some reason, we tend to think of off-the-shelf components (or external web services) as long-lasting. We tend to think that they will endure forever. Possibly because we want to forget about them, to use them like electricity or water -- something that is always available.
Commercial products do not live forever. Popular products such as WordPerfect, Lotus Notes, and Windows XP have all been discontinued. If you build a system on a commercial product and it (the commercial product) goes away, what happens to your system?
Web services do not live forever. Google recently terminated its RSS Reader. Other web services have been born, lived, and died. If you build your system on a web service and it (the web service) goes away, what happens to your system?
Product management is about many things, and one of them is dependency management. A responsible product manager knows about the components used within the product (or has people who know). A responsible product manager keeps tabs on those components (or has people who keep tabs). A responsible product manager has a plan for alternative components, should the current ones be discontinued.
Leveraging off-the-shelf products is a reasonable tactic for system design. It can save time and allow your people to work on the critical, proprietary, custom components that are needed to complete the system. But those off-the-shelf components still require a watchful eye and planning; they do not alleviate you of your duties. They can fail, they can be discontinued, and they can break on new versions of the operating system (yet another off-the-shelf component, and another dependency).
Build you system. Rebuild your legacy system. Use off-the-shelf components when they make sense. Use external web services when they make sense.
Stay aware of those components and stay aware of their status in the market. Be prepared for change.
Today, that advice might be amended to "use commercial or open source products". The idea is to use a large, ready-made component to do the work, rather than write your own.
For some tasks, a commercial product does make sense. It's better to use the commercial (or open source) compilers for C#, Java, and C++ programs that to write your own compilers. It's better to use the commercial (or open source) word processors and spreadsheets.
Using off-the-shelf applications is a pretty easy decision.
Assembling systems with commercial (or open source) products is a bit trickier.
The issue is dependencies. When building a system, your system becomes dependent on the off-the-shelf components. It also becomes dependent on any external web services.
For some reason, we tend to think of off-the-shelf components (or external web services) as long-lasting. We tend to think that they will endure forever. Possibly because we want to forget about them, to use them like electricity or water -- something that is always available.
Commercial products do not live forever. Popular products such as WordPerfect, Lotus Notes, and Windows XP have all been discontinued. If you build a system on a commercial product and it (the commercial product) goes away, what happens to your system?
Web services do not live forever. Google recently terminated its RSS Reader. Other web services have been born, lived, and died. If you build your system on a web service and it (the web service) goes away, what happens to your system?
Product management is about many things, and one of them is dependency management. A responsible product manager knows about the components used within the product (or has people who know). A responsible product manager keeps tabs on those components (or has people who keep tabs). A responsible product manager has a plan for alternative components, should the current ones be discontinued.
Leveraging off-the-shelf products is a reasonable tactic for system design. It can save time and allow your people to work on the critical, proprietary, custom components that are needed to complete the system. But those off-the-shelf components still require a watchful eye and planning; they do not alleviate you of your duties. They can fail, they can be discontinued, and they can break on new versions of the operating system (yet another off-the-shelf component, and another dependency).
Build you system. Rebuild your legacy system. Use off-the-shelf components when they make sense. Use external web services when they make sense.
Stay aware of those components and stay aware of their status in the market. Be prepared for change.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
The future popularity of languages
The popularity of a programming language matters. Popular languages are, well, popular -- they are used by a large number of people. That large user base implies a large set of available programmers who can be hired (important if you are running a project), a large set of supporting documents and web sites (important for managers and hobbyists), and significant sales for tools and training (important if you sell tools and training).
But there are two senses of popular. One sense is the "lots of people like it now" sense; the other is "lots of people will like it in the future" sense. This distinction was apparent at the beginning of my career, when PCs were new and the major programming languages of COBOL and FORTRAN were not the BASIC and Pascal and C of the PC revolution.
COBOL and FORTRAN were the heavyweights, the languages used by serious people in the business of serious programming. BASIC and Pascal and C (at least on PCs) were the languages of hobbyists and dreamers, "toy" languages on "toy" computers. Yet it was C that gave us C++ and eventually Java and C#, the heavyweight languages of today.
The measurements of language popularity blur these two groups of practitioners and dreamers. The practitioners use the tools for established systems and existing enterprises: in the 1970s and 1980s they used COBOL and today they use C++, C#, and Java. The dreamers of the 1970s used BASIC, C, Forth, and Pascal; today they use... well, what do they use?
The Programming Language Popularity web site contains a number of measures. I think that the most "dreamish" of these is the Github statistics. Github is the site for open source projects of all sizes, from enterprise level down to individual enthusiast. It seems a better measure than the "Craigslist" search (which would be weighted towards corporate projects) or the "Google" search (which would include tutorials and examples but perhaps little in the way of dreams).
The top languages in the "Github" list are:
A little later down the list (but still in the top twenty) are: Scala, Haskell, Clojure, Lua, and Erlang.
I think that the "Github" list is a good forward indicator for language popularity. I believe that some of these languages will be the future mainstream development languages.
Which ones exactly, I'm not sure.
Java is already a mainstream language; this index indicates a continued interest. I suspect JavaScript will have a bright future quite soon, with Microsoft supporting it for app development. Apple iOS uses Objective-C, so that one is also fairly obvious.
Languages rise and fall in popularity. Project managers would do well to track the up-and-coming languages. Software tends to live for a long time; if you want to stay with mainstream programming languages, you must move with the mainstream. Looking ahead may help with that effort.
But there are two senses of popular. One sense is the "lots of people like it now" sense; the other is "lots of people will like it in the future" sense. This distinction was apparent at the beginning of my career, when PCs were new and the major programming languages of COBOL and FORTRAN were not the BASIC and Pascal and C of the PC revolution.
COBOL and FORTRAN were the heavyweights, the languages used by serious people in the business of serious programming. BASIC and Pascal and C (at least on PCs) were the languages of hobbyists and dreamers, "toy" languages on "toy" computers. Yet it was C that gave us C++ and eventually Java and C#, the heavyweight languages of today.
The measurements of language popularity blur these two groups of practitioners and dreamers. The practitioners use the tools for established systems and existing enterprises: in the 1970s and 1980s they used COBOL and today they use C++, C#, and Java. The dreamers of the 1970s used BASIC, C, Forth, and Pascal; today they use... well, what do they use?
The Programming Language Popularity web site contains a number of measures. I think that the most "dreamish" of these is the Github statistics. Github is the site for open source projects of all sizes, from enterprise level down to individual enthusiast. It seems a better measure than the "Craigslist" search (which would be weighted towards corporate projects) or the "Google" search (which would include tutorials and examples but perhaps little in the way of dreams).
The top languages in the "Github" list are:
- Objective C
- JavaScript
- Ruby
- Java
- Python
- PHP
A little later down the list (but still in the top twenty) are: Scala, Haskell, Clojure, Lua, and Erlang.
I think that the "Github" list is a good forward indicator for language popularity. I believe that some of these languages will be the future mainstream development languages.
Which ones exactly, I'm not sure.
Java is already a mainstream language; this index indicates a continued interest. I suspect JavaScript will have a bright future quite soon, with Microsoft supporting it for app development. Apple iOS uses Objective-C, so that one is also fairly obvious.
Languages rise and fall in popularity. Project managers would do well to track the up-and-coming languages. Software tends to live for a long time; if you want to stay with mainstream programming languages, you must move with the mainstream. Looking ahead may help with that effort.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Echo chambers in the tech world
We have echo chambers in the tech world. Echo chambers are those channels of communication that reinforce certain beliefs, sometimes correct and sometimes not. They exist in the political world, but are not limited to that milieu.
The Apple world has the belief that they are immune to malware, that viruses and other nasty things happen only to Windows and Microsoft products. The idea is "common knowledge", and many Macintosh owners will confirm it. But the idea is more than common; it is self-enforcing. Should a Macintosh owner say "I'm going to buy anti-virus software", other Mac owners will convince (or attempt to convince) him otherwise.
The echo chamber of the Apple world enforces the idea that Apple products are not susceptible to attack.
There is a similar echo chamber for the Linux world.
The Microsoft world has an opposite echo chamber, one that insists that Windows is not secure and extra software is required.
These are beliefs, created in earlier times, that endure. People keep the idea from that earlier time. In other words, people have trained themselves to think of Windows as insecure. Microsoft Windows was insecure, but is more secure. (Yes, it is not perfectly secure.) Similarly, Apple products (and Linux) are not completely secure but people have trained themselves to think that they are.
I will make some statements that people may find surprising and perhaps objectionable:
We need to be aware of our echo chambers, our dearly-held "common knowledge" that may be false. Such ideas may be comforting, but they lead us away from truth.
The Apple world has the belief that they are immune to malware, that viruses and other nasty things happen only to Windows and Microsoft products. The idea is "common knowledge", and many Macintosh owners will confirm it. But the idea is more than common; it is self-enforcing. Should a Macintosh owner say "I'm going to buy anti-virus software", other Mac owners will convince (or attempt to convince) him otherwise.
The echo chamber of the Apple world enforces the idea that Apple products are not susceptible to attack.
There is a similar echo chamber for the Linux world.
The Microsoft world has an opposite echo chamber, one that insists that Windows is not secure and extra software is required.
These are beliefs, created in earlier times, that endure. People keep the idea from that earlier time. In other words, people have trained themselves to think of Windows as insecure. Microsoft Windows was insecure, but is more secure. (Yes, it is not perfectly secure.) Similarly, Apple products (and Linux) are not completely secure but people have trained themselves to think that they are.
I will make some statements that people may find surprising and perhaps objectionable:
- Microsoft Windows is fairly secure (not perfect, but pretty good)
- Apple MacOS X is not perfect and has security flaws
- Linux (any variant) is not perfect and has security flaws
We need to be aware of our echo chambers, our dearly-held "common knowledge" that may be false. Such ideas may be comforting, but they lead us away from truth.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Microsoft generally doesn't innovate
The cool reception of Microsoft's Surface tablets, Windows 8, and Windows RT has people complaining about Microsoft's (in)ability to innovate. Somehow, people have gotten the idea that Microsoft must innovate to stay competitive.
Looking at the history of Microsoft products, I cannot help but think that innovation has been only a small part of their success. Microsoft has been successful due to its marketing, its contracts, its monopoly on Windows, and its proprietary formats.
Still not convinced? Consider these Microsoft products, and their "innovativeness":
I argue that Microsoft is an excellent copier of ideas, and not an innovator. All of these products were not innovations by Microsoft.
Some might observe that the list of Microsoft products is much longer than the one I have presented. Others my observe that Microsoft continually improves its products, especially after purchasing one from another company. (Certainly the case for their C compiler, Visual SourceSafe, and C#.)
To be fair, I should list the innovative products from Microsoft:
Microsoft is not devoid of innovation. But innovation is not Microsoft's big game. Microsoft is better at copying existing products and technologies, re-casting them into Microsoft's own product line, and improving them over time. Those are their strengths.
People may decry Microsoft's lack of innovation. But this is not a new development. Over its history, Microsoft has focussed on other strategies, and gotten good results.
I don't worry about Windows 8 and the Surface tablets being "non-innovative". They are useful products, and I have confidence in Microsoft's abilities to make them work for customers.
Looking at the history of Microsoft products, I cannot help but think that innovation has been only a small part of their success. Microsoft has been successful due to its marketing, its contracts, its monopoly on Windows, and its proprietary formats.
Still not convinced? Consider these Microsoft products, and their "innovativeness":
- MS-DOS: purchased from another company
- C compiler: purchased from Lattice, initially
- Windows: a better version of OS/2, or MacOS, or AmigaDOS
- SourceSafe: purchased from another company
- Visual Studio: a derivation of their earlier IDE, cloned from Borland's TurboPascal
- C# and .NET: a copy of Java and the JVM
- Windows RT: a variant of Apple's iOS
- Azure: a product to compete with Amazon.com's web services and cloud
- the Surface tablet: a variant on Apple's iPad
- Word: a better version of WordPerfect
- Excel: a better version of Microsoft's Multiplan, made to compete with Lotus 1-2-3
- the Xbox: a game console to compete with Sony and Nintendo game consoles
I argue that Microsoft is an excellent copier of ideas, and not an innovator. All of these products were not innovations by Microsoft.
Some might observe that the list of Microsoft products is much longer than the one I have presented. Others my observe that Microsoft continually improves its products, especially after purchasing one from another company. (Certainly the case for their C compiler, Visual SourceSafe, and C#.)
- Microsoft BASIC
- Visual BASIC
Microsoft is not devoid of innovation. But innovation is not Microsoft's big game. Microsoft is better at copying existing products and technologies, re-casting them into Microsoft's own product line, and improving them over time. Those are their strengths.
People may decry Microsoft's lack of innovation. But this is not a new development. Over its history, Microsoft has focussed on other strategies, and gotten good results.
I don't worry about Windows 8 and the Surface tablets being "non-innovative". They are useful products, and I have confidence in Microsoft's abilities to make them work for customers.
Monday, November 25, 2013
The New Aristocracy
The workplace is an interesting study for psychologists. It has many types of interactions and many types of stratifications of employees. The divisions are always based on rank; the demonstrations of rank are varied.
I worked in one companyin which rank was indicated by the type, size, and location of one's workspace. Managers were assigned offices (with doors and solid walls), senior technical people were assigned cubicles next to windows, junior technical employees were assigned cubicles without windows, and contract workers were "doubled up" in windowless cubicles.
In another company, managers were issued color monitors and non-managers were issued (cheaper) monochrome monitors.
We excel at status symbols.
The arrival of tablets (and tablet apps) gives us a new status symbol. It allows us to divide workers into those who work with keyboards and those who work without keyboards. The "new aristocracy" will be, of course, those who work without keyboards. They will be issued tablets, while the "proletariat" will continue to work with keyboards.
I don't expect that this division will occur immediately. Tablets are quite different from desktop PCs and the apps for tablets must be different from desktop apps. It will take time to adapt our current applications to the tablet.
Despite their differences, tablets are -- so far -- much better at consuming information, while PCs are better at composing information. Managers who use information to make decisions will be able to function with tablets, while employees who must prepare the information will continue to do that work on PCs.
I expect that the next big push for tablet applications will be those applications used by managers: project planning software, calendars, dashboards, and document viewers.
The new aristocracy in the office will be those who use tablets.
I worked in one companyin which rank was indicated by the type, size, and location of one's workspace. Managers were assigned offices (with doors and solid walls), senior technical people were assigned cubicles next to windows, junior technical employees were assigned cubicles without windows, and contract workers were "doubled up" in windowless cubicles.
In another company, managers were issued color monitors and non-managers were issued (cheaper) monochrome monitors.
We excel at status symbols.
The arrival of tablets (and tablet apps) gives us a new status symbol. It allows us to divide workers into those who work with keyboards and those who work without keyboards. The "new aristocracy" will be, of course, those who work without keyboards. They will be issued tablets, while the "proletariat" will continue to work with keyboards.
I don't expect that this division will occur immediately. Tablets are quite different from desktop PCs and the apps for tablets must be different from desktop apps. It will take time to adapt our current applications to the tablet.
Despite their differences, tablets are -- so far -- much better at consuming information, while PCs are better at composing information. Managers who use information to make decisions will be able to function with tablets, while employees who must prepare the information will continue to do that work on PCs.
I expect that the next big push for tablet applications will be those applications used by managers: project planning software, calendars, dashboards, and document viewers.
The new aristocracy in the office will be those who use tablets.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
The excitement of new tech
GreenArrays has introduced the GA144 chip, which contains 144 F18 processors. They also have a prototyping circuit board for the GA144. These two offerings intrigue me.
The F18 is a processor that uses Forth as its instruction set. That in itself is interesting. Forth is a small, stack-oriented language, initially developed in the 1960s (Wikipedia asserts the origin at 1958) and created to run on diverse architectures. Like C, it is close to hardware and has a small set of native operations. The Forth language lets the user define new "words" and build their own language.
The GA144 has 144 of these processors.
The F18 and the GA144 remind me of the early days of microcomputers, when systems like the Mark-8 and the Altair were available. These "homebrew" systems existed prior to the "commercial" offerings of the Apple II and the Radio Shack TRS-80. They were new things in the world, unlike anything we had seen before.
We were excited by these new microcomputers. We were also ignorant of their capabilities. We knew that they could do things; we didn't know how powerful they would become. Eventually, the commercial systems adopted the IBM PC architecture and the MS-DOS operating system (later, Windows) and became ubiquitous.
I'm excited by the GA144. It's new, it's different, and it's potent. It is a new approach to computing. I don't know where it will take us (or that it will succeed at taking us anywhere) -- but I like that it offers us new options.
The F18 is a processor that uses Forth as its instruction set. That in itself is interesting. Forth is a small, stack-oriented language, initially developed in the 1960s (Wikipedia asserts the origin at 1958) and created to run on diverse architectures. Like C, it is close to hardware and has a small set of native operations. The Forth language lets the user define new "words" and build their own language.
The GA144 has 144 of these processors.
The F18 and the GA144 remind me of the early days of microcomputers, when systems like the Mark-8 and the Altair were available. These "homebrew" systems existed prior to the "commercial" offerings of the Apple II and the Radio Shack TRS-80. They were new things in the world, unlike anything we had seen before.
We were excited by these new microcomputers. We were also ignorant of their capabilities. We knew that they could do things; we didn't know how powerful they would become. Eventually, the commercial systems adopted the IBM PC architecture and the MS-DOS operating system (later, Windows) and became ubiquitous.
I'm excited by the GA144. It's new, it's different, and it's potent. It is a new approach to computing. I don't know where it will take us (or that it will succeed at taking us anywhere) -- but I like that it offers us new options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
