Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I've come across an article that discusses the issue of "code admiration". Basically, the author talks about how developers should be more skeptic about code they write. How we may "admire" our code too much, attach our-self to it, making us more vulnerable to bugs and other mishaps that may be lying in front of us.
How do you feel about this issue? And do you have more tips on how to avoid/be more aware of this issue?
Some years ago, I was working with another on a small "hobby" project, and I realised that we had to re-assess things. We had written lots of code but it wasn't all good code.
We didn't really want to "throw away" all the work we had put in. But I realised something: what mattered most was the amount of work we would need to put in from now on.
We couldn't change the fact that we had already put so much work into the project, so the only way to minimise the total amount of work the project would need, would be to minimise the amount of work we hadn't done yet.
Since that day, I have stopped being attached to my code. If I'm confident that throwing it away and starting from scratch means less work than keeping it and adapting it to my needs, then I'll throw it away.
My high school art teacher used to encourage us to take what we considered to be our best drawings and tear them up; he called this "cleansing the soul". His reasoning was that, as artists, we were driven to create works of art, and any time we produced something that we liked and that gave us satisfaction, our motivation to continue creating would be lessened.
So I followed his advice and tore up my best stuff, and it worked. Instead of spending my time admiring my old work, I created new stuff and continually got better. I've tried to follow the same principle with my code, but it doesn't really work: my computer has a tough plastic shell that is nearly impossible to tear through.
I post a fragment from Jeff Atwood's blog, Sucking Less Every Year, and I agree 100%.
I've often thought that sucking less
every year is how humble programmers
improve. You should be unhappy with
code you wrote a year ago. If you
aren't, that means either A) you
haven't learned anything in a year, B)
your code can't be improved, or C) you
never revisit old code. All of these
are the kiss of death for software
developers.
We sure like to admire our nice code, but it's not always easy to know what to admire. Complicated and elaborate code is sometimes mistaken for admirable code, while elegance and simplicity should rather be what to strive for.
Two quotes come to mind:
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing
the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as
cleverly as possible, you are, by
definition, not smart enough to debug
it.”
-- Brian Kernighan
and
"Make everything as simple as
possible, but not simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
Jonathan Edwards wrote an impressively beautiful essay on this subject, prompted by the work on the O'Reilly book Beautiful Code. Here's the final paragraph, but the rest of the essay is also worth reading.
Another lesson I have learned is to distrust beauty. It seems that infatuation with a design inevitably leads to heartbreak, as overlooked ugly realities intrude. Love is blind, but computers aren’t. A long term relationship – maintaining a system for years – teaches one to appreciate more domestic virtues, such as straightforwardness and conventionality. Beauty is an idealistic fantasy: what really matters is the quality of the never ending conversation between programmer and code, as each learns from and adapts to the other. Beauty is not a sufficient basis for a happy marriage.
Other versions of this same wisdom exist in other fields. Samuel Johnson, about writing:
Read over your compositions, and wherever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out.
William Faulkner's version of this was much more succinct: “Kill your darlings.”
My father-in-law works as a film editor, and he studiously avoids the set where the film is being shot. When he does have to visit, he shields his eyes as much as he can. This is because when he decides whether or not to include a scene in the final film, he doesn't want to be influenced by how much effort it took to shoot the scene. What matters is how well the scene works in the final film.
My essay, "My evolution as a programmer" (which I would link to if I weren't a new user), is largely about learning skepticism about the code I'd written: whether it works, whether it's useful, whether it's comprehensible (pair programming was a real wake-up call here). It's hard!
I never admire my code. I admire other peoples code that i "borrow" and try and emulate them or better them and i find that the more i know, especially about coding the more i find i don't to know. The only thing of value wold be for peer programmers to admire my code and borrow it.
I think he has a good point. It's frustrating to work with people that have too much of this, as it really hinders teamwork and getting to the best solution to the problem.
As I can be a bit delusional, I try to put practices in place that will keep me grounded in reality. For code,
unit tests: These keep me more focused on what the code is supposed to do, as opposed to any abstract "beauty".
shared code ownership: There are two camps here: give people more ownership of their code and hope pride takes over, or give them less and let peer pressure come into play. I believe that giving people more ownership can lead to this code admiration. We practice shared code ownership, so I am constantly forced to see someone rewrite my perfect code to make it better (in their mind). I quickly realized admiring it too much was a waste of time and emotionally difficult.
pair programming: working side-by-side with someone will keep you realistic.
other feedback: These are all feedback loops, but there are others. There's no better way to see if something works than by watching someone (try to) use it. Put your work in front of as many people as possible. Have code reviews. Read other people's code. Run static code analysis tools.
I'm with PurplePilot - I don't admire my own code, and as such I'm constantly searching for new, more efficient (hell, easier) ways of doing the same thing. I like the Effective c# book, picked up lots of useful code from there that I admire.
I would have no hesitation about throwing code away and starting again, but not necessarily from scratch, i.e. by writing some code for a specific scenario and then throwing it away, you'll probably have a better grasp of the scenario. In other words, it's a "wicked problem", or you've found another way that doesn't work a la Edison.
It begs a wider question: if code isn't thrown away, or at least revisited, is developing on libraries that are becoming stagnant a good thing?
There is nothing wrong with admiring your code ... this is part of the positive reinforcement process that will motivate you to write more and better code in the future.
However, misplaced or misused admiration can be a problem. If the code is really not good, or has bugs that haven't been exposed by unit or other testing, or needs refactoring/redesign/replacement then this misplaced admiratoin is a problem. And using admiration as an excuse to skip part of the process - such as code reviews, or not having a skeptical attitude towards code - is misuse of admiration.
Like anything else that is good, admiration of code can be misplaced or misused - it doesn't mean that it in itself is bad. That would be like saying "religion is a bad thing, because it causes conflicts and wars between people".
Two words: code review.
Gather two or more fellow developers and invite them to review/criticize/comment on your code. 'twill shed some (admittedly harsh) light on your code.
It's perhaps better to have a healthier perspective - we aren't rocket scientists, and we aren't curing cancer - it's just work.
(Yes, it's reasonable to be proud of an entire building you helped build if you're an architect, but do they really have a lot of their self-esteem wrapped up in an individual blueprint, or a closet on floor 3 they designed by themselves?).
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
So, I'm almost 100% self taught in programming (save for a course in C after I had already taught myself C). This means that to keep myself programming, I have to be constantly finding materials (i.e. tutorials) on the web (I'm poor). Unfortunately, I've found myself stuck in a sort of limbo, where I understand the basics of programming (in theory, I'm able to grab a new language and get comfortable enough to solve a few Project Euler problems, as is evident by my time spent here) but I'm not able to get any deeper than that, like GUI programming or web interfacing.
I don't know if it's just me, but there seems to be a sort of great divide in terms of the level of difficulty in the tutorials on the internet. All I can find fall under either Maddeningly Easy or Maddeningly Difficult. Are there no intermediate tutorials out there? The kind that say, okay, you've seen this before, here's some code but we'll explain what's happening. But I digress.
Given my lack of ability to breach the practicality gap in terms of programming, I find myself stagnating. I can only teach myself the first six Project Euler problems in so many languages. I need to find something, some sort of project, before my spark dies out. I'm worried about it. I know this is such a broad question, but... can anyone help me out? Point me in some sort of direction?
You need to start making things. You can start out small, but find a project that you can contribute to or that you want to work on yourself.
If you can't think of anything "useful" to make, then start writing simple games: a tetris clone, a top-down shooter, something like that. It doesn't have to have AAA graphics but even a simple game like tetris will teach a lot about the more complex structure of a program, user interface, and that sort of thing. But at the same time there's nothing so complicated than you'll get completely stuck.
Passion is not something that will die out that easily. There are tons of local user groups/developer groups that you can join to learn from them (most of them are free) To get to some of what you defined as intermediate problem, getting a job is definitely the best solution. You could work on Dave Thomas's coding kata. For difficult ones, you can do some facebook puzzles (they get real hard at the second level and up, easily take hours to days to solve)
A couple of suggestions which I might offer, as they have worked for me in the past, when in the same situation:
1) Get involved in an Open Source Project.
One of the best ways to learn programming is to read/review/refactor code created by other programmers. You learn new tricks, as well as good style guides for formatting your code in later work, and start building a good understanding of a pile of packages which you can roll together to create solutions down the track.
2) (If you aren't already) Get a Job as a Programmer.
The single greatest kind of learning experience I have had when it comes to programming is when I need to extend my skillset to solve a particular problem. Being put in a role where you are given a problem, which, when you start, is beyond your skills and then creating a solution using experimentation, sourcing existing solutions online, referring to documentation, asking a learned colleague, etc. is great. It is almost like a trade apprenticeship - you learn as you go and sooner or later you can handle 95% of the solutions autonomously.
One thing I have seen said time and time again on various blogs and forums is that trying to be highly skilled in a wide range of languages is an almost impossible challenge - it is better to pick one (or maybe two) and then practice, practice, practice to develop it's associated skillset to a great degree.
Perhaps you should start working on REAL WORLD projects for either friends or family.
This will give you positive feedback for your efforts and a sense of "acheivement" when the job is finished.
Great programming theory is all very good, but without introducing some kind of "reward cycle" I can understand how frustrated you could become.
You need to start and finish a project that's a large enough to force you to learn different things, but small enough to actually finish. Here are some ideas:
Jabber client
RSS reader
Twitter client
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Its always said that more you program, the better you become. Sounds good and true.
But I was wondering if there is a proven route to becoming a better programmer.
Something like:
Learn a
Learn b
Learn c > 'Now you are good to burn the engines'
Try stuff around based on your learning.
The answer might be similar to a CS course roadmap, but I want to hear from successful programmers who might want to pitch in with something notable.
Thanks
It's not true that practice makes perfect.
It's perfect practice that makes perfect.
If all you do is keep repeating the same bad practices again and again, you'll only make it possible to create bad code faster.
By all means keep coding. But at the same time be critical of everything you do. Always have a jaundiced eye that looks for ways to do things better. Read widely to get new ideas. Talk to others about how they do things. Look at other people's code, good and bad.
There's no "sure" way to learn anything that I know of. If there was, anyone could master this.
All questions are rhetorical and meant to stimulate thought.
Technical parts:
Design Patterns - There are probably some specific to a domain but generally these are useful ways of starting parts of an application. Do you know MVC or MVP?
Basic algorithm starting points - Divide and conquer, dynamic programming, recursion, creating special data types like a heap, being greedy, etc.
Problem solving skills - How easily can you jump in and find where a bug is? Can you think of multiple solutions to the problem?
Abstract modelling - How well can you picture things in your head in terms of code or classes when someone is describing a problem?
High level versus low level - How well do you understand when one wants something high or low? This is just something I'd toss out there as these terms get through around a lot, like a high level view of something or a low level language.
Process parts:
Agile - Do you know Scrum, XP, and other new approaches to managing software projects? How about principles like YAGNI, DRY and KISS? Or principles like SOLID? Ideas like Broken Windows?
Developer Environment - How well do you know the IDE you use? Source Control? Continuous Integration? Do you know the bottle necks on your machine in terms of being productive?
xDD - Do you know of TDD, BDD, and other developments driven from a paradigm?
Refactoring - Do you go back over your old code and make it better or do you tend to write once and then abandon your code?
Soft skills:
Emotional Intelligence - Can be useful for presentations and working with others mostly.
Passions/Motivation - Do you know what gets your juices flowing and just kick butt in terms of being productive? Do you know what you would like to do for many many years?
My main piece of advice would be: don't be afraid to rewrite your own code. Look at stuff you wrote even a month ago and you will see flaws and want to rewrite stuff.
Make sure that you understand some fundamentals: collections, equality, hashcodes etc. These are useful across pretty much all modern languages.
Depending on the language you use - use lint and metric tools and run them over your code. Not all their suggestions will be applicable but learning which are important and which are not is important. E.g FindBugs, PMD etc for Java.
Above all refine and keep refining your work. Don't treat your work as abandonware!
Learn your 1st programming language a new programming paradigm or a
find a mentor you can learn from
Apply what you've learnt in a real world project
Learn from your mistakes and successes and goto step one
The trick is knowing what to learn first:
Programming languages - this is the place to start bcause you cannot write software without knowing at least one of these. After you've mastered one language try learning another.
Programming paradigm - i.e. object oriented, dynamic/functional programming etc. Try to learn a new one with each new language.
Design concepts - S.O.L.I.D, design patterns as well as architectural concepts.
People skills - learn to communicate your ideas.
Team leadership - learn how to sweep others and how to become a team or technological lead.
After that the sky is the limit.
I would look at improving roughly in this order, in iterations with each building on the previous one:
Programming concepts. Understand things like memory management, pointers, stacks, variable scope, etc.
Languages. Work on mastering several modern languages.
Design concepts. Learn about design patterns. Practice using them.
Communication. Often-overlooked. You can only become a highly valued Software Engineer if you can communicate effectively with non-tech people. Learn to listen and understand the needs that people are expressing, translate that into a set of requirements and a technical design, but then explain what you understood (and designed) back to them, in terms they can understand, for validation before you code. This is not an easy one to master, but it is essential.
Architectural concepts. Learn to understand the big picture of large, complex systems.
Learning a programming language is in many ways similar to learning a spoken language. The only way to get good at it is to do it as often as possible. In other works
Practice, practice, read and then practice more
Take time to learn about all sorts of coding techniques, tools and programming wisdom. This I have found to be crucial to my development. It's to easy to just code away and feel productive. What about what could be if you just had some more knowledge / weaponry under your belt to bang out that next widget.
Knowledge/know how is our real currency. The more we know the more we can make a better decision about how something should be done and do it faster.
For example, learn about:
•Development Practices, Software Design, Estimation, Methodologies Business Analysis Database Design (there are a lot of great books out there and online resources)
•Read Code - Open Source Projects are a good place for this. Read
Programming blogs
•Try to participate on Open Source
Projects.
•Look for programming user groups in
your town and/or someone who can mentor you.
And yes, as mentioned practice. Don't just read, do and watch how you will improve. :)
Practice, practice, practice.
Once you're over the basic hump of being able to program, you can also read useful books (i.e. Code Complete, Effective Java or equivalents, etc.) for ideas on how to improve your code.
First and foremost write code. Write as much as you can. Tackle hard problems. If you want to be a really good programmer you need to get into the guts of what you are doing. Spend a lot of time in debuggers looking at how things work. If you want to be a good programmer who really understands what is going on you need to get down to the metal and write highly async code, learn about how processors work and why SSE is so awesome. Understand threading primitives and be able to write them as well as describe what is actually happening in the processor. I could keep going here but you get the idea.
Second find someone who knows a lot more than you and learn. This relationship will work better if you are already deeply immersed in writing lots of code.
Third, spend some time in a large high quality open source code base. I learned a ton from the Quake I and Quake II code. Helped me be a better programmer.
Fourth take on hard problems. Push your limits. Build things that you thought were impossible. Right now I am writing a specialized compiler. I have learned so much just working on this for the last couple of months.
Sure, strictly speaking, the more you practice programming, the better you become at solving those sorts of problems. But is that what you really want?
Programming is a human activity more than a technological one, at its heart. It's easy to improve your computer skills, not so hard to improve your interpersonal skills.
Read "Journey of the Software Professional" by Hohmann. One of the concepts the concepts Hohmann describes is the "cognitive library," which includes both programming skills and non-programming skills. Expand your cognitive library, and your programming skill will improve too.
Read a lot of non-programming books too, and observe the world around you. Creating useful metaphors is an essential skill for the successful programmer. Why do restaurants do things how they do? What trade-offs is the garbage department making when they pick up the garbage every few days instead of every day? How does scaling affect how a grocery store does business? Be an inquisitive human to be a better programmer.
For me, there has to be a reason to learn something new... that is, unless I have a project in mind or some problem I need to solve, there's no hope. If that prerequisite is met, then I usually try to get "Hello, world" working, and after that the sky's the limit. So much of development these days is just learning new APIs. Occasionally there's some kind of paradigm shift that blows your mind, but that's not as common as people like to think, IMHO.
Find a program that intrigues you, one that solves a problem, or one that would simplify many of your tasks. Try to write something similar. You'll get up to speed very quickly and have fun doing it at the same time.
You can try learning one thing really well and then expanding out to programming areas that are associated with the things that you have learnt, so that you can offer complete solutions to customers.
At the same time, devote part of your time to explore things outside your comfort zone.
One you have learned something, try to learn something a little harder. Read and practice a lot about things that seem confusing at first time (lambda functins, threading, array manipulation, etc). It will take its time, but once you have practiced enough, what seemed confusing at first, will be familiar and easy.
In addition to the rest of the great advice already given here, don't be afraid to read about coding and good practice, but also take everything with a grain of salt and see what works best for you. A lot of advice is opinion.
Good sites to read:
-thedailywtf.com
-joelonsoftware.com
-codinghorror.com
-blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing
A great place to get practice is programming competition websites. Those will help you learn how to write good algorithms, not necessarily maintainable code, but they're still a good place to start for learning.
The one I used to use (back when I had time) was:
http://uva.onlinejudge.org/
Learn more than one language. One at a time, definitely, but ultimately you should be fluent in a couple. This will give you a better perspective I think, and help you to become an expert at programming, rather than being an expert at a certain language.
Learn the ins and outs of computers at all levels, hardware, os, etc. Ideally you should be able to build your own system, install multiple operating systems on it, and diagnose just about every problem that can arise. I know many programmers who are not "computer tech people" and their failure to understand what is happening at every level becomes a major hindrance in diagnosing and fixing unusual bugs or performance issues.
As well as looking at 'last weeks code', talk to users of your work after delivery - be one yourself if possible.
Its not my bag, but some of the best coders I know have spent time supporting applications. The experience improved their product I'm sure.
eat breath dream the programming language your using (no seriously, it helps)
There are two kinds of learning -
1. Informal (like how you learned how to function in society- through interaction with peers and family)
2. Formal (like your high school training- through planned instruction)
If you want an entry-level programming job, formal training via an undergrad Computer Science/Engineering degree is the way to go. However, if you want to become a rock-star developer, it is best done by informal training- make unintentional mistakes and have senior developers curse at you, learn a design pattern because an app you are updating uses it, almost cry because a bad developer wrote a huge messy program lacking documentation and best practices and now you have to do several updates to it ASAP; thing of these nature.
It is hard for anyone to give you a list of all you need to know. It varies per area (e.g. a web developer vs. to a desktop developer) and it varies per company (e.g. Microsoft that sells software vs. General Motors that mainly just use it in their cars.) Informal traiing and being engaged in trying to learn to do your job better and get promoted is your best bet in my opinion.
To prove my point, everyone here has great answers but they all differ. Ask a rock-star developer how he learned something or when, why; they may not know- things just happen.
Practice, individually and collectively
Keep an open mind, always learn new things, don't limit yourself to what's familiar. Not solely from a tech perspective, ui design, people skills, ... Don't be afraid of what's new
Peer review, talk to people about your code, let people talk to you about their code, everyone has a unique way of looking at a problem and you will learn a great deal from peers
Love coding. If you love what you're doing, putting in alot of time seems effortless. Every coder needs the drive!
One small addition to these good answers. When I work on someone else's code, usually I pick up something new. If you have the opportunity to work with someone else that is of equal or greater skill, noticing their programming style can teach you tons.
For example, in C++ & Javascript I no longer use if() statements without braces. The reason is that it's just too easy to mistakenly put:
while (true) {
if (a > b)
print a
print b
}
This is an obvious typo, but very easy to introduce, especially if you're editing existing code. I just call it defensive programming in my mind, but little tricks like this are valuable at making you better.
So, find a peer or mentor, and work on their code.
I am not sure if the OP was looking for general advice on how to be a good programmer, but rather something more specific.
I know I am reviving this thread, but I found it because I was trying to see if anyone asked this question already.
What I had in mind was, can we come up with a "knowledge-map" of programming concepts similar to the map that Khan Academy uses.
As a programmer, I want to be able to visualize the dependencies and relationships between different ideas, so that I can understand what skill level I am currently at; what I need to know before tackling a challenging subject; and be able to visualize my progress.
The very belief in the roadmap's existence blocks the road to perfection.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Recently, we've come across an issue at work where if one person is working on some code by themselves, it seems to come out with the other team members looking at it and going "Huh? That's ugly, unmanageable, I need to rewrite that"
In fact, recently, I myself have had to re-factor something that was written the week before so that I'd be able to add in my (related) feature.
I know that Pair programming is the way to go for this, but we have an uneven team (3 members). As our team is being pushed pretty hard at the moment, we really don't have time for Peer Reviews (though we can do Pair Programming, as we're allowed to estimate that into our task estimates)
I'm just curious as to how people would suggest we overcome these issues with poor code being generated.
When you work alone, and produce code which your colleagues find ugly and unmanageable and needs to be rewritten, then do you:
(a) agree with them when you look at it a second time,
(b) disagree?
If (a), then the problem is that on your own, you aren't fully clarifying your code when you write it. Since pair programming is the only thing making you write decent code, I suppose I'd recommend that the "odd one out" should work on tasks which do not involve writing long tracts of bad code: bug-hunting; maybe writing test code, since that tends to be a bit less fiendish. Meanwhile, work on improving your skills at writing better code - perhaps do reviews of your own code from a few months ago, and make notes as to what was wrong with it.
If (b), then the problem you have is incompatible ways of expressing your ideas. The code may not be bad by your standards, but it's mutually incomprehensible, which in a corporate setting means it's bad code. Pair programming means what you write is a compromise that 2 out of 3 of you understand, but that's not really a solution. You need to come to some mutual agreements about what you find most difficult about each other's code, and stop doing that. And you all urgently need to start thinking of "code quality" in terms of "my 2 colleagues will like this code", not "I like this code".
Either way, you all need to work on writing code for the purpose of being read, rather than for the purpose of getting the immediate job done as quickly as you possibly can. Personally I have done this by trying to express things in the way that I think other people might express and understand them, rather than just what makes sense to me at the time. Eventually it becomes habitual. When I write code, I write it for a public audience just like I'm writing this post for a public audience. OK, so on my personal projects it's an audience of people who think just like me, whereas at work it's an audience that thinks like my colleagues. But the principle is to write code as if someone's reading it. You're explaining yourself to them, not the compiler.
Not that my code is the best in the world, but I do think I benefited in that my first job was in a company with 30-odd programmers, so I got to see a wide range of ways of thinking about things. Also a few examples of "what not to do", where one programmer had done something that nobody else could easily understand, and therefore could definitively be said to be bad. With only 3 people, it's not clear whether a 2 v. 1 difference of opinion means that the 1 is a freak or a reasonable minority. When I did something and 4 or 5 people could glance at it and immediately say "eeew, don't do that", then I started to really believe it was just a dumb idea in the first place.
I'd also recommend that if you aren't allowed to budget for code review, lie and cheat. If you're heavily re-writing someone else's code, you're effectively taking the time to review it anyway, you just aren't providing the feedback which is the worthwhile part of code review. So sneak the review in under the radar - write a function or three, then ask a colleague to look at it and give you instant feedback on whether it makes sense to them. It helps to have a conversation as soon as you've done it, with the code on the monitor, but do try not to interrupt people when they have "flow", or to get into lengthy arguments. It's not pair programming, and it's not formal code review, but it might help you figure out what it is you're doing on your own that's so bad.
I'm surprised that you don't have time to do peer reviews but you have time to do paired programming. Is the latter not a much bigger sink of time?
We also have three developers only at our company and, surprise, surprise, we're being pushed hard at the moment. I'm pretty sure my boss would laugh at me if I suggested paired programming because that would be viewed as doubling the number of man hours for a task even though in practice that's not the result it should produce. Our peer reviews are never more than an hour and that is an extreme case. On average I would say they are probably about 10 minutes and, per developer, only happen once or twice in a day.
IMO you should give peer reviews a try. You often find that the offending people (i.e. the people writing the lower quality code) eventually realise that they need to make more of an effort and the quality improves over time.
If you have three developers and each of you think the others code is not good, you urgently need peer reviews.
So:
you are being pushed pretty hard
your code is of poor quality
Do you think the two could possibly be related? The answer is to fix the schedule.
Pair up all three at once.
Set up some coding standards.
Use a dunce cap for build breaking developers.
Perform daily stand up meetings to communicate progress.
Also try peer reviews twice a week, like Tuesday and Friday.
Pair Programming doesn't have to be all day every day to be effective. I have seen good results from even an hour or two working together each week. One way to go would be to pair A & B for a while, then A & C, then A & B... with a lot of individual time in between.
It also depends a lot on the personalities and chemistry of the team members. Two of the three might work exceptionally well together and you'd want to benefit from that.
You should still pair. Set up sessions say 1 day per week and rotate the pairs. This should keep your manager happy and increase the quality of the code, improve communication. If you keep metrics on how many faults happen in paired vs solitary coding you should start to see the benfit and display this to your manager,
eg This took x man hours but saved on average y in defect fixing. Additionally the clode is cleaner and will take less time to alter then next time we touch it.
From there you will have hard statistics and you can start to code more.
Basically your story seems to be the same as mine.
No time to do things.
Mistakes happen.
Rush to fix it (taking more time)
Go to 1
You need to stop the rot.
Code reviews
Enable Stylecop that will force you to write readable, standardised and manageable code
We use code reviews. Additionally there are some single task: changing a diagram, installing some stuff...
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have had a few development managers who don't seem to understand or appreciate the difficulties of software design and implementation.
Such managers believe that processes and methodologies completely solve the problem and I have a tough time explaining to them that it is not so and that you cannot read a book on the latest process fad and hope to get results by applying them as is.
The latest frustration I have is to convince my manager to
(a) Give me requirements not piece-meal but a larger set as far as possible.
(b) Give my team lead time to think about how to design, thrash out a few alternatives, work out an implementation sketch, to plan out the tasks etc.
The frustrations are compounded because of Agile methodology and the interpretation of it that says not to do up-front design (as against BIG up-front design in Waterfall), product owner can change requirements at any time and so son.
So far I haven't had much success and have to put up with the resulting frustrations.
Can you give me some arguments that can convince such managers?
EDIT-1:
Retrospectives are done, though not always at the end of every sprint, and the problems are brought up. But as I mentioned, my manager doesn't appreciate the need for design lead time and the frustrations with piece-meal requirements.
EDIT-2
I don't have a problem with changing requirements. I understand that it will be so, but imagine this: You want a small feature to begin with and then you keep adding more around it. After a few iterations, the design cannot handle it anymore and a redesign (not refactoring) is required. This could have been solved better with an upfront design in the first place, had the related features been investigated together. Its not BDUF, its the natural way of doing it (what I call software engineering common sense).
My manager doesn't understand why I ask for time to redesign (a few times I just call it refactoring so that it fits the Agile way of doing it, but it really is redesign) and not developing and demoing new features.
Every time requirements are changed (or increased) so should
the estimate to complete and,
the assessment of risk
Start giving updated estimates (even if you have to guess) and lists of risks every time you get an updated or new requirement. This will help your manager make the connection.
Try to do this in a spirit of helpfulness--"for planning purposes"--so that you aren't perceived as obstructive or lacking "can-do attitude." Remember that estimates can (in theory) come down, and risks can be reduced.
Business requirements are going to change no matter where you work. It's not your fault, it's not your boss's fault, it's not anybody's fault. The entire point of taking the requirements on piecemeal is to encourage you to think about the problem at hand, not some other problem that you might or might not need to solve. It's quite liberating once you get into the rhythm of it.
Think of upfront design as premature optimization. You may not need it, and even if you know you need it, you'll know more about your design two weeks from now than you know about it today. It'll help you solve your engineering problem with the best possible knowledge about the state of your code.
That having been said, edg is absolutely right. When you add more requirements, the estimate changes. This isn't the fault of the developers or anyone else; more work means more work no matter how you square it. If your boss doesn't realize that adding requirements will result in a larger estimate for the project you need to explain to him that Agile isn't a magic bullet that allows you to add more features without paying anything for them.
Agile Simple Design doesn't mean don't do ANY design/architecture up front.
It means do the minimal design up front, so that you will not pay a horrible price for reasonable change requests.
Scott Ambler talks about Change Cases - http://www.agilemodeling.com/artifacts/changeCase.htm
James Coplien talks about Agile Architecture - http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Agile-Architecture-Is-Not-Fragile-Architecture-James-Coplien-Kevlin-Henney
http://blog.jaoo.dk/2009/03/04/handling-architecture-in-the-agile-world/
The art/craft in all of this is in how to slice the architecture in a way that allows:
relatively fast convergence on overall architecture/infrastructure - on the order of days per months of estimated development time.
developing "just enough" architecture/infrastructure per each feature/requirement
doing the right balance of preparations for the future compared to focus on the features of today.
Its important that your Product Owner is aware of all of this balancing act as well, and you work collaboratively. He should understand that if you disregard all thinking for the future, each change will be very costly. There is a price to be paid for flexibility.
Its btw very similar to investment in QA and test automation. You pay something now, that will pay off only after X times you test the code. if the code never changes it was a waste of effort. but everyone knows that most code changes...
Buy your manager this book. That's what I did, and it worked great :)
First of all this issue seems quite sensitive, so all I wrote below is just my personal opinion, and not necessarily a wise thing to do.
In my opinion you cannot make software if you do not know what problem it should solve. If requirements come in small parts that are too small to oversee the problem, then I would just fire questions about the parts that seem to be missing. Like: "okay so the software should do X, but does that also mean Y or otherwise maybe Z? Because if it is Y then ... but if it is Z then ..." Of course if the manager is in the middle of extracting the requirements then he cannot answer, but at least he knows that there are still open issues that influence development.
About no lead time for design: design and development are an iterative process that could go hand in hand. It is just how you name the thing. If the manager wants to see some code at the end of the day, okay then I would just use the first half of the day to design and the second half of the day to make some code based on that design. If the manager does not want to see the design, fine with me then I'll just show the code.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm the second dev and a recent hire here at a PHP/MySQL shop. I was hired mostly due to my experience in wrangling some sort of process out of a chaotic mess. At least, that's what I did at my last company. ;)
Since I've been here (a few months now), I've brought on board my boss, my product manager and several other key figures (But mostly chickens, if you pardon the Scrum-based stereotyping). I've also helped bring in some visibility to the development cycle of a major product that has been lagging for over a year. People are loving it!
However, my coworker (the only other dev here for now) is not into it. She prefers to close her door and focus on her work and be left alone. Me? I'm into the whole Agile approach of collaboration, cooperation and openness. Without her input, I started the Scrum practices (daily scrums, burndown charts and other things I've found that worked for me and my previous teams (ala H. Kniberg's cool wall chart). During our daily stand up she slinks by and ignores us as if we actually weren't standing right outside her door (we are actually). It's pretty amazing. I've never seen such resistance.
Question... how do I get her onboard? Peer pressure is not working.
Thanks from fellow Scrum-borg,
beaudetious
While Scrum other agile methodologies like it embody a lot of good practices, sometimes giving it a name and making it (as many bloggers have commented on) a "religion" that must be adopted in the workplace is rather offputting to a lot of people, including myself.
It depends on what your options and commitments are, but I know I'd be a lot more keen on accepting ideas because they are good ideas, not because they are a bandwagon. Try implementing/drawing her in to the practices one at a time, by showing her how they can improve her life and workflow as well.
Programmers love cool things that help them get stuff done. They hate being preached at or being asked to board what they see as a bandwagon. Present it as the former rather than the latter. (It goes without saying, make sure it actually IS the former)
Edit: another question
I've never actually worked for a place that used a specific agile methodology, though I'm pretty happy where I'm at now in that we incorporate a lot of agile practices without the hype and the dogma (best of both worlds, IMHO).
But I was just reading about Scrum and, is a system like that even beneficial for a 2 person team? Scrum does add a certain amount of overhead to a project, it seems, and that might outweigh the benefits when you have a very small team where communication and planning is already easy.
Without her input, I started the Scrum practices (daily scrums, burndown charts and other things I've found that worked for me and my previous teams (ala H. Kniberg's cool wall chart). During out daily stand up she slinks by and ignores us as if we actually weren't standing right outside her door (we are actually). It's pretty amazing. I've never seen such resistance.
Question... how do I get her onboard? Peer pressure is not working.
Yikes! Who would ever want to work in such an oppressive environment? If you're lucky, she's sending around her resume and you'll be able to hire someone who is on board with your development process.
Assuming you want to hang on to her, I'd turn down (or off) the rhetoric and work on being a friend and co-worker first. If the project is a year late, she can't be feeling good about herself and it sounds like you aren't afraid to trumpet your success. That can be intimidating.
I know nothing about Scrum, however. I'm just imagining what it would be like to walk around in your co-worker's shoes.
beaudetious, buddy,
I would really suggest you read Steve Yegge's blog called "Good Agile, Bad Agile". It's an oldy but a goody, and I think it's a must read for anyone - like myself about 2 months ago - who gets a little let's say "over-eager" to agile-up their workplace. Agile offers a lot of good practices, but you have to take them all with a grain of salt and adopt what you're lacking and skip out on all the other crud that might be unuseful for a particular situation - e.g. the daily scrum. If your co-worker would just like to code in quiet (read Peopleware for why this is a good thing) and she's being a productive team member quit bugging her with your scrumming a let her work in whatever way she likes most.
People are usually less "hostile" about these practices if you just approach them and simply say "Do you have a sec? Listen, communication is really a problem right now, I feel like I don't know what you're doing and I really don't want to step on your toes again and spend two days writing something you already did like last week, so let's work on this. I'd like to try X, what do you think?". Be compassionate and don't tolerate "bad apples", that's literally how I agiled up my workplace, and many problems have started evaporating. We're by no means an 100% XP or 100% Scrum compliant place, because we just use whatever works and was needed.
Simple. Don't talk about scrum. Don't use scrum on her. Instead take the underlying principles of scrum (e.g. the purpose as opposed to the application) and create different approaches that accommodate her way of working but have subtle tints of scrum.
All humans are different and a lot of programmers dislike scrum. I wouldn't force it upon them as that would just be counter-productive. I'd suggest identifying the problems in the development process (in a non-scrum fashion), see if you can get her to agree that the issues exist, then ask her what she thinks would be a good solution. Her co-operation and input into the process is essential to her co-operation, if she doesn't have buy-in she wont become a citizen.
From there on in you can hopefully create some sort of quasi-hybrid scrum + her approach to the process where you can both agree on the way forward.
I think the key would be to help her understand why you are doing Scrum in the first place. I guess you have your reasons, so why not tell her? You are likely to get resistance towards any change if the people involved don't understand why there is change or what they will benefit from it. If you can explain your reasons for using Scrum, and the following benefits, to her in a way that relates to her everyday work, I think she is more likely to adapt a more positive attitude towards it.
If she sees no value in the Scrum process, or doesn't understand how it relates to her, she probably won't care about it.
I think one of the most important concepts for someone to understand regarding Scrum is the fact that you are working as a group and commit to your project as a group, not as individuals. For many people, this is the hardest thing to grasp, since they are so used to living in "their own World".
I'm not sure Scrum is the central issue here; I'm guessing she feels threatened by the new guy bringing in a lot of new ideas and stirring things up. I've been in that situation before as the new person bringing in a new perspective on things, and sometimes it's just difficult to immediately bring those existing people around to a new way of thinking. It often requires a culture shift which doesn't happen overnight.
Try to get her input and opinion on things as much as possible, and try to show that you respect that she has been on the team longer than you. If after a while she still doesn't participate, then all you can do is mention it to your Manager and let them take it from there.
Continue your efforts to involve the other developer. Remember you are the one who wants to make this change. Ask for help with problems you have. Invite them to the daily stand up meeting. I currently do the planning for the daily stand up and I make sure all the pigs and chickens are invited. If you are the lead on the project it is up to you to address the situation and take a risk. Put yourself out there.