For as long as I can recall I've always liked good tools and been infuriated with those that get in the way of me being "creative" or working "efficiently". (Subjective terms, I know.) Whether it was the MetaComCo C/Pascal compiler tools for my Atari those many years back (great customization capabilities) or plain emacs (yes, it's a tool!) I've admired those groups who can make good tools. Over the years I've met many tooling groups from HP, Bluestone, BEA, Microsoft and of course JBoss/Red Hat. Some of the more successful groups have been staffed by a combination of good engineers but also people who have good HCI skills (including psychology backgrounds). But they've all usually had the same comments to make about how tooling is seen by developers: under appreciated and an afterthought. That's a shame because as far as I'm concerned a good tooling experience can bring a better ROI than adding some super cool feature here or there.


I think the key to good tooling is having the involvement of the developers on the product for which tooling is being developed as early as possible. Where I've seen this work well is when there's actually a tooling person sitting in that team full time, learning about the requirements and acting as a conduit to impart that knowledge to the rest of the tooling team. To do it otherwise can often take longer (inefficient?) and may result in something that isn't quite what is required. Despite the fact that they're all engineers, there is often an impedance mismatch between tooling engineers and project engineers; almost a language barrier. But for good tooling to work well, the conversations need to be bi-directional. This is another reason why the approach of having a tooling person sitting in the project works well, as it provides immediacy of responses.


Max, our tooling lead, is keen to say that good tools shouldn't be used to cover up poor underlying projects. He's right! I've seen that happen a lot across the industry, where the tools look fantastic but there's very little under the covers, or what is there is horribly baroque and hard to understand. Designing for tooling from the outset should be considered in the same way as designing for robustness or performance or security. It's not something that is easy to retro-fit.


Good tools (and yes, I count JBDS in that list) also grow with you. Too often I've seen tools that are either way too complex to use for beginners or are so basic as to encourage you to grow out of them pretty quickly and look for something else. (There's a reason I've been using shell and emacs for 20 years.) And of course in this world of ever changing runtimes, you really want a tool suite (or IDE in this case) that can work with more than one at a time: I hate having to fire up different IDEs for different versions of the same product, especially when there may only be a few months age difference between the runtime versions.


Fortunately we have some great people here who are passionate about tooling and understand its importance in making the whole product experience work well. That doesn't mean we've got to that nirvana just yet, but we are on the right path. We need to work more closely with the projects and vice versa in order to push this mantra of thinking about tooling through all phases of the project lifecycle and not just after the fact. The improvements we've made over the past couple of years are pretty significant and there's much more to come. I'm excited and maybe this will finally encourage me to move away from emacs ;-)


BTW, thanks to Max for the title of this entry!