Deals Well With Ambiguity
A while ago I was talking with my manager at the time about traits that we value in a Program Manager. He related an anecdote about an interview he gave where it became clear that the candidate did not deal well with ambiguity.
This is an important trait for nearly every job, but especially for PMs as projects can often change on a dime and it’s important understand how to make progress amidst ambiguity and eventually drive towards resolving ambiguity.
Lately, I’ve been asking myself the question, doesn’t this apply just as much to software?
One of the most frustrating aspects of software today is that it doesn’t deal well with ambiguity. You could take the most well crafted robust pieces of software, and a cosmic ray could flip one bit in memory and potentially take the whole thing down.
The most common case of this fragility that we experience is in the form of breaking changes. Pretty much all applications have dependencies on other libraries or frameworks. One little breaking change in such a library or framework and upgrading that dependency will quickly take down your application.
Someday, I’d love to see software that really did deal well with ambiguity.
For example, lets take imagine a situation where a call to a method which has changed its signature wouldn’t result in a failure but would be resolved automatically.
In the .NET world, we have something close with the concept of assembly binding redirection.aspx “Assembly Binding Redirection documentation on MSDN”), which allow you to redirect calls compiled against one version of an assembly to another. This is great if none of the signatures of existing methods have changed. I can imagine taking this further and allowing application developers to apply redirection to method calls account for such changes. In many cases, the method itself that changed could indicate how to perform this redirection. In the simplest case, you simply keep the old method and have it call the new method.
More challenging is the case where the semantics of the call itself have changed. Perhaps the signature hasn’t changed, but the behavior has changed in subtle ways that could break existing applications.
In the near future, I think it would be interesting to look at ways that software that introduce such breaks could also provide hints at how to resolve the breaks. Perhaps code contracts or other pre conditions could look at how the method is called and in cases where it would be broken, attempt to resolve it.
Perhaps in the further future, a promising approach would move away from programming with objects and functions and look at building software using autonomous software agents that communicate with each other via messages as the primary building block of programs.
In theory, autonomous agents are aware of their environment and flexible enough to deal with fuzzy situations and make decisions without human interaction. In other words, they know how to deal with some level of ambiguity.
I imagine that even in those cases, situations would arise that the software couldn’t handle without human involvement, but hey, that happens today even with humans. I occasionally run into situations I’m not sure how to resolve and I enlist the help of my manager and co-workers to get to a resolution. Over time, agents should be able to employ similar techniques of enlisting other agents in making such decisions.
Thus when an agent is upgraded, ideally the entire system continues to function without coming to a screeching halt. Perhaps there’s a brief period where the system’s performance is slightly degraded as all the agents learn about the newly upgraded agent and verify their assumptions, etc. But overall, the system deals with the changes and moves on.
A boy can dream, eh? In the meanwhile, if reducing the tax of backwards compatibility is the goal, there are other avenues to look at. For example, by you could apply isolation using virtualization so that an application always runs in the environment it was designed for, thus removing any need for dealing with ambiguity (apart from killer cosmic rays).
In any case, I’m excited to see what new approaches will appear over the next few decades in this area that I can’t even begin to anticipate.