Skip to main content

Convenience is King and Polish is quality

· 6 min read

Ive noticed this strange phenomenon recently... There's a phrase that goes "Use the best tool for the job", but what does that really mean? Initially I would have thought that meant the tool with the greatest capacity to accomplish the target task, but it seems I've thought wrong. When it comes to tool selection, I've seen it time and time again that there appear to be two attributes which exhibit greater influence than capacity: convenience and polish.

Before we continue, let me define what I believe these terms mean:

  • I'd define convenience to mean how quick and easy it is to setup and start using a tool, and how much cognitive lift it takes to utilize that tool on a daily basis.
  • Polish is how nice the tools UI is, and how well it accomplishes it's intended tasks without encountering errors/bugs/malfunctions.

Convenience and polish seem to be such weighty factors in our daily lives that we're willing to give up just about anything for it; things like financial well-being, privacy, and even our health! Companies like Google, Apple, and Amazon (either consciously or instinctively) know this and use it to control our choices every day.

Anyways, I digress! I've seen it a few times that convenience and polish have won out against (what I consider to be) the better tool. Here are a few examples.

Haskell vs Blub

I discovered the joy of functional programming and Haskell in specific a few years back. The language is very fun to work in, and has probably one of the greatest capacities to write software that I've ever seen; so why has it not caught on? Up until recently, the development experience has been wrought with difficulty. Installing was hard, specifying dependencies was hard, compiling can be quite slow, and finding libraries is pretty confusing. But that's not to say that any of it was actually major blocker, rather, it's just very inconvenient. Documentation is not convenient to find, multiple installers with different issues was a hassle, and probably the biggest gotcha was the IDE experience. For the longest time, developers essentially ran an auto-compile loop in terminal as a bit of an IDE hack - definitely not convenient and about as unpolished as you can get. The Haskell community considered these to be minor issues (and maybe they are), but to the average guy, that inconvenience just makes the whole thing not worth it. Why deal with that when you could just spin up C#/JavaScript/Python/Go and you're off to the races?

In defense of the Haskell community, there have been a lot of initiatives to improve these issues lately, and the Haskell IDE experience has improved by leaps and bounds. Haskell language server installs automatically and the polish is great. With those improvements alone, I consider Haskell's dev story to be better than Purescript now. Anyways, moving on!

VsCode vs Emacs

Back when I was working at CitizenNet, there was one particular day where I was pair programming with a colleague. At the time, the defacto code editor of choice on our team was emacs (because it has a decent IDE experience for Purescript). However, I had seen how nice LSP worked on VsCode and decided to try to make the switch. Purescript's LSP implementation was in good enough shape that it worked without too much hassle. As my colleague and I worked through a ticket, the compiler spit an error at us as it usually does, showing under which file the error occured along with the line number. Normally in emacs, we would use the file open command, locate the file, and jump to the error. But in VsCode, I could ctrl+click the error location in the terminal and it took me straight there! Is that a trivial feature? Definitely! But my colleague was thoroughly impressed by it. I don't know if this was the tipping point for him or not, but he soon made the switch himself, the rest of the team following not long after.

Zulip vs Google Chat

Zulip is an amazing chat tool with an interesting model for organizing conversations. Compared to Google chat, I'd say Zulip definitely has a much greater capacity as a team communication app. However, the convenience and polish on Google chat is just a little better. Convenience-wise, Google chat wins because there's no software installation required, nor do you need to create an account for it. (This is sort of unfair, you do need a Gmail account, but Google has already secured themselves as the most popular email provider, so most people have an account by default.) Polish-wise, Zulip has had intermittent issues where notifications wouldn't come through. These issues were enough to convince my team to jump ship from Zulip to Google Chat. I'm slightly pained to see it as I'm a big fan of Zulip, but I don't blame them at all!

Erlang vs Elixir

I've been taking some time as of late to learn the BEAM languages since I hear they're pretty impressive for writing server applications. I was unsure if I should go with Elixir or Erlang, but a quick trial of each promptly led me to Elixir. What were the deciding factors? Erlang's VsCode plugins just didn't seem to work very well. ErlangLS couldn't infer type specs (it kept saying to check the logs to find out why). Also rebar was ok, but seemed a little confusing to work with. Elixir wasn't perfect in comparison, but ElixirLS plugin worked right out of the box, and mix was a good amount easier to work with too.


So why did I write all of this? I've long seen some discussions in the haskell community about what can be done to foster greater adoption. At the same time, I've also dealt first hand with trying to get my own team at work to adopt technologies that promised overall improvement of our processes. I (of course) would always recommand the tools I considered to be the best, but even though these tools were very good, getting the team to use them has not often been easy. Eventually, we landed on using Google Chat as our internal communication medium, and Zoho Bigin as our Project management tool (despite Bigin not actually being a Project management tool). I spent a good amount of time trying to get the team to adopt certain technologies, but it only took about a day to adopt Bigin and Google Chat. The difference was the convenience and polish. These tools may not be the most powerful ones to aid us in our work, but they were the most convenient, and they worked without issue.

If we want to foster greater adoption of any type of technology, these two attributes should not be overlooked. Indeed, I believe they may actually be the most important ones.