Definition of Decent Failure

Being software developer and failing seems to be inseparable. Is it right or wrong? Is it something we should worry about? Is it really inscribed into developers every day life? Does it affect only us, developers? What does failing mean? When is it good to fail? Can we always fail?

Well, one may say that my questions look more like existential considerations of philosophy students, rather than a topic for a blog post. By and large, it would be a correct statement, however there is a subtle thread connecting software development and failures, which is leading me to these questions.

Life means development
Eastern explanation style will definitely try to do two things:

• use outside-in approach (deduction)
• try to percept a life from the perspective of what it can bring to us.

There is one thing we constantly should try to do in life. It is a self development. One of the most expressive and direct examples of such a philosophy, were Japanese warriors. They were spending whole days mastering their skills, so that they were better prepared to serve their masters and for inevitable situations like life, fight or death.

Development means progress
Going further, that self-development clearly meant progress. It was progress not only in terms of physical skills, but also in terms of mental strength, world comprehension and the sense of life.

Progress means series of experiments
Samurais knew perfectly well that their progress was depending on their hard and tough training, topped with dealing with unusual and unpredictable situations. These peculiar situations were in fact devoted to testing and verifying theories, processes, phenomenons and hypothesis they were thought during their life. 
The most valuable warriors could shift all what they learnt into series of experiments, so that they could prove themselves and their knowledge. It means that most distinguished samurais were experimenters.

Series of experiments mean experience
However, not only that. Samurais were also experienced and educated people in many aspects. 
There is an interesting intuition related to experience, among people, namely old age and hoar. Aged warriors were considered as privileged people, following at least below rules: 

• there are many paths leading to the same place
• choose the right path (minimize the risk of loosing life, health, family etc.)

These two, rather obvious statements, are barely prerequisites to the most instructive parts of each experiment i.e. a path and a result. Therefore, from the very beginning samurai's were made sensitive to two observations:

• each valuable experiment has a result
• experiment without any result is a pure waste.

It means that every, single action should have an effect. An effort without any result is waste of time, energy and resources.

Experience means failures

Going further, every result can have one of two values: true or false. Incidentally, it is worth to think about experiment in terms of test. Test is a scenario, which exercises some idea, question or system and evaluates to a result. 

One may ask, which result value is better: true or false? Hmm ... that's actually a very good concern. Let's ponder on it for a while then. 

The result, which is true, shows you that hypothesis you have in mind, is correct. Also, it shows that path you have chosen was not too severe comparing to your current level of experience. It confirms your believes. On the other hand, result equal to false, is showing you much more. It tells you that your assumption was wrong. In the samurais' world, every situation in which they failed and were not causing too much damage to themselves, family and other people or things was invaluable. Why? Because, by failing they did a recon of area they were unsure, hopefully with low cost (e.g. few bruises or broken ribs). By failing in a relatively safe way, they lower the risk of entering unknown area in the future. 

Fail early, fail often, fail fast with decent failure

Samurais' were able to see a value in discovering limitations and risky areas. They greatly appreciated early intelligence and impact of actions they did. That is why, they were mastering their skills on a daily basis. Tough and repeatable training, body memory, permanent checks of their mental and physical limitations, fights with bokkens instead of katanas, self defense without weapon and against weapon etc. All of that were tests in isolated context, aiming to train and solve difficult and unusual situations, as well as common manoeuvres happening on a battle field. They were treating their body as system, which needs to be under constant test. By looking at that problem from different angles and considering many aspects of each perspective, they were hardening their minds, bodies and hearts for ultimate test - real life. 

All in all, failing seems to be a good thing. However, we have to bear in mind that we cannot just fail. It has to be a controlled failure, something which I call a decent failure. In fact, it is a regular failure holding three, below properties: 

• early - saving time, don't go through all process to get a feedback
• often - frequent feedback
• fast - short feedback loop

Be okay with the decent failure

Having a decent failures mechanism in place is actually great success!! Decent failure is the best thing you can experience, as it shows you all your limitations and pins down the problem in a safe and quick manner.