Through the Looking Glass

coders (should) do much more than code

Posted on September 10, 2011

I recently was explaining to someone that as a coder, I do (or should do) a lot more than just code. I figured since I hadn’t written anything here in a while, I’d put my thoughts down here.

the tl;dr

Coders code. That much is obvious from the title, but there is much more that can and should be involved for anyone writing real code, at least for UNIX coders.


So you’ve spent the last couple weeks / months / years writing some really brilliant bit of software that you think would benefit a lot of people. Or maybe, just a few, but you still are of the mindset that since you did the work to solve this problem, other people might have the same problem and if they had the solution, they could concentrate on other problems. Regardless of the quality of code and the development process you followed, which endless books have been written on the subject, there is still a lot more work to be done if you intend to make your software both useful and accessible to other people. You still need to make sure you have a reasonable portable (for the scope of the usefulness of your code) build system, good documentation, an easily accessible online place for people to get your code, and proper follow-through. Let’s talk through these bits.

the build system

No matter how wizard your code is, if it’s more work for other people to build it than it’s worth, it won’t be used. That’s a simple fact. By now, users have come to expect the proverbial ./configure && make && make install (or perhaps scons or waf or jam or one of the other solutions). Regardless, the build process should not require much work for end users, except in cases where the code is a very purposeful bit of code that requires careful configuration. I personally have begun making use of the autotools suite (my personal stance on the GPL notwithstanding, a rant for another day but the curious can take a look at the license for most of my code on my github page). This comprises autoconf and automake primarily. You will easily spend many hours just writing out the configuration files on your end to properly support and build the software, determining what needs to be checked on the user’s system so that they can be sure the code will run on their node. Once this is set up and functioning, for the most part and in theory, users will be able to just do the typical configure-and-make pattern they have come to know and love. The autotools are really designed for C and C++. For python, there’s always the Python setuptools, and of course for Perl there’s CPAN.

Of course, these tools are quite often in a different language than your code is. For example, the autotools use POSIX shell, M4, and POSIX Makefiles to generate the configure script and Makefiles for distribution. This takes time to learn, especially given some of the nuances involved. There is of course some debate (see “Stop the autoconf insanity! Why we need a new build system”) as to how useful these are, but for the most part the reward is worth the work. For the autotools suite, take a look at the No Starch Press book Autotools:A Practitioner’s Guide to GNU Autoconf, Automake, and Libtool. I found this book indispensable in learning the tool suite.


Documentation extends much further (or should) than the typical README and INSTALL files found in many distributions. Many developers learn the basics of TeX or LaTeX typesetting to produce aesthetically pleasing manuals; Texinfo is also quite common. Markdown is becoming popular as well and with the advent of tools like pandoc, even easier to convert from Markdown to other formats (pandoc supports html and LaTeX). Besides just the technical side of writing documentation and learning the typesetting language used, there’s the art of technical writing as well. Many companies have full-time technical writers whose sole purpose is writing documentation. This is because of another simple fact: your software is of no use if the users can’t figure out how to use it. While many users may be technically saavy enough to read the code to figure out how to use it, for your code to be truly useful, they should not have to resort to this. This is what I see as the Apple factor: many developers use Apple’s hardware and operating system because not only do things Just Work, but there is also excellent documentation available. Another operating system leading the way in documentation is my beloved OpenBSD. Users should have a clear set of instructions of not only how to use the software, but ways to extend it, what things it can do that they may not realise, and how to solve problems that may crop up. So a truly good coder is both at least a proficient typesetter but also a proficient writer of whatever human language the software is in (or aimed at).

Some projects go further and include a full copy of the license the software is released under (which you should do for the safety / peace of mind / convenience of your users - it took lteo constantly reminding me of this for many of my projects before I started doing it out of habit) which is most often in a file called LICENSE or COPYING; a copy of the ChangeLog, which could also be gotten from source control such as git log; an AUTHORS file to list contributors; a README and INSTALL file to give a quick usage and overview as well as installation instructions; and perhaps a HACKING document to explain how to modify the code to be useful.

The README file is still rather useful; in fact, many times I will write the README first as part of my development process.

No matter how you approach it or what you use to write and format your user manuals, you should still have them included.


Today, distribution is one of the easiest aspects of coding. Numerous websites exist for the sole purpose of distributing your software, such as github, bitbucket, sourceforge, freshmeat, among others. Typically, such sites will also host a remote version of your version control system (you are version controlling, right?) in addition to supporting release downloads. A well-setup build system offers the ability to build a distribution release, often in tarball or tarred bzip2 format as well. Some sites still offer just a release tarball (for a while, this is how I released my libdaemon project, via my homepage. In fact, this is rapidly becoming one of the easiest pieces of the project lifecycle. If you haven’t already, take a look at one of the sites that works as a remote repo for whatever source control you are using. You will probably see that besides distribution, these sites are extremely useful for the last important additional part of coding I want to talk about.

support and maintenance

Once the user has a copy of your software and knows how to use it, they will inevitably encounter bugs or find that while they would really like to see a feature in the software, they don’t have the technical skills to implement it themselves (or perhaps the courage to look through your code…) Still other users might fix the bugs or add new features themselves, and would like to offer you those changes so you can incorporate them into the software. So the last important additional part of being a coder is support and maintenance.

Many of the sites that offer to host releases of your code provide additional tools, like wikis, bug reporting (aka trouble tickets), and feature requests. Users may also provide patchfiles or a git pull request to give you their contribition (and accordingly, you credit them in the documentation as well). A good coder needs to be able to support and maintain the software - users are more apt to use software if it gets patched or updated with new features (or if it just works and they don’t need new features or bugs patched, which is less likely but still possible).


As I’ve explained, being a good coder and providing useful software encompasses so much more than just good technical skills or great development processes. There’s the administrative side (i.e. the build system, feature request and bug tracking) and the human side (i.e. documentation and responding to support requests). While it may not be as much fun as the actual coding, it is still integral to the development process.

update (2012-03-25)

One of the things I’ve completely neglected to talk about in this discussion is the use of tests. Functional tests, unit tests, regression testing, continuous integration, basically – TEST ALL THE THINGS. Why? First - it helps you write better code, and to ensure that changes don’t break everything (or if they, the breakage is the expected breakage). Second, it’s a form of literate coding where users can see how to use your code in practise (if it’s a library) or can get a warm fuzzy knowing you cared enough to validate and test your code as you went. You might think, well - this is a binary for end users. They won’t know or won’t care about unit tests and so forth. Maybe that’s true. However, part of the craft of writing good code is paying attention to detail. Any open source project that wants to be open to contributions should have tests so quality is enforced (i.e. don’t bother submitting a patch or pull request if your changes don’t pass the tests) and so they can see how you are using your code. Yes, you should be writing your code so that it’s obvious from reading it what it does. If there’s a lot of it, and a developer wants to make some quick changes to fix a bug, tests provide a good way for them to see where things happen and how they happen. I assert that good coders write good test code. (Testing joke!)