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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
If you have a room full of capable developers, what can be done to encourage those developers to become excited and enthusiastic about software and software development?
No gimmicks, but a genuine move to create an environment where people want to work in software, not just because the company is a good company to work for overall.
In my opinion, the absolute, #1, most essential thing that motivates developers to be enhusiastic about their work is a sense of ownership over their product. All the team-building excercises, reading groups, etc. are good but ultimately ineffective if the developers don't have a sense of ownership.
Here's a quick, off the cuff list of things that are important, in my mind, to ensuring this is the case:
Developers have a real and honest stake in the future design of the system. There will always be requirements that come from outside the development team, but developers should be represented when those requirements are discovered and be able to give real input into the future state of what you're working on.
Developer championed requirements or changes to your solution should be given a voice. A balance needs to be found, certainly, but all too many companies don't have proper mechanisms to allow pure development-focused requests to get through. These could be product enhancements, building up unit tests or simple refactorings, but they are essential to the quality of your product and for giving developers a stake in your project.
Developers should have contact with users. A development staff that's treated like the guys in the basement who churn out code are never going to have a very enthusastic approach to the product or developing their own skills.
Embrace new technologies, even if it's only for a PoC or prototype of what the technologies can do. No developer in the world has ever been excited about churning out boilerplate code, and they never will be.
Let development teams own their process. Development methodolgies decreed from on-high will without fail demotivate the development team, who now need to deal with the added burden of planning meetings and waterfall development. Require that a process exist, but until there's a problem, keep your hands off the specifics.
"Just the way things work" is NEVER an excuse for a broken process. If developers have a legitimate concern with a process they need to follow, they need a honest chance to argue against it. As a manager, one of the worst things you can say is "That's the way the VP / Executive / CEO / God wants it, so we need to follow it". You need to champion your developers concerns, or failing that, allow them direct interaction with the person in question. If you as a manager are viewed as a sockpuppet for the executive, good luck ever motivating a developer again.
Shield your developers from all the politics to the best of your ability. Let them what they do best, develop software. Nothing kills a productive team like having to squabble in inner-office politics.
This well-known conversation says it best:
Peter Gibbons: Bob, I have eight
different bosses right now.
Bob Slydell: I beg your pardon?
Peter Gibbons: Eight bosses.
Bob Slydell: Eight?
Peter Gibbons: Eight, Bob. So that
means that when I make a mistake, I
have eight different people coming by
to tell me about it. That's my only
real motivation is not to be hassled,
that and the fear of losing my job.
But you know, Bob, that will only make
someone work just hard enough not to
get fired.
Hire the Right People
During the interview process ask questions that let you see their passionate about the craft.
Some examples, Do they:
Read software books or blogs, listen to podcasts?
Play with new languages/libraries at home?
Contribute to open source projects?
Once you have good people stay out of their way. Have the right amount of process, don't force unnecessary standardization, listen to issues, be honest about reasons things are happening.
Read Peopleware by DeMarco and Lister.
I've yet to meet a capable developer who is not already excited about making great software. The trick is to stay out of their way and not destroy the natural enthusiasm.
The Joel Test is a good start.
what can be done to encourage those
developers to become excited and
enthusiastic about software and
software development?
Nothing.
A passion for software development comes from within, and cannot be created from zero. Feeding an existing passion is easy- resources, training, and a visible appreciation for that passion from management are all it takes.
The only exception may be to lead by example. If you're excited, others may follow.
UPDATE: As has been said in other answers, it's much better to hire well up front. I'd pass over ten good programmers who just want a paycheck for one good programmer who codes in his/her spare time for fun.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This answer has been jumping around with up/downvotes, so let me clarify. The OP's wording specifically asks how to make an existing team excited "about software development". It is my contention that if they are not already interested in their chosen professions, there is not much an employer can do to engender an interest. A disinterested, unmotivated team will make a mess of the most fascinating project. By contrast, a motivated team of professionals that like their jobs can make the best darned calculator program out there, and enjoy every minute of it.
Having an interesting, challenging and profitable problem to solve, where all developers have a stake in the results. If not, you have a room full of developers sticking around as long as the pay checks clear.
I have to agree a little bit with the comment made by Pascal, but I'm not going to start off that way.
Overall, it has been proven that one of the best ways to give developers an environment that allows them to like their work is to give them freedom. However, your looking at a different route here, you are trying to find "passionate" developers.
To be 100% honest there is not a direct connection to "capable" and "passionate". There are hundreds of developers out there that are capable of being programmers, and mighty good ones at that. But many of them do not have any desire to become passionate developers.
To create a team of passionate developers, you really have to start with the recruitment process and HIRE passionate developers, not try to "create" them.
For me, the things that keep me motivated are:
A problem/task that I find challenging, that I can learn from
A plan to implement the solution in a way I think is reasonable. Nothing is more de-motivating for me than a management team that forces technologies I don't believe in down my throat.
Other folks to discuss the possible solutions with, be they on the same team or not.
A management team that appreciates the hard work I'm putting in.
Just to be precise, is the question "I have a team of developers, and I want to make those specific developers enthusiastic about software development", or simply "I want a team of enthusiastic software developers"? In the latter case, simply don't hire people who aren't enthusiastic.
In the former case, you're pretty much screwed. It's hard to change someone's personality so much that they start to care about something they didn't really take an interest in before. Of course it can be done, but let's face it. How many here have been unable to convince their better half that programming is interesting? For that matter, how many people have failed to adopt their girlfriend's enthusiasm for shopping, or shoes? ;)
Convincing people to share your interest and enthusiasm for something is hard work.
Unless you're willing to set aside a few years of your life for getting into the head of each individual developer, getting to know them and what makes them tick, and gradually push and prod them towards taking an interest in something that they previously simply considered a job, you're probably better off letting them go and hiring people who are motivated to begin with.
Give them interesting problems.
Give them the means to solve those problems.
Minimize the amount of crap they have to deal with that isn't directly related to solving those problems.
Reward them for successfully solving those problems. Don't underestimate the value of a sincere pat on the back from the guy who signs your paychecks.
Give them a stake in the larger venture -- beyond the next paycheck.
And when they suggest a new problem they think is worth solving, listen.
I think the biggest thing is the company has to value what the developers can do for the company. If the company is run by cheapskates who just see your developers as an expense they can't wait to be rid of then you are doomed. The developers' team needs to be viewed by management as a strategic asset that makes them money now and will make them more money in the future.
Also good communication in the company is vital. The developers have to be able to find out what it is the company needs them to do. Autocratic top-down bureaucracy and mushroom management can wreck morale and make it impossible for developers to add value, regardless of what level of enthusiasm they brought to the job. The software your team builds will be only as good as the communication in the company--I think that is what Conway's Law is about.
So that is a big challenge, in many cases an impossible one, because senior management will have their own ideas about priorities and communication and good luck influencing them. But the alternative is guerrilla development, where you're fighting an endless battle against your own company.
money, money, money... and don't say that money doesn't matter if the project is exciting or boring routine.
You don't.
You either have people in the team that love learning and always want to push themselves to be better, or you don't have those people in your team. Of course reality is, you'd have a mixed bag.
Just employ people who are enthusiastic (it's easy to tell), and don't employ the ones who see programming/developing software as 'just' a job.
It's impossible IMO to turn complete non-enthusiasts into passionate programmers. There is no silver bullet.
In Weinbergesqe fashion:
You've asked the wrong question. The right question is "What are the things that managers do that dispirit developers and reduce moral?" Then don't tolerate those things in your environment.
And oh by the way, you should already know the answer to that question. If you don't find another job.
Hookers and blow?
How about giving them a financial stake in the outcome of their software project(s)? For example, corporate profit sharing.
That being said, passionate developers are the kind of people who go home and write software in their spare time.
Going to a software development conference with good, inspirational speakers can make a huge difference.
Read "Dynamics of Software Development" by Jim McCarthy. Seriously, nearly the entire book deals with this and related issues.
Although I agree that it is not easy (or even possible) to create passion about programming, I think it is possible to keep passionate developers enthusiastic about their work. Even the most passionate programmer developer can become disillusioned if placed in a stagnant work environment.
So what can be done?
Provide plenty of opportunity for personal development, give lots of freedom to learn new things. Let the developers have some choice in the courses they take, and the conferences they wish to attend.
Toys - Not in the traditional sense, but being able to use the latest technologies
Provide a nice place to work. It doesn't have to be Google, but it does have to be somewhere you would want to spend time.
Of course money helps. Not in the sense that a company can pay for enthusiastic staff, but people need to feel suitable rewarded for their efforts.
I have found working in an organisation that has embraced agile development has many of the correct qualities for building enthusiastic teams.
If they're fundamentally unenthusiastic about software development, there's nothing you can do.
If they're enthusiastic, that's great, and you need to avoid squelching that. There are some excellent recommendations elsewhere in these answers.
If they used to be enthusiastic, and have had that beaten out of them, you are likely to get good results by giving them reasonable challenges, shielding them from bad management, and in general treating them like valuable and respected people.
If you have a room full of capable developers, what can be done to encourage those developers to become excited and enthusiastic about software and software development
The correct question is actually "What can be done to encourage those developers to become excited and enthusiastic about software and software development in our company".
It's quite simple actually. The answer has never been a secret. It's just nobody listens to it.
Very simply elements:
Let those enthusiastic developers work among other passionate people. Remove those who don't care from the team. Otherwise they will act like diseased cells proliferating apathy and depression to the other team members.
Aspire to develop a quality and professional product
Establish a professional and effective process
Trust and respect people. Value their knowledge. Respect their opinions. Actually, it's part of a bigger strategy: let your developers be able to make a difference and let them see they can really influence and change things.
Let them grow professionally and let them see this growth is appreciated and needed by you
Now what doesn't help at all.
Pay them badly. Developers are also humans (for the most part) and they also have their bills to pay.
Reject their initiatives, proposals and improvement suggestions. Tell them each time they come up with something that their attempt to introduce change make them a foreign und unwelcome element in the company.
Have low quality product and have no interest to make it better. Hacks, copy/paste code, accumulating technical debts, things falling apart after each release, that does not motivate developers.
Have badly run development and chaotic process. Tasks, projects and small decisions taking a new vector every few days will finally remove desire to be involved from anybody. Failing schedules because of unpredicted work load and feature set, they all go down the road. It will suffice to run out of coffee some day for some of them to start moving elsewhere.
Have a boring and uninteresting social environment. Developers having nobody to talk to to share their interests will finally feel dull. Not everyone is interested in taxes, football and kindergarten issues as the only topics on social gatherings.
I am inclinced to say nothing like others have, and i must agree that a real passion for it is not something you can create, it either exists or it does not however there are things you can do.
Scoring high on Joel's test is a great start,
Fire all the PHBs and hire smart managers who maximise the chances that the software will actually be finished and work right.
A management team that knows computers and can hold their own in a technical conversation is a very helpful feature. Don't try to sell passionate developers on hype, tends and buzzwords.
Set clear and stable goals and communicate the goals accurately to the team or people. And then just get out the way to let developers get that done. Do not go far away from developers though, you need to tackle those issues like out of free food, purchase of fancy office equipments and other trivial things that developers do not care to do yet useful to improve productivity and add perks to developer team.
Dan Pink notes 3 things that motivate people if there is creativity required in a job. RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us is a 10 minute video about these but here are the 3 things:
Autonomy - Give the team control over the schedule and empower them to own their work.
Mastery - How well are they developing their craft of building excellent software.
Purpose - Why are they making this software? What massive benefit will it have?
A few other sources on this stuff:
Top Three Motivators For Developers (Hint: not money!)
Autonomy, mastery, purpose
Empowered Teams Are Dead – Long Live Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose
Why Open Is Better Than Proprietary?
Money vs Autonomy/Mastery/Purpose
Creating an Organization that Values Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose
The 3 Things That Motivate Us
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
When you are deciding on what methodology or process to use for your project, should you take into account the human factors? If there is any resistance to things, do you go with the flow or force people to change?
For example, say you want to push for pair programming but the team members resist to working in that mode (or show dislikes), what would you do? Make them get used to it, try to convince them to do it or go with the flow and let them do what they like?
The human factor is the most important one.
If you consider nothing else, consider the culture and proclivities of the group.
People who want a process to fail will succeed. It's far easier to alter process than to alter people.
First try to reason, you may be wrong:
If you have resistance to certain things, you can usually give your points for why you think it's good, and hear their points for why they think it is bad, and come to some common grounds.
You should never force people into doing something against their will, but instead try to convince them based on your logical reasoning. Many times you will see reasons from them that changes your point of view.
If your developer is too afraid to voice their opinion, then you should make them feel comfortable with giving their opinion. If they are still reluctant, then you should consider new developers.
Foot in the door principle:
If you want to try some new concept that neither you nor they have experience in, say pair programming, then you can ask them to try it for 1-2 weeks and then you can sit together again after this trial period and assess the effectiveness. I think most people will find it perfectly reasonable to try something new if they have no experience in it, if it is for the purpose of finding out the method's effectiveness, and if it is only for a trial period.
If after this trial period, the thing you were testing was successful, then your developer will be more open to the idea.
Don't change them, find someone who fits:
If you are 100% for some way of doing things, and your developer is 100% against it, and he won't try it and has no logical reason why, instead of trying to change him you're better off finding a developer that will fit into your way of doing things.
If they are 100% against what you want to change, you have to make a decision. Is the developer themselves more important to you, or is the process that you want to change more important.
If you force someone into something they don't want to do, they will find a way to make your method fail.
Yes. Your development process needs to be humane. That said, there are better and worse development practices and you should strive to use the better practices. The best methodologies understand both human strengths and weaknesses and have practices that promote the former and compensate for the latter.
For example, most agile processes put a high value on trusting developers to do the right thing -- to work hard and value quality. They allow developers to have significant input into the process and into the product. This takes advantage of the human quality of rising to expectations. On the other hand, humans have trouble managing too much complexity at one time, so agile practices insist on breaking things down into manageable chunks.
On the other hand, we know that people don't like to do things that don't directly add value to their work. Agile practices, recognizing the value of things like unit testing, insist on this however and require the developer to conform to it despite the initial reluctance. Using TDD compensates for this somewhat by giving real value to developing tests -- you do them first and let them guide the design. It's a bit of the carrot and stick approach to get developers over the initial reluctance to the point where they can experience the value of the method and buy into it on their own.
Adapting the Process
The key to developing a good process with your people lies in adapting the process to the amount of ceremony that you need or want. We use the RUP where I work and one of the central goals of the RUP is to tailor the amount of ceremony in your process to fit your project and the personnel.
For instance, small projects require far less ceremony and tool support. As well, people new to a process need time to adapt. It's best not to flood them with information and let them adapt at their own pace.
Show Me the Money!
To get people to buy into a new process is to let them make a mistake (or present an example form the past) and then show them how the process could have helped prevent the mistake. Try and draw a direct line to show how the process will help them improve the way they work.
For instance: if people are resistant to automating builds and running tests automatically then the next time they release a fix for something that broke a piece of code that was already working use that opportunity to illustrate that an automated test would have caught the error before it got released, saving everyone time and money.
Automation
To ensure people can adapt to a process is to remove as much human intervention from them as you can. Automate builds, tests, reporting as much as possible using information that is automatically captured.
How this helps support process is by removing the "nag" factor. Many people resist new process because they figure it means more work for them to do or extra work that produces little result in the end. By automating existing tasks and gathering data from them you get a lot of benefit without increasing any individual developers workload.
A classic example is continuous integration. Continuous Integration tools like CruiseControl, TeamCity or Hudson can work with version control repositories to extract latest versions of source code, build that code, execute and archive test results and package stuff for deployment. This requires no extra effort on the part of the developer but you get a lot of extra "process" in return. You now know how good your source code is, you can distribute it easily and you can catch bugs earlier.
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
What do you do when you join a team that says they use Scrum, but only use it as a time-management tool and not the whole process?
How can I reinstate back testing and documentation?
I was thinking to start off with adding user stories specifically for testing and documenting.
Perhaps someone else has more experience with this then I do about this as I am sure its not that uncommon.
The key to scrum is that a task be identifiable as "done" before it can be classed as done. How does you company assess whether something is done without reviewing documentation and tests?
Perhaps they have an unusual, but valid, way of doing it. Or perhaps they have missed the point of "done tasks". I'd suggest you start by asking them how they measure down and whether it could be improved. Then suggest documentation and testing as the way of improving the process.
Note that neither testing nor documentation are in fact part of Scrum. Scrum is a pure project management approach - the required engineering practices, like the ones you mention, are supposed to "emerge" during the project. And most specifically, they are supposed to be identified during the heartbeat retrospectives that you do at the end of every sprint. Are you doing those? Can you bring up your concerns there - and are they actually the biggest concerns the team has?
Is the issue that they don't have any documentation and tests, or that they aren't implementing the entire Scrum methodology? Those are 2 very different problems in my mind.
I would much prefer an organization that has taken the time and effort to find and fit a development process that matches their development style as opposed to mandating down from on high the one true process. So I would not be concerned at all if they were using a process that they called Scrum but that didn't meet all the "official" guidelines. Try to determine why the process is the way it is. Chances are that if they have taken the time to tailor it, the team will be receptive to your ideas, especially if you have taken the time to determine why things are the way they are. If you simply approach it as "this isn't Scrum and so isn't right", you will probably not make much headway, but by being pragmatic about the benefits you can likely make some substantial improvements.
Alternatively, if they aren't doing testing and don't have any documentation I would consider that a fairly bad sign. And by documentation I am taking the minimalist view here - a list of features, bug tracking, etc. - I would be very concerned by the absence of these items, less concerned by the absence of items higher up the abstraction list. In the absence of support from management, I would suggest you lead by example. Take it on yourself to setup a simple bug tracking system (there are several - in a pinch, simple text lists in a central location work as well). Don't declare your features complete until someone else has tested it. This can be as simple as walking over to another developer and asking them to try it in front of you. If someone claims a feature is complete, take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with it. If you find a bug, politely mention it to the responsible developer. Slowly build an environment where the team can see the benefits of running tests and tracking features and bugs.
Most teams operate in this manner simply because of a mistaken belief that they don't have time to "do it right", or that they will get to it later. Often this will occur when a simple proof-of-concept done by a developer or two as a side-project turns into a full-on development effort. By showing that it can actually save time and effort, and reducing the initial costs to the rest of the team, you will often find that it becomes ingrained as part of the process without ever actually being officially endorsed or accepted.
If you have management support it will make it much easier, but always be careful to make sure that the team is receptive to the changes. This may mean it takes longer than you want, but so be it, without the team's support any mandated process will fail at the first sign of pressure, which is when you need the process the most.
*Disclaimer - On my last project I spearheaded the movement to tailor the SCRUM process to fit our environment. The "official" process was simply untenable for our client, but it was still an invaluable guide in tailoring our process.
"adding user stories specifically for testing and documenting"
While meta-user stories might make sense in some circles, it rarely works out well. Software folks rarely cope well with meta-user stories, they either don't get the idea that they can change their own processes by writing a story, or -- more typically -- they engineer the meta-user story to death.
When you're interviewing users, it feels like they're making the user story up. Certainly, you're making it up as you listen to them and try to capture it.
When an IT organization tries to make up its own user stories about how IT should work, the process falls apart. Until the organization has done the thing (testing, for example) a bunch of times manually, they're not really qualified to write user stories. Then, after they've done it, they don't need software development processes, they'll just automate the important bits a little at a time.
I think change has to come from a less formal direction. Actually balking at calling something "done" that hasn't been tested is a good starting point.
IT doesn't do things unless forced. So, meet the users and find out why they're not requiring testing. Coach them to require testing. Tell them the consequences and the words to use.
A lot can go wrong in an organization to lead to poor processes. It's important to know what's wrong, and create a demand for change. The best possible thing is to have your boss complaining that you're not fixing it, rather than you suggesting that perhaps it would be good to fix it.
[It doesn't feel right when your boss demands you fix the process, but it's about the only way change will happen.]
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
Definition:
CRUD - Create, Read, Update, Delete; The four basic functions of persistent storage. In the context of this question, specifically related to business applications.
I'll be honest, my goal when I began programming did not include being a lifetime CRUD programmer. Financial data is only so interesting for so long. And to me, that seems like the majority of programming gigs.
I'm still fairly fresh out of school, so any experience is still very beneficial, but eventually I want to move to something "less CRUD like." Currently, I have my eye on some machine control type work. However, I'm just not sure how to go in that direction.
So I want to get a feel for what other developers think about the topic.
Do you enjoy CRUD and why?
What have your experiences in CRUD been like?
How did you move from CRUD to non-CRUD work?
If you've moved, what do you like and hate?
If you've moved, what skills benefited/hastened the transition?
Edit:
I'm approaching CRUD with the attitude that I want to solve problems, not re-create the same form with different fields for a dozen different tables.
I don't think that there's really anyone who enjoys doing CRUD (well at least anyone sane). It's the most tedious part of web programming. My advice is to find or write a framework to automate this for you.
evolutility
django admin panel and django forms
However, if that's the majority of your work, you definitely should consider changing jobs.
Get a different job. Seriously, not all software development is developing business applications. Developing shipping software would make you much happier, I think. Try to find a job at a software company, and write some stuff that's going to ship to customers. Also, if you want to get into some of the low level hardware-style stuff, just start hacking away on some basic microcontrollers so you have at least some background with that.
Develop a framework to make CRUD creation easy in your line of work. Once you have done that, use the free time to improve it in terms of Usability, Security, Performance etc. That should keep your work interesting for a while.
I agree that CRUD's pretty boring. But I don't think it's the fact that it's financial data that makes it so. Perhaps you'd find that financial data a lot more interesting if, for example, it was streaming into a neural net based expert system you'd written to work out how best to invest it?
There's definitely an awful lot more to programming than CRUD. Find an aspect that interests you, and pursue it.
I am curious that no one mention task-based UI and CQRS here.
In fact, to answer your questions :
I don't enjoy CRUD...why ? see the following answers to your question
My experience of CRUD is that's a pain to write CRUD (full stack frameworks are a workaround at best I think), and often a pain for users as well
I move to non-CRUD work when I understand that building software is about giving a powerful tool for users, not a database editor with some business rules
I like to build software less coupled to full stack framework (Symfony2, ASP.NET & cie...), more fully object oriented, but I am more and more annoyed by RDBMS CRUD orientation, and more and more attracted by EventStore (Event Sourcing)
Let's get inspired by task based UI, CQRS and Event Sourcing (search Google, I do not have enough reputation to add more links...) => all together
However, I would like to be less opinionated to finish : there are some points that will not let you get out of CRUD. Some users love CRUD, they feel like in Excel...and also there are probably some applications for which CRUD fulfill all the needs...
CRUD - yes in the end we are storing, reading and updating data. But so what? That is just one part of the equation, at least in my world.
In business, data is essential, but it is the business logic and the decisions made from that data that is important. I have found it very rewarding to take raw data and use it to help business make decisions. We do that with business logic in our code, not to mention the endless ways of presenting that data in the presentation layer.
Yes in the end CRUD is involved, but it is much more than that, no?
Just my opinion.
Having a wide range of experience, my solution is to create my perfect product and start a business around it. I'm facing all sorts of interesting challenges, such as how to stream realtime data from an embedded device to a browser. This stuff gets my programming juices flowing and I have a list of important, fun features to add.
Dream up your perfect product domain, find some people who could benefit and ask them what problems they have. Once you pick up a common theme that interests you (mine was automation and power monitoring) start hacking. Of course for me it helps that my father has run the electronics company Technman for the last 30 years, and wants to create this product with me.
First, have you gone through most of what there is to know about persistent storage? It's worth figuring out how to practically apply database theory, etc. in your current job. Once you've been doing it for a few years and have it all figured out you should definitely think about expanding your horizons. I'd agree with you - unless you're building the DBMS itself - I find that the persistent storage part of the job gets to be fairly boring.
One of the best ways to get a job in a new area is to take a prototype of something relevant to the job to demonstrate at an interview. This is an incredibly powerful statement to make.
Embedded software is really my thing, but the market for this is slowly shrinking in North America and moving to the developing world, and it's a fairly specialized area to get started in.
It seems to me that the application space is still growing. Consider iPhone, J2ME, or Windows Mobile development for example. You can learn to do these on your own with a relatively small investment in equipment.
If you're not already doing this, there's also the web application space. Application server platforms like JBOSS and Glassfish are free and fairly easy to learn. Plus they provide a link back to the CRUD which you already know.
Yes, a lot of business software is CRUD. I used to work on that.
In machine control, part of that can be CRUD too. For example, logging sensor data and reporting it somewhere. Basically CRUD.
But I will admit - in machine control, it's mostly non-CRUD. You would probably enjoy doing something that actually makes an assembly line move, or builds cars, or makes motors spin at a certain speed. I know I do. At a financial institution, it's literally just numbers. Nothing "real" like a motor or a car.
Just about every program is going to have to create, read, update and delete some sort of data. In some systems this presents its' own challenges.
However most of the time reading and writing to databases is fairly easy (which is why they make databases). It is what you do with the data once you have it which is interesting, and generally unique to a business, and keeps you employed.
This article I agree with, basically a lot of programming is boring.
However if you are good and determined enough you will eventually get to do something interesting.
Find or write a way to do the CRUD portions of the applications faster. Do so, tell your manager you are done with your assigned tasks (make sure they ARE done; tested, documented, etc.), and ask what you should do next.
Just take a look to Django and move on to the interesting coding!!!
(Or RoR, or Grails, or whichever suit best to you, but CRUDS shouldn't be still being coded by hand from scratch)
Modern frameworks can do all the crud for you. Checkout the standalone GORM from the GRAILS project.
When I was an undergraduate, I changed my major from Electrical Engineering to Computer Science because I wanted to write video games. Later on, when I started working on business applications for real money, I learned that I simply enjoy solving problems with code.
You may be in the wrong profession.
In this economy, it might be hard for you to just get another job, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Find some type of work you think you would enjoy, go learn it and look for job opportunities. It doesn't hurt to make some phone calls and go on a few interviews even if you think you're unlikely to get the job. Even better, you could figure out a way to start your own company.
Get into web-dev? Seriously the level of basic crud I have to do building web-apps is pretty low, even when there's a DB.
For CRUD of windows FORM based applications developed in c# .net
RocketFramework is the answer
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
During hiring a .NET web developer I give the candidate a coding test.
I tend to limit the candidate to MSDN installed on the test server - I think it holds everything the candidate needs to complete the task.
I admit, this is not the normal case as I don't expect the candidate to do his work without use of the web.
On the other hand I don't want the candidate to google for a complete example and copy-paste it, i want to evaluate his skills.
The question is do I need to allow free use of the web during the test?
If you think the whole coding test is wrong - I would like to hear alternatives you may have for me.
As you say, 'I don't expect the candidate to do his work without use of the web' why not allow it too during the test? And what if he does copy and paste? I do that too. Surely the key is to know where to look, be discerning with what you find and apply it intelligently. Do you want to hire someone with a terrific memory or someone who can develop software for you?
When I was at school, calculators were just becoming affordable. As their use was seen as unavoidable, the exams were changed. Simple number-crunching was no longer tested in the way it was before (it was important then). Rather problem-solving techniques were to be tested.
I usually allow candidates to use whatever resources they want. After they're done, I sit down with them and go through their code together, ask questions like why they chose that particular approach etc.
If a couple of minutes of Googling was enough to not just copypaste some code but to learn enough about it to be able to defend the decisions within, then he's intelligent enough!
There are tests, where web access can be given, and there are where it doesn't really make sense.
Case where its fine to allow web access
When its unlikely to find even 60 percent of the code over the net
When you will ask to explain the code after he/she completed the code
A very specific solution using SQL query, which is unlikely to be found on the web
Case where its fine to not allow web access
Some basic programs like, recurssion, fibonacci, factorial, string manipulation, small trick programs, etc. There is no need of computer even in some of these cases
I'm very sceptical about coding tests during interviews. I think that a lot of the test I have seen, represent very specific (artificial, non real-world) problems where you would use the internet to solve them.
I think it's not really important to know how to solve such problems by heart - often time it is much more important that you know how and where to search for answers.
If you want to test the persons during the interview, I think it is better to ask them some conceptual questions instead of a specific programming problem. E.g: questions about object orientation, polymorphism, design of n-tier application, etc. etc.
Or as an example from the ASP.NET world, ask the interviewed person question such as: what is ViewState, what is a postback, what is session-/application-state, etc.
If you want to get an idea of how a candidate will perform in a job, I think it's best to try and make the conditions of the test as close as possible to the actual working conditions.
It should be pretty easy to prevent copy-and-pasters from slipping through the cracks by asking the candidate to explain his/her code.
Well, one thing you want to be aware of is that the developer you hire might not know everything that he will be thrown during the time he is working for you. If you ask him a question that he doesn't know off the top of his head you would want and expect him to research it and come back to you with proof that he understood the concepts that he just learned.
I say let them use the web - but ask them to explain in their own words how their code works. Most of my knowledge comes from online resources. However, I make sure that every line of code I write I understand.
There is a baseline knowledge that developers in a particular field should know; but you also want to figure out how quickly he can learn new things. A good test IMO is to throw a question you know he doesn't know and see how long he can figure it out using the resources he would have if he were an employee of your company.
Is your goal to see what basic knowledge the candidate has and if he can code without copying solutions from the web, then don't allow internet access. If you want to see what strategies he employs to get to a solution, let him use the web if he wants to.
I personally find it more interesting if a candidate can solve problems on a larger scale than just solving a simple programming problem. So I tend to ask him about the methods he uses when programming (Unit testing? Ever worked with it? What do you think of it?). This gives me a better picture than coding in an interview situation.
Sometimes it helps if you ask the candidates beforehand to bring a one-page coding sample to take a look at their coding style. This also saves you time during the interview.
It's important to make sure a candidate is resourceful - you don't want your programmer sitting there when they get stuck, not moving forward; you want them to use whatever resources are at hand - be it MSDN, picking someone else's brains, using the web, etc - to get the job done. Cut-n-paste from the web does seem like cheating, but (a) if you design your task carefully then it will be unique enough for there not to be a standard answer they can copy from the web, and (b) isn't re-using existing code a key part of building software? It's not much different from using 3rd-party libraries, to avoid reinventing the wheel. On the downside, of course, you also want them to show they can develop algorithms, so the unique task needs to include some element that requires that without the solution already being on the web. Trouble is, forums are the achilles heel to all of that since they can simply ask for the solution and someone, somewhere, is going to hand over the answer unwittingly!
Allow the candidate to use the web but tell him beforehand that if he used the web, you will have to evaluate HOW he solved the problem.
If he used the web for something simple such as finding the syntax or parameters which he forgot, don't mark him down. This is normal.
If he used the web for something like look at how a specific function is used, don't mark him down. This is normal.
If he searched for a specific code and then copy-paste it, then ask him about how the code works. If he can explain how the code works, then there's no reason to mark him down. If he can't explain it without looking at the site where he got the code, you have to mark him down.
If he used stackoverflow.com, check his profile for questions, answers and badges. From there, you can check how good a programmer he is.
It all depends what you want out of your successful candidate. I contest the view that knowing how to google makes you a good programmer because the simple fact is that the internet is full of bad examples as well as good ones. You don't really want your codebase to reflect how lucky your googler was on the day he cut and pasted all his code off the web. You want it to demonstrate sound practices, proven methodologies & elegant, efficient solutions that your team understand and are enthusiastic about. Not a jumble of styles that don't resemble each other. There's a wealth of good to be gotten from knowing how to get help from the interweb but real knowledge and ancient wisdom is being lost every day that people who don't really understand what they are doing are given jobs because they appear to solve problems with their ability to "google it".
If you really want to give your candidates access to the web then by all means do, but make the questions hard and scrutinise the results to see if they've picked the first solution they found or if they've picked the best solution to the problem.
As do many other respondents, I'd rather employ a resourceful developer who know how to use the web to the fullest to draw on other's experiences and previous work, than a developer who limits himself and his applications to the MSDN way of doing things.
I copy other peoples code all the time - daily in fact. The knack of it depends on finding the right solution quickly and integrating it into your existing work.
So let your candidate use the web and ask him how he came to his solutions. You might learn more about him from his methods than from how will he can remember previous solutions.
Three things I'd do.
Let applicants send in a coding example along with their cv.
Let applicants produce some real-life code (maybe even pair-program with a developer on your team) this will show you if they can actually use the tools. Internet is a tool too so they should be able to use internet.
Let applicants solve a problem in pseudo code on a blackboard during the interview. In this case you can be their "internet" by helping them.
These three approaches will show you different things. The first is a good early warning mechanism but can easily be faked (they could just download oss code from the web somewhere). The second is good to see if they can actually code but they might score badly if they're unfamiliar with the tools you use. The third will show you if they can solve theoretical problems but won't show you if they actually are good team players or if they write maintainable code.
I recently had a friend start talking to me on IM, he was in a coding test job interview. He had a couple SQL questions. At first i thought, hell you've got to do this yourself. I'm not going to help you cheat during an interview.
Then i thought about it again. I've been answering questions and talking to him about various technical issues for years on IM as part of his work. So when he encounters problems in the real world with the job if he gets hired, he'll do the same thing.
We don't talk about it much, but having a good network of friends to ask questions, and knowing how to search out relevant answers on the net are a big part of being an effective programmer or sysadmin. I've met people who were super smart programmers, but didn't really know how to find information online. They missed a lot, were kind of out of the loop. Knowing how to use resources should be important.
When i do interviews i often ask people what websites they read, what development tools they use, and why. It's a similar thing. Sure it's not about how they write x line of code, but it's about how they work.
No how to get around somebody just copy and pasting "answers". Well first, don't ask questions which have pat answers. Secondly when i'm interviewing i like to give people some code, ask them to refactor it, have them talk through what they are thinking. Then ask them to write some new code which implements a feature. Pair program with them. It's hard to hide inability to code when pair programming. While they are pairing, it totally makes sense to say, "let's go look up the api on the date time library."