@var title = "The unintentional side effects of a bad concurrency model" @var tags = "Software Messaging Architectures Organizations" This is the first of four related articles about how we organize software. The others are: + [[http://joearms.github.io/2016/01/27/Controlling-Live-Music.html][Controlling Live Music]] + [[http://joearms.github.io/2016/01/28/A-Badass-Way-To-Connect-Programs-Together.html][A Badass Way to Connect Programs Together]] + [[(http://joearms.github.io/2016/01/29/Controlling-Sound-with-OSC-Messages.html][Controlling Sound With OSC Messages]] How we collaborate, the organizations we work in and the programming languages we use effect software architectures in ways that are not immediately obvious. In this article I argue that monolithic GitHub projects, inflexible organizational structures and sequential programming languages all lead to bad software architectures. This effect is unintentional and a side effect which I believe stems from a poor understanding of concurrency. Software architectures are all about collaboration - we solve complex problems by breaking them into simpler parts, and the simpler parts collaborate to solve the larger problem. Any system that cannot flexibly create simpler parts and allow them to work in parallel will be difficult to work with. Ideally if the problem can be describe as the interaction between N independent interaction agents, then it should be programmed or organized as N independent interacting agents. Conversely if a problem cannot be described in terms of independent communicating parts it will be difficult to understand and difficult to implement. The ease with which we can change the number of parts and how they interact has profound consequences for the success of the architecture. Have said this, I'll examine three factors that influence architectures in an unintentionally bad manner. * Static Organizational Structures Thirty odd years ago I got a job at Ericsson and was introduced to the architecture of the AXE system. I was initially confused when I learned about the software architecture of the AXE system since it appeared to be very similar to the organizational structure of a large part of the company. Sometimes I saw diagrams describing the organization, other times I saw documents describing the software structure and they appeared to be the same. > What I did't initially understand that they were the same - The organizations structure was exactly the same as the software structure. One block, one group, they were identical. This made a lot of sense - the software was stable and mature and the architecture did not change. Now changing an organizational structure is far more difficult than changing a software architecture - so software structure can change quickly but organizations cannot. Later, I moved to different projects and discovered that the software architecture follows the organizational structure. Suppose a new project was being started, and at the time when it was being started three groups of programmers became free having finished another project. Guess how many major components the new project would have? You guessed right, three, because three groups had become available at the time when the new project started. So the problem of designing a system architecture, became the problem of splitting the initial problem into three approximately equal programming tasks and not the problem of finding a natural division of the problem into small interacting parts. I view this as a kind of concurrency problem. If the problem could be described in terms of five interacting components, then it would be best programmed by five interacting groups, and not three, or seven because the organization happen to have three or seven groups available at the time. * Collaboration Methods How do we collaborate in software projects? - specifically how we collaborate in Open Source projects? The dominant model of collaboration is by manipulation of a common archive. Typically GitHub. GibHub collaborations are essentially shared memory transactions. The transaction manager (project owner) decides to commit a new set of changes or disallow them. As with all shared memory concurrent reads are possible but concurrent writes are disallowed and must be sequentially ordered - otherwise chaos will ensue. Some of us think that shared memory programming is a nightmare - people tinkering with my code or my tinkering with other peoples code that I don't really understand is a recipe for disaster. Collaborating in a communal project is not easy. The biggest problem is getting into the mind set of the people who built and maintain the project. Mature open source projects can have thousands of files and directories and knowing exactly where to add your stuff is by no means easy. Even though you think you know what you're doing a change that appears to work can easily break somebody else's code. This is incidentally how two humans interact and collaborate. If I want to collaborate with my friend I don't open up their head with a carving knife, insert new neural synapses, then sew up everything and hope that it will work. No I talk to them, I say "can you do this?" and they talk back - we interact by exchanging messages. This is how distributed applications work - they work by exchanging messages. In fact this is the only way they possibly could work. The clue lies in the name **distributed** - distributed means that the parts of the application are indifferent physical places so they have to collaborate by exchanging messages which in the best case travel at the speed of light, and in most case a lot lot slower. The most common way to build distributed things and the most successful way of creating collaborative things is the WWW. Of all the ways of building object on the Internet the dominant way is to use the HTTP protocol layered over TCP sockets. I'll call this HTTP-over-TCP. Of course HTTP-over-TCP is not the only way of doing things, there are many other combinations we could choose. Recently I've been experimenting with two alternatives JSON-over-TCP and OSC-over-UDP - both have their advantages and disadvantages, so I'm going to discuss these here: Firstly I want to use JSON-over-TCP and OSC-over-UDP for purely *internal* collaboration. These messages are never intended to escape the local machine/Internet boundary so I don't have to worry about security. What are these little projects: The first is JSON-over-TCP, this started with my [[http://joearms.github.io/2016/01/04/fun-with-swift.html][Fun with Swift]] article. After I published this I was contacted by Chris Eidhof who very kindly sent me a copy of [[https://www.objc.io/books/functional-swift/][Functional Swift]] which he had co-authored so I was very glad to hear from him. Some of my hours of struggling were solved by a quick tip from Chris. Chris and I started mailing each other and he soon had made a simple JSON-over-TCP proof of concept where we can build a remote GUI by sending JSON messages over TCP. The project is still in proof-of-concept stage but there is some code to play with at [[https://github.com/chriseidhof/tcp-json-swift][https://github.com/chriseidhof/tcp-json-swift]] and I was able to send messages from Erlang to Swift and a window popped up. Early days, but looking good. Chris and I would like to implement something like [[http://shoesrb.com/][Shoes]] -- for those of you who have never used shoes the first version was written by the extremely talented [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_lucky_stiff][Why the Lucky Stiff]]. > Unfortunately the Internet does not have permanent references, so much of what the Lucky Stiff wrote seems to have vanished. This is why we should all support Juan Benet in his attempts to build [[(http://ipfs.io/][The Interplanetary File System]] and resist storing our data in impermanent clouds. Let's not destroy history for future generations by sticking our data in a proprietary cloud. The nice thing about separating the GUI client from the GUI server is that neither of us needs to know *anything* about the internal structure of the other guys project. My project is written in Erlang and has a directory structure and build system that I'm happy with. Chris's project is written in Swift and has a directory structure and build system that he is happy with, but neither of us needs to know how the other side has implemented their code. All we need to agree on are what messages should be send and what the messages mean. The second project is a collaboration with Sam Aaron focused on the [[http://sonic-pi.net/][Sonic Pi]]. This project uses OSC messaging with UDP transport, which I'll call OSC-over-UDP. OSC-over-UDP as a way of gluing projects together is described in a [[http://joearms.github.io/2016/01/28/A-Badass-Way-To-Connect-Programs-Together.html][A Badass Way to Connect Things Together]]. * Programming Languages Why do we have monolithic projects? I believe this is because it is difficult to build communicating components in what are essentially sequential programming languages. Concurrency has been forgotten in most programming languages, and when it has been added it seems like a afterthought, not as an act of conscious design. In a very large number of programming languages the only way to program a concurrent application is to ``do it yourself'' and simulate concurrency by storing the state of a suspended process in a data base or some equally horrid constructions involving a mess of callback and promises. Sequential languages are designed to write sequential programs, and the only way for a sequential program to grow in functionality is for it to get larger. It's technically difficult to split it into cooperating processes so this is not usually done. The concurrency in the application cannot be used to structure the application. > We should grow things by adding more small communicating objects, rather than making larger and larger non-communicating objects. Concentrating on the communication provides a higher level of abstraction than concentrating on the function APIs used within the system. Black-box equivalence says that two systems are equivalent if they cannot be distinguished by observing their communication patterns. Two black-boxes are equivalent if they have identical input/output behavior. When we connect black boxes together we don't care what programming languages have been used inside the black boxes, we don't care how the code inside the black boxes has been organized, we just have to obey the communication protocols. If you look at most GitHub projects - they are built as monolithic single language applications, they are not built from small communicating components written in different languages. In the Internet world, we program differently. Here it is possible to structure applications as `micro-services` usually using HTTP-over-TCP or JSON-over-TCP AJAX and so on, but this is not used **internally** inside the OS to any large extent. > Erlang programs are the exception. Erlang programs are intentionally structured as communicating processes - they are the ultimate micro-services. Large Erlang applications have a flat ``bus like'' structure. They are structured as independent parallel applications hanging off a common communication bus. This leads to architectures that are easy to understand and debug and collaborations which are easy to program.