The Secret to Avoiding Paralysis by Analysis
A while ago Scott Hanselman wrote a post about “paralysis by analysis” which I found to be an interesting read. His blog is a treasure trove of not only technical information but also posts that humanize the developer experience, such as one of my all time favorites. In this particular post, he quoted a stack overflow user who said:
Lately, I’ve been noticing that the more experience I gain, the longer it takes me to complete projects, or certain tasks in a project. I’m not going senile yet. It’s just that I’ve seen so many different ways in which things can go wrong. And the potential pitfalls and gotchas that I know about and remember are just getting more and more.
Trivial example: it used to be just “okay, write a file here”. Now I’m worrying about permissions, locking, concurrency, atomic operations, indirection/frameworks, different file systems, number of files in a directory, predictable temp file names, the quality of randomness in my PRNG, power shortages in the middle of any operation, an understandable API for what I’m doing, proper documentation, etc etc etc.
Scott’s take on this is the following:
This really hit me because THIS IS ME. I was wondering recently if it was age-related, but I’m just not that old to be senile. It’s too much experience combined with overthinking. I have more experience than many, but clearly not enough to keep me from suffering from Analysis Paralysis.
Paralysis by Lofty Expectations
The thing that struck out to me most about this post was reading Scott say, “THIS IS ME.” When I read the post about being a phony and so many other posts of his, I thought to myself, “THIS IS ME.” In reading this one, however, I thought to myself, “wow, fortunately, that’s really not me, although it easily could be.” I’ll come back to that.
Scott goes on to say that he combats this tendency largely through pairing and essentially relying on others to keep him more grounded in the task at hand. He says that, ironically, he’s able to help others do the same. With multiple minds at work, they’re able to reassure one another that they might be gold plating and worrying about too much at once. It’s a sanity check of sorts. At the end of the post, he invites readers to comment about how they avoid Paralysis by Analysis.
For me to answer this, I’d like to take a dime store psychology stab at why people might feel this pressure as they move along in their careers in the first place — pressure to “[worry] about permissions, locking, concurrency, atomic operations, indirection/frameworks, different file systems, number of files in a directory, predictable temp file names, the quality of randomness in my PRNG, power shortages in the middle of any operation, an understandable API for what I’m doing, proper documentation, etc etc etc.” Why was it so simple when you started out, but now it’s so complicated?
I’d say it’s a matter not so much of diligence but of aversion to sharpshooting. What I mean is, I don’t think that people during their careers magically acquire some sort of burning need to make everything perfect if that didn’t exist from the beginning; I don’t think you grow into perfectionism. I think what actually happens is that you grow worried about the expectations of those around you. When you’re a programming neophyte, you’ll proudly announce that you successfully figured out how to write a file to disk and you’d imagine the reaction of your peers to be, “wow, good work figuring that out on your own!” When you’re 10 years in, you’ll announce that you wrote a file to disk and fear that someone will say, “what kind of amateur with 10 years of experience doesn’t guarantee atomicity in a file-write?”
The paralysis by analysis, I think, results from the opinion that every design decision you make should be utterly unimpeachable or else you’ll be exposed as a fraud. You fret that a maintenance programmer will come along and say, “wow, that guy sure sucks,” or that a bug will emerge in some kind of odd edge case and people will think, “how could he let that happen?!” This is what I mean about aversion to sharpshooting. It may even be personal sharpshooting and internal expectations, but I don’t think that the paralysis by analysis occurs as a proactive desire to do a good job but out of a reactive fear of doing a bad job.
(Please note: I have no idea whether this is true of Scott, the original Stack Overflow poster or anyone else individually; I’m just speculating about this general phenomenon that I have observed)
Regaining Your Movement
So, why doesn’t this happen to me? And how might you avoid it? Well my hope is that the answer to the first question is the answer to the second question for you. This doesn’t happen to me for two reasons:
- I pride myself not on what value I’ve already added, but what value I can quickly add from here forward.
- I make it a point of pride that I only solve problems when they become actual problems (sort of like YAGNI, but not exactly).
Let’s consider the first point as it pertains to the SO poster’s example. Someone tells me that they need an application that, among other things, dumps a file to disk. So, I spend a few minutes calling File.Create() and, hey, look at that — a file is written! Now, if someone comes to me and says, “Erik, this is awful because whenever there are two running processes one of them crashes.” My thought at this point isn’t, “what kind of programmer am I that I wrote this code that has this problem when someone might have been able to foresee this?!?” It’s, “oh, I guess that makes sense — I can definitely fix it pretty quickly.” Expanding to a broader and perhaps less obtuse scope, I don’t worry about the fact that I really don’t think of half of that stuff when dumping something to a file. I feel that I add value as a technologist since even if I don’t know what a random number generator has to do with writing files, I’ll figure it out pretty quickly if I have to. My ability to know what to do next is what sells.
For the second point, let’s consider the same situation slightly differently. I write a file to disk and I don’t think about concurrent access or what on Earth random number generation has to do with what I’m doing. Now if someone offers me the same, “Erik, this is awful because whenever there are two running processes…” I also might respond by saying, “sure, because that’s never been a problem until this moment, but hey, let’s solve it.” This is something I often try to impress upon less experienced developers, particularly about performance. And I’m not alone. I counsel them that performance isn’t an issue until it is — write code that’s clean, clear, and concise and that gets the job done. If at some point users want/need it to be faster, solve that problem then.
This isn’t YAGNI, per se, which is a general philosophy that counsels against writing abstractions and other forms of gold plating because you think that you’ll be glad you did later when they’re needed. What I’m talking about here is more on par with the philosophy that drives TDD. You can only solve one problem at a time when you get granular enough. So pick a problem and solve it while not causing regressions. Once it’s solved, move on to the next. Keep doing this until the software satisfies all current requirements. If a new one comes up later, address it the same as all previous ones — one at a time, as needed. At any given time, all problems related to the code base are either problems that you’ve already solved or problems on a todo list for prioritization and execution. There’s nothing wrong with you or the code if the software doesn’t address X; it simply has yet to be enough of a priority for you to do it. You’ll get to it later and do it well.
There’s a motivational expression that comes to mind about a journey of a thousand miles beginning with a single step (though I’m really more of a despair.com guy, myself). There’s no real advantage in standing still and thinking about how many millions of steps you’re going to need to take. Pick a comfortable pair of shoes, grab some provisions, and go. As long as you pride yourself in the ability to make sure your next step is a good one, you’ll get to where you need to be sooner or later.