The Coronavirus pandemic created a need for companies to shift to remote work very quickly. In virtually every case there was no intent to do that, and no plan to implement the change smoothly. Initially, there was a lot of thrashing. Then people started to get a handle on how to manage the work-from-home situation.
Continue reading Remote work backlash
In a February 2020 article on cucumber.io, “Eviscerating the Test Automation Pyramid”, Seb Rose points out some of the issues that ensue when people misunderstand the intent of the test automation pyramid (or triangle) originally proposed by Mike Cohn and interpret the model too literally. He suggests if we remove the various levels and labels that people have added on the inside of the triangle, and think about the shape as such, we’ll come closer to the original intent – many tests of small scope and fewer tests of larger scope.
Continue reading What happened to the test automation pyramid?
I came across an interesting video about how to relieve traffic congestion, “How to Fix Traffic Forever”, and it seems to me the key points are equally applicable to software development and delivery. What do you think?
Continue reading Traffic
Design by Contract is a software design approach that is helpful when we are building solutions from small building blocks that interact with one another through interfaces or APIs. The “contract” is the definition of how an interface or API is meant to be used. There’s a good description on the C2 Wiki, a reasonably good article on Wikipedia, and concise explanations in the Microsoft .NET documentation and on the Java Practices site.
Continue reading Design by Contract
This is a continuation of an exercise to learn how difficult it is to add refactoring support to a text editor. There’s no intent to produce a fully-featured and robust solution, but just in case it proves to be useful I want to focus on a couple of tools that don’t already have satisfactory refactoring support for widely-used legacy languages.
To be clear: This isn’t a “lesson”. I’m not teaching you something I already know how to do. I’m writing down what happens as I try to teach myself how to do something that’s new to me. Others already know how to write refactoring logic and how to write extensions and plugins for editors and IDEs. Fair warning, in case that sort of thing doesn’t interest you.
Continue reading Refactoring the Hard Way, Part 2
Some of the top people in the software field spend a good deal of their time examining and improving the quality of existing code bases, and showing developers how to keep their code bases habitable.
Brian Marick kindly filled in a historical gap for me in response to the initial version of this post. He writes: “‘habitability’ was probably coined by Richard P. Gabriel in an article for Journal of Object-Oriented Programming. The article (‘Habitability and Piecemeal Growth’) is included in his 1996 book Patterns of Software (available at https://dreamsongs.com/Books.html). Thanks for the history lesson, Brian!
It’s worth noting that “legacy” doesn’t automatically mean “bad”. Code that is currently used by numerous people, companies, and government agencies to support activities that are important to them clearly brings value. That value is part of the legacy of the code. But we need a shorthand way to categorize code whose internal design could benefit from improvement, and the word “legacy” has penetrated the market in that sense.
One might expect that after all these years of harping on “code quality” and “clean code” and “software design principles” that the problem of poorly-designed code would have faded into the background by 2020. Sadly, the problem is more profound than ever.
Why might that be the case? I think there are four main reasons.
Continue reading Where does all the bad code come from?
Many developers these days praise the refactoring support in Microsoft VisualStudio and JetBrains IntelliJ IDEA, as well as Eclipse variants. Those who enjoy working with other tools, like VSCode or Sublime Text or Vim often lament the limited support for refactoring in those tools.
What if we tried to roll our own refactoring support? What would be difficult about it and what (if anything) would be easy? Let’s try, and see where it leads us! Worst case, we’ll gain an appreciation for how much help refactoring tools are giving us. Best case…well, let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
Continue reading Refactoring the Hard Way, Part 1
No one can predict when the virus situation will pass; but we all know it will pass. The question is, what will we have done in the meantime to position ourselves for new opportunities when the economy rebounds?
This is not a time for us to roll up and hide in our shells like frightened armadillos. It’s a time for us to build our knowledge and hone our professional skills, to prepare for the new opportunities to come.
I suggested recently that companies need to use this time to regroup, reset, and get ready for the economic upturn that will surely follow the present crisis, rather than just shutting down and hoping things will get better soon.
Hope is not a plan, and neither is releasing your most valuable and hardest-to-replace assets: Your people. On the contrary, this is the time to enroll technical staff in training, so they will be ready to meet the challenges of the new economy that will emerge from the present downturn.
Continue reading Live online training: What’s different about it?
The recent report of a vulnerability in Microsoft Teams, coming shortly after the issue with Zoom, illustrates the fact that all software has vulnerabilities. Fortunately, Microsoft fixed the problem as soon as they became aware of it. I’m sure other companies will also respond to reports, as Zoom has done.
Continue reading Favor resiliency over prevention
Have you heard or read statements like the following?
- “Tests are the wall at your back. You gotta have tests or you don’t know what you’re doing.” ( Sandi Metz video; time index 9:35)
- “Not using an IDE with refactor tools like the ones discussed above is a waste of time.” ( Brian Ambielli)
I’ve seen a lot of people paralyzed by this advice. But why? It’s good advice, after all.
I think the problem is advice like this assumes the listener has a certain understanding of what software development work entails, and an ability to synthesize information and apply new techniques in context and with the benefit of substantial experience that includes particular activities and skills.
Absent those conditions, advice like this can scare people. They assume they literally cannot or must not attempt to refactor code unless the code is already well covered by a comprehensive and meaningful suite of executable checks, and they have the privilege of using very specific tools that verify the refactoring is completed safely.
Continue reading Refactor Anyway