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.
Somehow I've got the feeling that many projects become heavily overengineered so every possible change-request can be tackled with the effect that the change-requests that occured are very hard to implement.
Somehow I get that feeling in nearly every project I'm currently working on. It is like everyone is thinking "which cool api, framework, etc. can we add to the project to tackle this and that aspect" without evaluating if it is practical or needed.
Does anyone else feel the same or what's the opinion of the community here?
Yes.
-- MarkusQ
I find that, while some older companies with 'senior' senior management tend to be extremely rigid with how their business code is created, newer companies completely lack a backbone of what software they use to get the job done.
The problem you describe sounds like people are viewing problems at too high a level and want to find a way to solve it in one go. Creating a working toolbox (think standard libraries) would help them out in the long run.
I particularly enjoy the UNIX way of things: Several tiny utilities that do one thing and do it really well.
Definitely - I think people get 'robust and modular' and 'overengineered' mixed up far too often.
I think Dave Winer captured the cyclical nature of this phenomenon well:
The trick in each cycle is to fight
complexity, so the growth can keep
going. But you can't keep it out,
engineers like complexity, not just
because it provides them job security,
also because they really just like it.
But once the stack gets too arcane,
the next generation throws their hands
up and says "We're not going to deal
with that mess."
Guilty as charged. Three levels of abstraction and six config files is just more fun to implement than a simple flow control branch.
Overengineering is a danger in any project, large or small. When writing for code extensibility, there's always a trade-off between writing code that is sufficiently generic and extensible to allow for future development and code that is specific enough to make the task at hand easy.
Every "future hook" has a cost and should be evaluated in the light of that cost, the probability that it will ever be used, and the cost of refactoring later in the game. "More generic" is not always better.
As for using a hot, new framework or API, I think project managers should take a gentle hand in this. With development being such a fast-moving field, hands-on self-training is part of the price of doing business (but obviously should be kept reasonable.)
I've only encountered that with Java people: "Lets use spring!" And hibernate! I found this cool validation package as well! And this one will create XSLT to create XML forms to create the javascript!"
By the time I find all the jars and get them to play nice, there are dozens of classes I have to be familiar with. And then they want to abstract away all those pieces! "We might switch spring out. Or not use hibernate, so we should abstract those away". Add another dozen hacky wrapper classes.
By the time its all done, 50 lines of psuedo code has turned into several thousand lines of making the "cool stuff" work, and about 100 lines of business logic trapped within its hairy, hacky, bug-ridden hell.
I'm guilty of it myself, too, but thats only because I'm bored and have time to kill.
The key thing to keep in mind here is time. A "simple" project that is knocked out of the park on day one by an Excel spreadsheet or a web page can quickly expand in both its audience and scope to become an unsustainable monster.
Under-engineering is a danger, too. The world is full of "practical" people who will mock any efforts that are contrary to their opinion. Nobody remembers the person who disagreed a year later when the "simple" solution can't be sustained.
The trick is to balance the right degree of engineering and be able to adjust when things change.
I've been bitten a few too many times by applications that I've thrown together quickly which have subsequently become "critical" apps. Then I have to almost rewrite the darned thing. I just assume now that it will become critical and so I "write it right" the first time. Saves me time and effort in the long term. So oddly, it's about laziness.
Today's xkcd is the absolute truth:
I find that overengineering is a byproduct of boredom. I believe Jeff and Joel covered this in a podcast, but the idea is that coders who often overengineer may just be in a rut and need a change of pace (Jeff and Joel suggested that they be allowed to do different jobs like QA).
Yes. I think people nowadays think more about how something should be done, and whether "it's the right way ..." and so on, than just picking the simple solution which will equally get the job done. If you're not asked to expand it, then don't think about expanding it.
I think this is a problem, but not as big as it seems and that there are good reasons for it.
The problem is that most projects that are underengineered will die a quick death while the overengineered ones can survive. Thus, when you look at still living project, there is survivorship bias.
And, even if you are a good architect that aims for "just good enough", if in doubt you will use the more flexibe, scalable, ... (i.e., overengineered) solution. Because the failure mode if you do not meet the requirements (whatever they may be) is usually much worse than what happens if you exceed them.
I'm yet to work on any real world problem but I've read enough people blogging about this to assume there is a problem.
Absolutely. But it's not just developers, it's users too. "I want this and that and the other in order to improve communication and increase productivity!".
I'm amazed at how many of these types of projects we've solved by just putting a shared folder on a file server.
As others have said, I've had too many 'small' projects become big ones and the short cuts taken become paint.
There is a place for a quick-and-dirty solution and in trying to follow the YAGNI mantra, I've created simple apps with no engineering.
With that though, you are not going to be able to jump into a million line system and develop the 'well engineered' system without practice on smaller systems.
I've taken to always following the developed architecture of our company in all projects because it helps me to work out solutions in line with the engineering principles we are trying to follow.
What you practice, you perform, so always do your best.
Related
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.
Lately I've been job hunting, and for the most part, they would ask me what type of IDE I like to use.
Now, I usually answer with;
Well it all depends on what language I'm developing it in. If it's Java then it would be Eclipse, if AS3 then either Flash CS4 or Flex Builder 3. For HTML, CSS, PHP, and Javascript, I prefer to use PsPad. (almost identical to Notepad+ or textmage).
Now why is it that they always seem to become immediately disgusted with the fact that I said PSPad? Truth be told, I don't like to use DreamWeaver because I feel like it's bloated. I mean to each his own I guess ... but I've tried using it and I honestly work faster with PSPad.
Should I start using Dreamweaver just to put in my resume?
Theoretical Advice
It's quite reasonable not to like IDE's, though you do need to acknowledge their usefulness, and everyone has their own most efficient ways of working, which makes sense.
Practical Advice
You can't deal with recruitment agents logically, I'm afraid. You need to check their checkboxes, and get past them, to talk to someone real.
Once you get into a real interview with a programmer, be honest about everything, about why you don't like IDE's (especially DreamWeaver) and then you can just hope for the appropriate outcome.
But with recruitment agents you need to appreciate that they don't understand anything about our industry; and you typically need to give them the answers they want.
I'd say your are "familiar" with DreamWeaver and leave it at that.
Maybe they don't know what PSPad is - I didn't. As for Dreamweaver, I would actually look down on somebody who uses Dreamweaver. It's much better to be able to code from scratch.
And to answer your question - it's definitely not wrong to not prefer a single IDE for everything. You should use whatever tools you feel comfortable with, and if it's different for each language, then so be it.
No, just like it's not wrong to prefer:
Horses over cars;
Kerosene lamps over electrical lighting;
Aqueducts over water pipes;
Storing food in a cold cellar instead of an "icebox";
Punch cards over keyboards and visual displays;
and so on.
Sucks that we have to go through people who care not about the programmer but the programs we use!
I mean I think I lost a few chances just by trying to explain that I am decent with HTML and CSS but don't use Dreamweaver (because I cant afford it).
Though I am not that worried, I did eventually stumble across a person who does understand these things and love working for him. So no it's not wrong, you're just unlucky to have come across wrong recruiters.
Good luck finding a job though!
PS It doesn't take more than 10 minutes to get familiar with an IDE, so always a plus to try out some (so you're not completely lost later).
One way to spin such answers is to make yourself the expert. So you could say something like, "I'm familiar with Dreamweaver, but once I got really good at coding HTML, CSS etc. I found it more efficient to just use a really fast and simple text editor like PSPad."
I used the same trick after I worked in C++ and was applying for a Java job. In that case, it went like this, "Well, the nice thing about having started in C++ is that it's such a rich and low level language that once you've done that, Java seems really easy by comparison."
The recruiter doesn't know what DreamWeaver is -- they just know what a commission is. Show them you'll make them one by selling yourself to their principle and they'll send you out to interview more often than not.
Look: when you're job hunting the person who is looking at your resume is either a:
Human Resource person (Needs a person to fill a position or just interview)
Head Hunter (Needs a body to fill a job so they can get their placement pay)
IT Manager (Needs a qualified soul for the best price).
Depending on the person interviewing you over the phone or in person they are just trying to get the best candidate for a position. Sometimes they have prepared questions to see how much you know, how you think and do you match up to your resume.
I went to a .NET code camp once and a head hunter was asked how one goes about showing the interviewer their experience. The head hunter said show them your work:
Bring a laptop with samples of your work.
Print out code sample.
Direct the interview to a website with samples of your work.
Things like this get you past the IDE question real quick.
As silky alluded to above, it's probably a simple mechanism in use by the HR agency to filter out candidates. If you're not using an IDE on the selected list, you're filtered.
For me, when interviewing, I would find somebody who says they use VIM or Emacs as their IDE to be a more advanced developer than perhaps somebody using Notepad.
Last time a CTO asked me what I use, I immediately said "Emacs, of course". He said, "OK, now I'm interested!". I've been working there since.
(I don't know why PSPad would be any worse than Dreamweaver or Eclipse. I find all IDEs hard to really customize. Everybody I work with has gobs of elisp, much of it shared, to make it much more productive for our project.)
Maybe you're talking to the wrong people for the kind of job you want. Where are you finding these "they" who ask you this?
It's certainly not worse than depending on one.
I use EMACS as my primary programming environment. It has a few big advantages:
It's available practically everywhere.
You can use it without having a window system installed.
You can use it over SSH.
It lets you edit multiple files at the same time.
It understands most programming languages.
You can run subshells.
Oh, you can read your email from within it, too.
This question has no good answer. It depends on the culture of the place you're interviewing for. At my current job, I play up my Unix experience and can impress other folks that also enjoy non IDE toolsets. vi, one liner scripts, etc. At my former gig, people were enamored with Visual Basic, and thought the command line was horrific. I'll bet if you were interviewing for the company that develops PSPad you would not have had the same result. ;-)
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 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have noticed I do not code as much as I use to. Today I dedicate more time to analysis and design, then I communicate that design to programmers. Then they do the coding. This has affected my coding productivity, because I must consult references and rely on intellisense. Things are becoming more complex everyday
Now, here is the irony. If I were to hire a programmer and ask him/her to sit in front of a computer, I may ask to do some coding and I would check abilities. I would evaluate them based on their use of memory vs. consulting references. Maybe I will prefer that programmer who did not consult too much, but who knows what they are doing.
What is your opinion and experience?
I would say that a developer who knows how to find the answers is better than one who has an overall good knowledge already. I find that intellisense is a good tool for finding answers, besides it is too much to remember all method names, arguments, overloads, etc.
I use memory to get me into the right general area (e.g. knowing which classes to use or at least which namespace they'll be in) and then often Intellisense/MSDN for the exact method name or arguments to use.
Having said that, Stack Overflow is improving my ability to code without any references (or even compilation) - I'm sure code will just work out of the box for me more often now than it used to. (I tend to post and then check the code works, add links to MSDN etc - assuming I'm reasonably confident in the approach.)
Someone knowing what resources are available, and how to find the answers, and how to effectively debug - these are qualities I look for now in prospective employees.
I used to consult my memory only, but two things have happened:
Class libraries have gotten larger, so has the number of languages available
The ratio of programming-related memory to personal-life-related memory has shifted away from code
Programming today is also eight times harder than it was when I started. I used to work on 8-bit machines, now I'm working on 64-bit ones. :)
I once was at a job interviewed with the CTO of a company. He asked a question based on a real life problem the company had a while back and solved. It was a multi step problem.
I was standing in front of a whiteboard working through my solution and struggling through a particular part, a part I would use google for before even attempting it, had I been tasked with solving this problem for real instead of for an interview. He asked me at that point, "would you do anything different if this wasn't an interview question." I responded, "Yes. I would exhaust all possibilities of using a third party component for this part of the task and look up the solution, because it is a well defined problem thats been solved several times." There was a bit more discussion where I justified my answer, explained exactly what I would research, and I solved some other parts of the question. In the end I was offered and accepted the job, partly because of knowing how to find out what I didn't know.
Being able to use references is as important as being able to code from memory. Obviously, if you are a one language shop, and want people proficient in that language,the person should be able to write a complete hello world app in notepad. Interview problems should focus on small problems, and one should not worry about small syntax errors. This is why a whiteboard is the best IDE for interview questions.
Unless you demand all your coders use notepad and don't give them internet access, don't be as concerned by the syntax. If you do sit them down in front of a computer, worry about the finished product as well as the technique used to get there.
I'm a PHP programmer in my early 30's. I rely on PHP's excellent documentation, for several reasons:
Programming concepts don't change. If I know what my object models are and how I want to manipulate data, then there's dozens of ways to implement the details. The details are important, but a better grasp of the design and structure is more important
PHP has notoriously inconsistent functions. One string function might use ($needle,$haystack) as parameters, and another might use ($haystack,$needle). Trying to keep them straight isn't worth the hassle when you can just type php.net/function_name and get the reference.
I don't rely on intellisense, simply because I haven't found a decent IDE for PHP that does it well. Eclipse is ok, but it's not fantastic. Netbeans gives me 'PHPDoc not found' for all the built-in PHP functions whenever I install it. There's nothing that I've found so far that beats out the documentation.
The bottom line is that the ability to memorize functions isn't indicative of coding ability. Obviously there's a key set of basic functions that a good programmer will know just from extensive usage over time, but I wouldn't base a hiring decision on whether someone knows substr_replace vs. str_replace from memory.
Because I've read either the documentation, or articles, or a book on a subject, the things I learn on a topic are organized. The result is that, if I can't bring something up from memory, I can probably find it quickly through IntelliSense or the Object Browser.
Worse come to worst, I can pick up the book again; something these youngsters are not being taught to do.
John Saunders
Age 51
Pretty much Google + Old Projects + my memory (of course)
References will not solve your problems though, its only for the nuts and bolts, the higher level of problem solving is the actual "programming" part IMHO.
I tend to use Intellisense and Resharper much more than I used to before, but this has helped my overall productivity. If I can get the idea of how I want to solve something and then use tools to get the more boring parts like class names and function signatures, why shouldn't I use the tools I have? I feel relieved that Jon Skeet has a similar approach it seems.
I rely on my bookmarks and books... and my ability to use them effectively. I have multiple books above my desk, including a copy of the ISO C90 standard. Moreover, I use Xmarks to have access to my bookmarks wherever I go. Sometimes, I make a pdf out of a particular page and upload it to my web-site if it is important enough.
Sometimes the information provided by the resources I use makes its way into my terrible memory... maybe.
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.
How do I explain loose coupling and information hiding to a new programmer? I have a programmer who I write designs for, but who can't seem to grasp the concepts of loose coupling and information hiding.
I write designs with everything nicely broken down into classes by function (data access is separate, a class for requests, a controller, about 5 classes total). They come back with a modified design where half the classes inherit from the other half (and there is no "is-a" relationship), and many public variables.
How can I get across the idea that keeping things separate makes it easier to maintain?
Ask him if it's a good idea to let you borrow $10 by giving his wallet to you for a moment and taking the money yourself.
The problem is your expectations, not the developers lack of skill. You talk about loose coupling and information hiding as if these are simple facts or mechanical techniques - they are not. Software development is a craft and the only way to get better at a craft is to practice it and slowly and incrementally improve.
You are looking for a shortcut. You want the developer to experience an "ahah!" moment and suddenly see the wisdom in your design. I say, don't hold your breath.
Adopt the mindset of a mentor. If you want him to improve his design skills, don't "hand" him a design, let him to design it! Then review the design with him. This will give him experience, a deeper sense of ownership and more willingness to listen to your suggestions before he is knee deep in implementation.
An aside - I notice that people look for these shortcuts all the time with abstract skills but not with more "physical" skills. Take tennis for example. If you were a tennis coach and a new player kept hitting his forehands long, you wouldn't just show him a YouTube video of a Roger Federer forehand and expect him to "get it". A great forehand takes YEARS of experience as you learn the feeling and use it in different scenarios - its not your muscles learning, its your brain. It is no different with software design. You get good at it by doing it over and over again. You slowly learn from your mistakes and get better at appreciating the consequences of each individual design decision.
The best way to explain these kinds of concepts is to use analogies. Pick something non-programming related and use that to explain the abstract design concepts.
The following image is pretty good at explaining the need for loose coupling:
Try to come up with stuff like this that will amuse and pertain to your new programmer.
Theory will only get you so far.
Make him try to add new features to code he's written a while ago. Then rework the old code with him so it's loosely coupled and ask him to add the same features.
He will certainly understand the avantages of writing good code.
There's nothing like a physical analogy. Walk out to your car and point out how everything complicated, hot and dangerous is pretty well isolated from the fragile human. Sit in the driver's seat and point out some of the important gauges; for example, the coolant temperature, tachometer and speedometer. Note how the gauges are remarkably similar: they all take a scalar value (from somewhere) and represent it by moving a needle to a position between min and max.
However, if you think about what's being measured, the strong motivation to maintain that isolation (aka loose coupling or information hiding) becomes a lot more obvious.
"How would you like to measure the coolant temperature? By looking at a gauge or by sticking your finger into near-boiling liquid?"
"How would you like to measure the engine rotational speed? By looking at a gauge or by letting a multi-thousand RPM crankshaft rip the flesh from your bones as you try to estimate it by hand?"
"How would you like to measure the car's speed? By looking at a gauge or by dragging your foot on the ground as you're roaring down the highway?"
From there, you can build on the concepts of "your coolant temperature gauge is-a gauge. It isn't-a boiling liquid" and so forth to more complicated concepts.
Loose coupling: The parts of a watch may be replaced by others with out breaking the whole watch. For instance you can remove one hand and it will still work.
Information hiding: The clock hands doesn't know that behind them there's a machinery.
Additional concept
High cohesion: All the elements in the watch "module" are strongly related. In this specific scenario, a battery would belong to another module or namespace.
Show him this presentation. Though it's mainly about DI, it's downright brilliant and up to the point.
I would try sitting down with him and working through a couple of peieces of code with him looking over your sholder and you explaining why you are doing what you are doing as you go along. I've found this is normally the best way to explain things.
Ask him to make a change you know it will be hard because of his design and show him how that would happen using yours.
If he complains, tell him the truth: business will ask more bizarre changes, it's a matter of time he will see that.
Just don't talk to him. That should teach him about information hiding. ;-)
I like a credit card for an example.
You have a credit card.
A credit card represents your credit history. It has a balance and a APR. It has permissions and an entire financial state. It has a id, an expiration date, and a security code. The magnetic strip summarizes all of this.
When you go to your local credit-card-accepting establishment, they don't need to know that. They don't want to know that, and it is often very dangerous if they do know that. What they need to "know" is that there is a magnetic strip which will take care of all of this, and (sometimes) that the person holding the card has id to match the name printed on the card.
Giving them more information is either (in the best case) useless, or (in the worst case) dangerous. Requiring them to know which bank to check with, making sure they know how to calculate your particular APR, or allowing them to check your balance is simply silly at that point.
If he's misinterpreting your designs, perhaps a couple pair-programming sessions will be enough to get them on track. I do have to agree with #ThomasD and will expand upon it -- the encapsulation going on here could be you. It could be a simple case of misinterpretation instead of them not understanding the concepts.
I think that OO concepts really need to be learnt practically. One really needs to do these things to understand. I go to school (engineering) and most of my peers don't really get the concept. They know in general that loose coupling is 'good' but not why. They also don't know how to achieve loose coupling. I am working on my final year project now and I got through to them by making them part of the design process. (It helped that they really did understand how and why and had an inkling of its importance)
Given your situation, here is what I would suggest:
1. Make them follow your design exactly (at least for a couple of weeks). If they want to deviate, have them discuss what and why with you. [Time constraints may not permit this].
2. Sit with them on whichever part of the design you are doing next and explain some o0f your design choices to them, with examples. Somethings that are obvious to you may need to be pointed out to them.
3. Be on the lookout for examples, both of good design and bad design and show them how that works better.
The most important task here is of delegation. You have to show them what good code looks like, maybe train them for a couple of hours. Then you agree on when to review and how you can help them (whithin your limited free time (?)) do the task well. The main thing is to get them to identify with and understand good design. Doing these things will help them 'buy-in' to the design. Once they feel it is their design, I am sure they will do better work.
Overall, I think you need to put your foot down and get them to code it right, without stifling their creativity.
I don't really have too much experience in the area. I am just giving my opinion on the subject, based on what worked for me. I hope this helps.
Note
I'd like to add that OO concepts can be learnt from books, while their application can be learnt only by practice. I have added this note in response to a comment by Christopher W. Allen-Poole.
Well if you have to explain it to them then I'm forced to ask: are they really a programmer?
Tell them they need a "college do over"?
That's a hard one because it's such a basic concept. Personally I wouldn't want to handle it because it's like someone is getting paid to learn stuff they should already know but life isn't always ideal.
I'd approach it by finding a problem that's simple enough to solved relatively simple. Public variables are usually handled best by trying to find the source of a problem when you can't see what's changin gthe variables. You can design a scenario for that.
The over-inheritance may not be their fault. They may have learnt in a course designed in the 90s that's trapped in the idea that "everything must inherit". I remember the old examples of Manager extends Employee. It's just BAD. Thing is people get taught this nonsense. Still.
For C++ the Scott Meyer Effective C++ series is probably worth poniting them to (assuming they can be bothered to read something). For Java, Josh Bloch's Effective Java ("favor composition") is along the same lines. Not sure about C#.
These sorts of books give a better approach to inheritance vs composition and also give some good examples of why inheritance is (as Josh Bloch puts it) an "implementation detail". I've also heard it described as "inheritance breaks encapsulation".
I saw a good example once of inheritance vs composition with extending the capabilities of a List in Java and how inheritance required you to know implementation details of the parent to do correct whereas composition didn't. I'll see if I can find it.
If you do Unit Testing, explain it in terms of test-writing. Alternatively, Abstract Classes and Interfaces both use loose coupling and information hiding to great effect. If you explain it to him in terms of other concepts he may already have a handle on, he'll be more likely to appreciate the concept quickly.
Programs are systems of interacting parts.
For a system of interacting parts to work together requires connections between these parts.
The more connections, the more costly the program.
For a fixed number of parts, a system whose parts are unnecessarily connected is more costly than a system whose parts are necessarily connected.
Unneccessary connections can only be formed in a system whose parts are unnecessarily exposed to connections from other parts.
Minimising unneccessary exposure of parts to connection from other parts is fundamental to cost-effective program development.
Loose coupling and information hiding are the fundamentals of connection-exposure minimisation.
This is not optional knowledge for a programmer.
This is fundamental.
You cannot be a cost-conscious programmer without this knowledge.
Asking how to explain loose coupling and information hiding to a new programmer is like asking how to explain surgery to a new surgeon? Or to explain architecture to a new architect? Or how to explain flying to a pilot.
If your, 'New programmers,' don't know loose coupling and information hiding, then they are not, 'New programmers;' they are potential programmers.
Curiously, it probably won't help to tell them to read the original two papers:
i)Loose coupling: 'Structured design,' by W.P. Stevens, G.J. Myers and L.L. Constantine.
ii)Information hiding: http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Design/criteria.pdf
Just like the move from 16 bit to 32 bit windows applications where processes were given their own address space. This stopped any other process from being able to kill your application when it "accidently" walked over your data.
Moving processes to different address spaces was like treating each process as a class, and hiding the memory internally and decoupling the processes by forcing interprocess communication to only happen via an expected interface ( eg Windows Messages ).
loose coupling means the external code should use the object of derived non abstract class through abstract base class. if any change occur in set of class on which it depend then not neccessory to change in external code i.e. external code really exhibit loose coupling.
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
I'm not a full-time software guy. In fact, in the last ten years, 90 % of my work was either on the hardware or doing low-level (embedded) code.
But the other 10% involves writing shell scripts for development tools, making kernel changes to add special features, and writing GUI applications for end-users.
The problem is that I find myself facing significant holes in my knowledge, often because it's been years since I've done "X", and I've either forgotten, or the environment has changed.
Every so often, there are threads on TheDailyWTF.com along the lines of "WTF: the guy spent all day writing tons of code, when he could have called foobar() in library baz". I've been there myself, because I don't remember much beyond the #include <stdio.h> stuff (for example), and my quick search somehow missed the right library.
What methods have you found effective to crash-learn and/or crash-refresh yourself in programming environments that you rarely touch?
Ask developers you know that work in the environment that you are interested in.
Search the web a lot.
Ask specific questions in relevant IRC channels (Freenode is great).
Ask specific questions on StackOverflow and other sites.
There really isn't any substitue for being "in the daily flow" of the programming environment in question. Having a good feel for the current state of the art is something you only get from experience, as I'm sure you can verify in you own areas of expertise.
i try to keep up with general news about languages i'm interested in but aren't necessarily using at the moment. being able to follow the general changes helps a lot for when you have to pick it up again.
beyond that, i personally find it easiest to grab an up to date reference book, and code a few basic things to get me used to the environment again, ie as a web programmer i'd make a simple crud app, or a quick web service/client.
For frameworks/APIs (such as a JavaScript framework or a widget library):
Quickly scan through the entire API documentation; get a glimpse of all that's out there instead of picking the first method that seems to fit your needs.
If available, glance at the source code of the
framework to see how the
API was intended to be used. Seeing what's behind the curtain helps. And also
some of the methods will have been used
internally, showcasing their true intents.
Don't necessarily always trust existing code (Googled, from co-workers, from books) since not everyone does the due diligence to find out the most proper way to use an API. Sometimes even samples in API documentation can be out-of-date.
In newer full-featured environments like Java, .NET, and Python, there are library solutions to almost every common problem. Don't think "how can I program this in plain C", but "which library solves this problem for me?" It's an attitude shift. As far as resources, the library documentation for the three environments I mentioned are all good.
The best solution I think is to get a book on the topic / environment you need to catch up on.
Ask questions from developers who you know who have the experience in that area.
You can also check out news groups (Google Groups makes this easy) and forums. You can ask questions, but even reading 10 minutes of the latest popular questions for a particular topic / environment will keep you a little bit "in the know".
The same thing can go for blogs too if you can find a focussed blog. These are pretty rare though and I personally don't look to blogs to keep me "in the know" on a particular environment. (I personally find blogs most popular and interesting in the "here's something neat" or "here's how I failed and you can avoid it" or "general practice" areas.)
In addition to the answers above, I think what you are asking for will take a significant amount of your time, and you must be willing to spend that time to achieve your goals. My method would be pretty much the same as Owen's answer; get a reference book or tutorial and work through the examples hacking in changes as you go to experiment with how any given thing works. I'd say as a bare minimum, allocate a hour to do this every other day, in a time that you know you won't be interrupted. Any less, and you'll probably continue to struggle.
The best way to crash-learn is simple, simply do it, use google to search for X tutorial, open your favorite browser and start typing away. Once you reached a certain level of feeling with X, do look at other people things, there is lots of open source out there and there must be someboby who has used X before, look at how they solved certain problems and learn from this, this is an easy way to verify that you are 'on the right track' or that you're doing things or thinking in patterns that other people would define as 'common sense'.
Crash-refreshing something is much easier since you have a suspended learning curve already, the way I do this is to keep some of the example you did while writing or keep some projects you did. Then you can easily refresh and use your own examples.
The library issue you mention here well, only improving your search skills will improve that one (although looking on how others solved this will help as well)
Don't try and pick up every environment.
Focus on the one that's useful and/or interesting, and then pick a few quality blogs to regularly read or podcasts to listen to. You'll pick up the current state of the environment fairly quickly.
Concrete example: I've been out of the Java world for a long time, but I've been put on a Java project in the last few months. Since then I've listened to the Java Posse podcast and read a few blogs, and although I'm far from a Java guru I've got back up to speed without too much trouble.
Just a though. While we are working on our code we know that we need to work very hard to optimize the critical path, but on non critical path we usually don't spend to much effort to optimize.
From your description you are working 90% on embedded and 10% on rest, lets assume that in 50% of the rest you are spending more time that needed. So according to my calculation you are optimizing about 5% of your work flow ...
Of course the usual google/SO/forums search is useful before you doing something new, but investing more than just that is waste of time for my opinion, unless you want to waste some time just for fun or general education ... :), but this is another story.
By the way I'm in same position and last time i needed some GUI and used MFC (because i used it sometimes 10 years ago :) ) and i perfectly understand that i probably will get better results with C# and friends, but the learning curve just not justify this especially knowing that i need mix the C code with GUI.
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 9 years ago.
For more information - Personal Software Process on Wikipedia and Team Software Process on Wikipedia.
I have two questions:
What benefits have you seen from
these processes?
What tools and/or
methods do you use to follow these
processes?
I went through the training and then my company paid for me to go to Carnegie Mellon and go through the PSP instructor training course to get certified as an instructor. I think the goal was to use this as part of our company's CMM/CMMI effort. I met Watts Humphrey and found him to be a kind, gentle soul with some deeply held ideas about process. I read several of his books as well.
Here's my take on it in a nutshell - it is too structured for most people to follow, assuming you follow things to the letter. The idea of estimation based on historic info is OK, particularly in the classroom setting, but in the real world where estimates are undone in a day due to the changing tide of requirements and direction, it is far less useful. I've also done Wide Band Delphi estimation and that was OK but honestly wasn't necessarily any better than the 'best guess' I'd make.
My team was less than enthusiastic about PSP and that is part of the problem - developer buy-in. My company was doing it for the wrong reason - simply to say "hey, look we use PSP and have some certified instructors!".
In the end, I've found using a 'agile' approach to be better. I have a backlog of work to do and can generally estimate it pretty well. I've been doing it long enough that I can make pretty good rough estimates on time and frankly don't think that the time tracking really improves things much. Perhaps in some environments it would work well, but at my place, we'll keep pumping out quality software without all the process hoops that yield questionable benefits.
Just my two cents.
I got into this once, even tried using PSP Dashboard.
It's just too hard to keep up with. Who wants to use a stop watch for all their activities? Follow Joel's advice on Painless Scheduling and Evidence Based Scheduling.
+1 this question, -1 to PSP.
I have used the PSP and TSP process by heart for 4 years (though it was in the begining of my software career). As an idealist you will love what is being done by you and ofcourse Yes there are amazing results as well.
Though PSP advocates the recording of your defects to the core (such as ; or typo's), I was in a conversation with Mr. Watts Humphrey where lot of people asked him about the advancements of compilers and missing of object orientedness (which I felt, how is it missing, as I was an OO Programmer and was using it successfully). There was a very good answer provided by him. It went on like, "PSP, or as a matter of fact any process methodology, is not a concept thats stuck on a single idea. The core idea is to introduce people to the quality methods and analysis.
"Its always adaptive. You can tailor it to fit to your needs. If you feel like you will go with Function Point methodology, you are alright to go ahead with it. Same for any estimation techniques. But you should do it constantly and repetetively.
"Same with the advancement of compilers. If you feel like the WBS in the structure of PSP won't fit to your development, do modify it and use but again do it constinuously.
"As you do it continuously, you will have collected the historical data of yours and will be statistically do a predectable and accurate estimates on all the parameters"
May be I am giving this answer late but when I read all the replies, I felt I wanted to share this.
As per the tools, we have Process Dashboard, the PSP excel sheet and all.
For the PSP, I have seen the Software Process Dashboard, but it seems awfully difficult to use.
I learned it just this last semester in college and it worked great for me. I know that by following it to the letter I can be confident I can hit Compile and won't have any errors and by hitting Run I won't have to spend time anymore fixing and re-compiling the program to run it again and again till the mess is fixed.
People complain about having to record the "missing semi-colons" and such but by the time you're on program 7, you're no longer making such trivial mistakes and instead your defects are found in the important bits of your program. I have not had the opportunity to apply it to a real scenario though but im really looking forward to!
I try to follow the PSP 2.1 process when possible. It really helps me keep a focus on not skipping important, but less exciting, portions of a project. Usually this is design and design review for small projects.
To keep track of time you can use the PSP Dashboard, which has a bunch of built in features and scripts that help you follow the process.
If you are just looking for a time-tracking tool, I also like http://slimtimer.com. It can also do some decent reports.
I've been using PSP for the last six months.
It is time consuming. For my estimations I had to spend 7% of my time filling forms.
It is frustating to have to put the mistake "missing semicolon" over and over again.
But on the other hand as I get used to the process, it became important as I started to see which errors I was mainly doing and I started "naturally" avoiding them.
It also makes you "review" your code so you can see if there's any problem before hitting the compile button.
For tools I recommend using Timetracker: http://0xff.net/
I recommend at least trying PSP for a couple of months, because you will create some habits that help reduce the time you spend compiling and correcting minor bugs.
I have completed the PSP course, the next one is supposed to be TSP which is meant for team dynamics as others say. I have mixed feelings about PSP (mostly negative, but the results were interesting), I arrived to the following conclusions:
First of all my main source of frustration is that the design templates are way too tedious and impractical. Change them for UML and BPMN, tell your instructors from the start, IMPOSE IF NECESSARY. The book itself says that the design templates are for people who don't know or want to learn UML.
Secondly, estimations were the only valuable part for me. The book itself says that you can use other stuff appart from lines of code and it even tells you how to know how relevant they are statistically. My take on this (counting lines of code) is that a tool/plugin that connects with your VCS (git, mercurial) must exist and automate the building of your personal database, otherwise is too tedious to track base/added/reused parts.
The process itself is nice, but not applicable to big projects, why?, because it just doesn't cope with iterations. In the real world, due to requirement changes you will always have to reiterate on a project. You can still apply the discipline to small programmatic tasks, this is: plan, design, review your design (have design standards and a small checklist that u can memorize), code, review your code (have clear coding standards and a small mental checklist you can memorize), test, ponder on your mistakes. Any experienced programmer will know these are eventually intuitive steps to follow. My recommendation in real practice: follow the process but don't document other stuff than your design, and if you do implement unit tests, document them well.
This process might actually be worth to follow and practical... for real-time system programming where there is absolutely no room for mistakes, otherwise doesn't feel worth it.
If you are seeking for a methodology to organize and improve focus, try GTD (Get Things Done) and Pomodoro first.
If you have obsessive-compulsive disorder you might actually enjoy PSP =).
My final recommendation, learn from it as a reference, might lead to better and more practical stuff. This thing is just too academic.
P.S.: R.I.P. Watts Humphrey
I followed the PSP for a few weeks some years ago, because my group wanted to experiment with it. I found it very disappointing and even irritating to work with. It exhausted my patience. My main negative points are:
Ridiculous emphasys in things like typos or missing semicolons.
Impractical forms that you have to fill by hand.
Focus on procedural programming instead of OO.
Estimating involves counting the number of loops, functions, etc.
I found it a massive waste of time. I'd rather choose to leave this profession than to be forced to follow the PSP.
Related material: My answer about a PSP book in the "What programming book would you NOT recommend to developers" question.
I used it during university but at work we really don't have a process at all. Only recently have we started using version control.
My experience with it was that it seemed far too tedious to be useful. If it's not automated, then it can go away.