A recent conversation with a colleague got me thinking about so-called “lightweight” systems, and when they become more trouble then they’re worth. He was frustrated by some problems he was having; even more so, he explained, because he thought he was dealing with something that was “lightweight”. It’s a seductive word, and sometimes — as with other forms of seduction — when you get more involved than you should things can get a bit sticky.
This article is an attempt to explain what lightweight really means, both in terms of benefits and drawbacks. There are also a couple of comparative examples from my own experience.
Lightweight doesn’t mean simple
People often mistake “lightweight” to mean simple or quick. But this can’t be right, because everyone wants simple and quick, and if it really meant this no-one would use anything else. Every website would be rewritten with the lightweight Ruby on Rails and every application would be sitting on top of the lightweight SQLite database. Who wouldn’t? Who doesn’t want simple? Who doesn’t want quick?
Lightweight is often good, but it must have its tradeoffs, otherwise other technologies wouldn’t exist.
From the examples below I see lightweight as offering low cost in return for low demands, high cost for high demands. Heavyweight is disproportionately high cost for low demands, but low cost for high demands.
Lightweight carries low inherent management costs. But some situations require a high degree of management control whether you like it or not. That means that if a lightweight system needs to scale up you have to wrest management from it and maintain it externally. If you can do that then the lightweight system continues to work, but if the lightweight system will not relinquish management control, or if you don’t have the discipline to keep the management going, then it won’t be effective in the long run. By contrast heavyweight systems impose management and structure of their own. This is good if you’re going to need it, as it takes the pressure of discipline off you, but it’s not effective if you didn’t need that management structure in the first place.
To illustrate this, here are a couple of lightweight/heavyweight comparison case studies…
Language example: TCL and Java
TCL is a lightweight language. You get to write Hello World in one line, it doesn’t force much structure on you, and it’s pretty relaxed about how it’s written.
TCL is so good, in fact, that was the basis of the original Guardian Unlimited website. We built Ajax-style tools with it before Ajax was known as a concept, we generated our front page from it, we used it to integrate with our ad server.
But as our site grew the language didn’t scale with it. Clever shortcuts implemented by earlier developers confused newer developers because they obscured the purpose of the code. The lack of an imposed structure meant every foray into older code involved learning its idiosyncracies from scratch. Development slowed down as we worked around older code. And when we wanted to redesign the website we found that through years of lightweight flexibility we had allowed ourselves to be tied into knots: it would be more effective to start again than to work with what we had.
In fact, for the most part we’re now using Java…
In contrast to TCL, Java is pretty heavyweight. Not only does Hello World require three lines (excluding any lines with just braces), but its philosophy of structure and layering percolates through from the core language to most of its add-ons. For example, to parse an XML document you have to drill through two abstraction layers before you can find the parser.
One Java framework that maintains this ethos is Hibernate, used for database access. Its architecture is complicated, and as usual this is to offer flexibility without relinquishing manageability. Recently a forthcoming release of the Guardian Unlimited website was failing its pre-production performance tests. Our developers tracked down a major cause of the problem to an inefficient query within Hibernate. They extracted some of the query’s logic up into the application layer and simplified what remained, rebalancing the work between the application and the database. Problem solved, performance restored. What’s relevant to our story is that the developers did this entirely within the archicture of Hibernate, so they didn’t compromise the design of the application and therefore didn’t add complexity.
CMS example: WordPress and the GU CMS
Over on ZDNet Larry Dignan extolls the virtues of WordPress and says, effectively, “What have big content management systems ever done for us?”
WordPress is the lightweight CMS I’ve chosen for this blog, and I’m very happy with it. It’s easy to install, requires almost zero maintenance, and lets me focus on the writing. And yet I’m a strong advocate of the home-grown CMS we have for our journalists and subs on the Guardian Unlimited site. Is lightweight not good enough for our journalists? What has a big CMS ever done for us?
Well, I just looked at a current article on guardian.co.uk: “Ministers ordered to assess climate cost of all decisions”. It was created with our big CMS. What’s there that WordPress couldn’t deliver?
For a start it’s got a list of linked subjects down the side, which aren’t the same as WordPress’s tags because they’re tightly managed to ensure consistency and reliability. These subjects are also categorised, so Pollution and Climate Change are subjects under Environment, while Green politics is a subject under Politics. As I write this, I note also that the pages for Pollution and Climate Change are designed differently, with Climate Change being more pictorial and feature-led. Subject categorisations and subject-specific designs are beyond what WordPress’s tags do.
Okay, so apart from the linked subjects, the categorisations, and the subject-specific designs, what has a big CMS ever done for us? I suppose it’s worth mentioning the related advertising, which as write includes a large ad for environmentally-friendly washing liquid. There are other contextual commercial elements, too, such as the sponsored features, links to green products and books, and offers of reducing energy bills and offsetting carbon emissions. And there are related articles and related galleries. And details of the article history, listing when and where it was first published, on what page and in what newspaper section.
Okay, so apart from the linked subjects, the categorisations, the subject-specific designs, the related advertising, the contextual sponsored features, the links to relevant products and books, the complementary offers, the related articles, the related galleries, and the article history, what has a big CMS ever done for us?
Well, I suppose it is serving to over 17 million unique users a month…
I’ll stop now. The point is a lightweight CMS such as WordPress could probably do any one of these things, with a bit of work. But it isn’t designed to do anywhere near all of them. And each time it’s changed to do one more of these things the more it is moved away from its core architecture and it gets closer to a point of paralysis, where nothing functions well anymore because no part of it is doing what it was designed to do. A bit like the TCL example.
Reviewing these two examples, it’s clear that the lightweight systems became, or would become, very costly when they were pushed beyond their initial expectations. In both cases the corresponding heavyweight systems came with their own (heavy) management structure, but that management structure ensures lower running costs.
In the Hibernate example our software maintained its architecture after we’d made our performance change; anyone looking at this new code would be able to rely on previous knowledge to understand what was going on. By contrast, anyone coming fresh to a snippet of old TCL code would be starting from scratch, regardless of how much of the other TCL code they’d seen.
Similarly, the large-scale content management system at GU is internally consistent, despite its vast range of features and functionality. Once someone has learnt the principles (which, admittedly, are non-trivial) they can get to work on pretty much any part of it. Pushing WordPress to do that would have created a monster.
Lightweight systems take the management away from you. And that’s ideal, as long you don’t need that manageability.
5 thoughts on “Lightweight versus heavyweight: The cost is in the management”
Hello, I found your article very interesting.
Totally agree with you. Lightweight and heavyweight are both necessary. Just targeted to different uses. If I need to take a note I’ll use pencil and handbook. If a want to write a book is better to use a PC. To print the book for myself a laser printer is good. But if I need to print a million copies is a better idea to contact an editor.
What is important to take in mind, in my opinion, is to not handle all your work to your first choice.
If you are a developer is good to take your model code as much as possible apart from the frameworks you’re working on. And of course is good to choose that frameworks that do not force you to change your way of writing code. This can be always the open door to scale, when and if it becomes necessary.
(Sorry for my poor English)
ddpole, the phrase “targeted to different uses” is good distinction. And, as you say, your first intended uses will not necessarily be all your intended uses. That’s when you get problems.
Dear Nik, is there an open source heavyweight cms you could recommend?
Kind regards from Switzerland.
Hi Alex, there’s none that I could recommend, because I’ve not used any sufficiently. The reason we built our own (twice) is that nothing out there met for our needs, although of course our needs will not be the same as yours.
Comments are closed.