Clint Hill

I just caused a release to miss production.

Regular Expression bug.

No room to gripe about anything. Whatever righteous ground I thought I might have had is now negated. Back to square 1.

Microsoft is making another push to gain more developers. As if they already didn’t have enough in the corporate world.

They created a program called WebSiteSpark. It’s a package a developer can by for $100. It even let’s the developer pay that money after 3 years. For that $100 you get a package deal probably worth more than $5000 (I didn’t do the math – but it’s a generous package). It’s a pitch to developers to use Microsoft products without the big licensing costs up-front.

But that’s only the pitch. The reality is all of the strings attached. The first requirement I find troubling is that within 6 months you have to submit back to Microsoft a website you developed with those tools. This must be for verification? And not “all” developers can get involved. You have to be a legit business, less than 10 employees and not a public company. As well it’s not just $100. It’s a hook to get an annual fee after the three years if you want to keep the software/licenses. Then it’s an option of paying for the whole thing at $999/year or just the server licenses at $199/year.

In any case, it’s not cheap. Nor is it really flexible.

Let’s go over a hypothetical.

Two developers looking to get started with a website idea. They both have paid the same amount of money for a laptop. Developer A chooses to use Microsoft platform tools and sticks with the Windows XP/7 installation that comes with your typical Best Buy laptop. Developer B, with the same laptop decides to reformat his laptop with one of the dozens of free linux platforms.

Developer A pays Microsoft the money to get into the program and submits to the regiment required. After spending the time registering to be a part of the program, downloading the GBs of software (or waiting for snail mail) spends the hour just installing all of the software he needs to get going.

Developer B opens up Terminal and begins coding.

I’m certainly being dramatic. But for developers who have worked both sides of this fence know that I’m mostly right.

And I’ll throw this out – for roughly the same money the two developers spent on their (really well outfitted high performing) developer laptop – I can by a Mac and skip all of the steps above. If I want to spend money I can by TextMate (< $100).

Yesterday I wrote a bug.

That bug got to QA.

I fixed the bug, re-released to QA and QA then approved my code.

We should be releasing to PROD today.

My boss “questioned” my code.

There’s a lot more to this than what I’m bemoaning here. During the development of this application I had to be involved in all aspects. From the business to QA and PROD operations. While I still don’t know a lot about the environment, I was asked to assure the success of the release of my code to brand new servers. And all of the dependencies. And all of the network ports being open. And all of the URL routes.

On top of this I learned a critical lesson about the process here. The UI/UX team has final say on everything. This is good information. See during development when I was working with the business (those who actually asked for the app) they requested changes to the UI. I obliged. This was, as I have learned, the absolute wrong thing to do.

And that’s where the bug came from. I had code written to accommodate the business requests. At the 11th hour I had to change it back to accommodate the UI/UX team.

In a rush I made a mistake. Not a mistake I would normally make. A mistake that makes me look as though I have only been writing code for the last year (not 10). My boss questioning my code stings. I take ownership of the mistake – but I want someone to take ownership of the process that led me to make it.

NullReferenceException is an exception that occurs when you try to perform an action on something that doesn’t exist.