Why can’t it properly parse -42 as an integer, when it can parse .5 as a double? Well, according to the development team of a certain Fortune 100 company, this behavior is by-design ... Apparently, “.” can be a number, but “-” can’t.

When you know you’ve got it all wrong, but you can’t be bothered to get it right, document it — make it look intentional, and most people won’t question you.

I’m sorry folks, but I’ve had it up to here with the “it’s by design” excuse. I don’t care who you are, and I don’t care who wrote the design spec — when something is as obviously wrong as this, you need to fix it, not just give us platitudes.

I had the same thing happen recently with a bug I filed about the way wildcard behavior impedes matching file-names with square brackets in them in PowerShell. They told me this was by design, and that I could use the -LiteralPath parameter. Well, if any of you have tried this, you already know what I’m going to say: it’s broken.

And yet, I was initially told it was supposed to be this way. Now, in this case, I happened to have the email address of the software architect, and they’ve reopened my bug after I sent him an email with lots of examples of how this bug defied the behavior that a user expects.

We software developers need to be very careful about saying “that’s by design” ... because it sometimes makes us sound stupid. When a user says “this is broken,” and your reply is “that’s by design,” what the user hears is “we broke it on purpose.” We should not be willing to excuse bad design.

Listen up: If you want to be a successful software developer, you need to learn this, and learn it well: the fact that it was DESIGNED WRONG is NOT AN EXCUSE for shipping broken software. Regardless of whether it’s your design, or someone else’s, even if it was designed this way by your manager’s boss. When you create software that doesn’t behave the way the user expects it to, you need to consider the possibility that you’re doing it wrong.

Imagine if architectural engineers were to behave in a similar manner … Suppose the original architect of the golden gate bridge had left a gap in the middle of the bridge, with a little ramp: you could drive up the bridge, but you couldn’t get across unless you were comfortable jumping your car across a four foot opening.

When you complained about it, the engineers would say: it’s by design — if you don’t like jumping your car (and yes, we know that jumping is bad for maintainability), there is a workaround: just wait for the ferry we put in last year. There are several boats, running continuously, so the wait is at maximum about 20 minutes, and it only takes a little longer to cross by boat than it would on the bridge.

That analogy is obviously not perfect, but the point is: just because someone decided it should be done a certain way doesn’t mean that’s the right thing to do — sometimes the design is just wrong. Perhaps the designer and architects overlooked something, or perhaps the circumstances have changed, but in any case, if the software doesn’t work the way people expect it to work, or requires different workarounds depending on the situation … you need to question the design.

All I’m asking is this: don’t turn your brain off: when someone complains about the way something works (or doesn’t work), think about what they’re asking, and if the complaint makes sense, don’t say “this misbehavior is by design” until you’ve reconsidered the design.