I see that a new season of Mythbusters is going to be aired on Discovery Channel. Mythbusters happens to be my favorite show. Discovery channel does not happen to be my favorite vehicle for delivering my favorite show.

The reason is quite simple: the people at Discovery channel apparently have no idea that this isn't MTV. Every few minutes they interrupt whatever show is on to tell me about ... other shows that will be on at some later time. Shows that will in turn be duly interrupted by similar out-of-breath announcements.

Sometimes even to tell me about the show I am already watching.

This is incredibly annoying. If I am already watching TV, which is becoming a rare occurrence these days, the last thing you want to do is to give me reason to switch channels or turn off the TV.

Lately I have mostly been turning off the TV set.

I long for the day when I can get my TV shows, legally, by subscribing to them much like I subscribe to podcasts today. I want to have a piece of software that checks when new episodes are out, downloads them to my computer so I can watch them there or sync them to whatever device I want to watch them on. iTunes has its flaws, but it already provides a model that is good enough.

When I am done I want to delete the show to make room for more content that is being buffered until I want to see it -- knowing that the store will remember what content I have paid for so I can download it again at some later point. I don't even mind paying for the privilege of not having to store content I have paid for -- just as long as the price is reasonable.

TV as a distribution model is dying. In part because it is incredibly annoying and in part because people's viewing habits are changing and they are changing fast.

One would think that the TV industry would have enough smart people to overcome the incredibly dimwitted people who perpetuate everything that is annoying about TV, but evidently this is not the case. The industry is not really aware of how fast things are changing, how easy it has become to obtain unauthorized copies of content and that much of the innovation that takes place cannot be controlled by the rights holders.

It is 2009 and the industry still acts like the regional licensing schemes that fuel piracy of TV shows are hewn in stone. I do not think it is inappropriate to question the intelligence of people who run companies that are so thoroughly sabotaging their own future. Licensing can and must be fixed and TV stations have to adapt or go under. The cushy, yet inflexible licensing deals that have provided convenience and stability for rights holders are becoming a serious liability.

TV needs rethinking. It needs to adapt to what people want or you will lose the market. Much like the music industry managed to breed an entire generation of people who are used to getting music for free because it took the music industry forever to adapt to the changes that were taking place in their consumers. (Evidently there are still executives in the record industry who are too daft to grasp that it is too late to get the toothpaste back in the tube).

People keep telling me that I am not a regular consumer -- that my media consumption habits are somehow different from the mainstream. I don't think so. I think I am relatively representative of my generation and if I am at all ahead of what is mainstream, it is certainly not by much.

In the meantime it would be nice if the morons at Discovery Channel and National Geographic channel did not remind me every 15 minutes why I think they deserve to go bankrupt.


Maven -- the right idea implemented by the wrong people

I am in the process of adopting Maven for a project I am working on. I didn't do this on a whim much in the same way you do not decide, on a whim, that it would be fun to find out what it would be like to have an organ transplant. You do it because you have found the alternatives to be even less pleasing.

Adopting Maven is painful. You can safely ignore anyone telling you otherwise.

I decided to adopt Maven for several reasons. The most important reason being that I agree with the fundamental ideas behind Maven; small core with most of the functionality in plugins, convention over configuration and some appealing aspects like archetypes. Those are all ideas that I have tried to imbue my own software with and what I have been preaching to others when designing software.

The other reason was that a few people I trust recommended I do it and they recommended I do it now before the project amasses any significant bulk. Most of them were honest enough to say up front that it would be painful.

Despite what I am about to say, I still find it likely that adopting Maven is a good idea in the long run for my current project -- but I will most likely avoid it for projects that do not have significant dependencies.

While I think the basic premises for Maven are sound, a lot of the plugins I have come across have been written by people who should probably not write software or who should make more of an effort and start thinking about what they are doing rather than publishing that which is unfit for general consumption.

Maven appears to be the right idea implemented by the wrong people.

(...referring largely to the mass of Maven plugins rather than the Maven core)

Unintelligent output.

You can learn a lot about a programmer by looking at the log output that his or her software produces. Some programmers write software that log frugally, and when they do emit messages, every message is helpful. A helpful message gives you all the information you need in a way you understand while not including any unnecessary information.

When I look at the output from a typical Maven build I am dismayed at how much irrelevant rubbish it spews forth. Most of the messages should never have been in the console output because they display absolutely no helpful or necessary information. And a lot of the output you DO want to see, lacks critical information.

For instance, whose bright idea was it that when a test fails, you say which test failed, but not what line number? Yes, I know that you can find that in the surefire logs, but I don't want to have to look at them. When I do a repeated build to run my tests after a change, all I want to know is if the tests ran fine, and if there was a problen, I want only the relevant information: file, line number and error condition.
Did the author of that code forget to ask him- or herself what the user might be interested in?

Another annoyance is that you rarely know "who" says what. What plugin logged a particular message? If plugins insist on being chatty then at least they should have the courtesy of introducing themselves. Since I am in the process of adopting Maven, there is a lot of trying to figure out which plugin is complaining and which plugin is trying to do something it shouldn't be doing.

Output of the form "Tried to parse a file and there was a syntax error of type XYZ" is a terribly unhelpful message to begin with, but it is even more unhelpful when you do not have the faintest idea what plugin generated it.


If you do not provide simple examples for your plugin inlined in the docs you have not yet documented the plugin. It is as simple as that.

If your excuse of the day is that "my plugin is too complex" then you are most likely stupid as well as lazy and you need to make your plugin require less complex configuration. Remember, the idea was "convention over configuration".

If you have provided no docs whatsoever you are stupid, lazy and your mother dresses you funny.


Archetypes are a great idea. Archetypes that produce projects that won't build are a terrible idea. Archetypes that blatantly break convention are evil. I am a Maven novice, but even I know that someone should not be writing plugins when three different incarnations of the same generated files show up in as many different locations for no good reason.

Command line help

When I started reading up on Maven I was taken aback by the lack of forehead-touching-ground-apologies, or at least some sign of light embarrassment, over the help facilities available in Maven. Seriously? In these times where people are so lazy that microblogging is hugely popular, do you really think that having to type almost a full line of text, just right, to display the help for a given artifact is such a fantastic idea? I certainly do not.

Concluding remarks

As I stated earlier, I think the basic premises for Maven are sound. Unfortunately, I think there are too many contributors to the Maven universe who simply just aim too low and who need to get a lot better at thinking about what they are doing. If you can't be arsed to do a decent job, then please, consider not contributing -- because the existence of a useless artifact might make someone who could have done the job better not bother. (And replacing it later or duplicating the effort causes even more confusion).