Skip to content

HTTPS clone URL

Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with HTTPS or Subversion.

Download ZIP
branch: master
Fetching contributors…

Cannot retrieve contributors at this time

162 lines (137 sloc) 8.543 kb
# -*- html -*-
---
timestamp: Mon 30 Aug 2010 06:23:38 PM PDT
title: in which the lessons of ZZ Top are applied to the marketplace
tags: projects, rock
nodeploy: true
id: 140
content: |-
<p>I've been thinking a lot about ZZ Top recently. This isn't
something I generally do as a rule, but it was prompted by
re-reading <a href="http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2007/10/im-bad-im-nationwide-job-security-vs.html">a
blog post</a> by the inimitable Giles Bowkett ostensibly about the
song <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxHyHk3h2IU">I'm Bad;
I'm Nationwide</a>. Go ahead and cue that up in the background
while you read this post; it's vaguely relevant.</p>
<img src="/i/zz-top.jpg" alt="zz top" />
<p>"Bad" in this sense of course is the good kind of bad, like the
Michael Jackson song. It seems to be mostly about attitude. Giles
makes the point that generally being bad is not correlated with
being nationwide.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"I'm Bad, I'm Nationwide" is a ZZ Top song. Hopefully
you can figure out what it's about, but just in case, the singer's
point is that he is bad, and he is nationwide. [...]</p>
<p>It's good to be bad. It's good to be nationwide. It's
even better to be worldwide. How can we apply the lessons of ZZ
Top in the workplace?</p>
<p>Obviously if you walk into your boss' office, jump on
his or her desk, pull down your pants, and perform toilet
functions all over the place, that would be bad. But it would not
be nationwide, and it would not encourage becoming nationwide. In
fact, it would not really be bad, it would just be stupid. But
this silly example highlights a deeper paradox: that which is bad
is usually local, and that which is nationwide is usually
good.</p></blockquote>
<p>Giles goes on to talk about how the bad/nationwide balancing act
applies to a career in software development, which is interesting,
but I've been thinking about it in terms of projects instead. Take
the familiar realm of editors. There are a few of them that are
nationwide just by virtue of having survived and built up a
following over the course of several decades. And they're also
often bad when flame wars erupt over them, as is fairly
common.</p>
<p>So Emacs and vi have somehow achieved the intersection of bad and
nationwide, which as Giles posits is tricky to pull off. Simply
being bad doesn't work in the long-term, and while quiet
competence sometimes does, it's worth noting that in many cases
attention helps a project improve in concrete
ways&mdash;especially projects whose users are developers. This
is pretty key for things like languages, libraries, and build tools.</p>
<p>The problem I'm faced with here is that being bad is also often
correlated with being inflammatory. The easiest way to get attention in
the software world is to pick a fight. You see this <i>all the
time</i> on sites like Reddit; when people smell blood they
upvote, which is why stuff like
<a href="http://dosync.posterous.com/clojure-nodejs-and-why-messaging-can-be-lame">Aleph
vs Node.js: the smackdown</a> makes it to the front page despite
being a superficial comparison.</p>
<p>The thing you have to remember about picking fights with another
project or language just for the sake of it is that often the
attention fallout is more evenly distributed than is
intended. When someone goes out of their way to pick a fight, they
<a href="http://www.jroller.com/obie/entry/top_10_reasons_why_java">usually
aren't much good at hiding the fact that they've got an investment
in one side</a>. Impartial readers can usually pick up on this
pretty easily, and they're likely to spot holes in the argument
or write it off it as a piece of cheerleading. In cases of
particularly unfair partisanship, they may even begin to
sympathize with the target under attack.</p>
<p>The closest I've come to this sort of bad/nationwide
is <a href="http://twitter.com/technomancy/status/10994115673">this
post I made on Twitter a few months back</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Q: What's the difference between Ant and Maven? A: The
creator of Ant has apologized.</p></blockquote>
<p>This turned out to be just the right mix of nasty and clever
to really take off; hundreds and hundreds of people passed it on, and
over the next few days searches for my name came up with just
pages and pages of this over and over again. At the time of this
writing it's still on the second page of results in a search for
my name.</p>
<p>I've got to admit, as the author
of <a href="http://github.com/technomancy/leiningen">a build
system that competes with Maven</a>, this felt kind of good. The
problem is it's totally a cheap shot&mdash;everyone involved with
build tools ends up in a position of needing to apologize to their
users given enough time. James Duncan Davidson has expressed his
regrets over the use of XML in ant, Dave Thomas is less than proud
of how RDoc has turned out, and I'm pretty sure the only reason
the guy responsible for the tabs/spaces distinction in Makefiles
hasn't apologized is that he fled to Tijuana for facial
reconstructive surgery. Anyway, Leiningen will eventually be in
the same position if it's not already.</p>
<img src="/i/why-range.gif" alt="why sample" class="right" />
<p>So we're still left with this question of whether you can be bad
and nationwide without also being a jerk. I think it's doable, but
you just don't see it much because picking fights is so much
easier. One example that comes readily to mind
is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_lucky_stiff">_why
the lucky stiff</a>. He qualified not just by his off-kilter visual style
but by his aversion to what he scoffed at as "best practices".</p>
<blockquote><p>Perhaps this is why I have trouble swallowing unit
testing or extreme programming or other best practices as the
law. I guess there’s a place for these tricks (the work place,)
but they do not speak to the pure form of hacking for hacking’s
sake, which I so ardently defend! Unit testing, in particular, is
designed to reel in spontaneous hacking. It is like framing a
picture before it has been painted. Hacking, at heart, will
continue to be something of spontaneous order, something of
anarchy, and the landscape of hacking is something which comes
from human action but is not of human design.</p>
<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080512050317/hackety.org/2007/12/24/thisHackWasNotProperlyPlanned.html">&#8213;
This Hack was not Properly Planned</a></p></blockquote>
<p>This may not sound particularly controversial, but in the context
of the test-driven-fanatic Ruby community it was a pretty weighty
heresy. But he was all about exploring the fringe, and some
excellent ideas came of it. It caught peoples' eyes and drew them
in, so much so that when he disappeared, the communities
surrounding his projects picked up the orphaned bits and carried
them forward.</p>
<img src="/i/zz-top2.jpg" alt="gibbons" align="left" />
<p>Bad... and <i>nationwide</i>.</p>
<p>This is way more productive than us-vs-them fights that normally
accompany attempts to be bad and nationwide. So what does this
mean for you and me? Most people can't draw like _why, but
injecting your own particular brand of crazy into your projects
may be a slick hack you can pull to sidestep the negativity.</p>
<p>Here's an example: the <tt>new</tt> task in Leiningen spits out a
blank Clojure project skeleton. At the time I saw a few too many
"foojure"-type names popping up for new projects, and when I saw
one called "Couverjure" I said enough is enough. Now
the <tt>new</tt> task will refuse to generate projects named after
*jure puns. Arbitrary? You bet. Ridiculous? Perhaps. But harmless
and easy to work around. And don't forget controversial:</p>
<a href="http://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/commit/39732d5b649dedb70b14e88fe561dfc9ddb31611"><img src="/i/enough.png" alt="no more jure names" /></a>
<p>The point is: don't take yourself too seriously. Hack the good
hack and leave an easter egg or two around for the
adventurous. Then you too can be bad... and <i>nationwide</i>.</p>
Jump to Line
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.