Disabling professions

is an excellent book by Ivan Illich et al (isbn 0-7145-2510-3). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
Finally there is is the American valuation on instrumentalism - an emphasis on doing - on doing something, almost anything when confronted with a problem. "Doing nothing in a difficult situation" was interestingly enough an item diagnostic of neuroticism on a popular American psychological test. Sometimes the emphasis on movement became so great that speed itself was emphasised - sometimes for no logical reason.
It does not strike me as inconsistent, that religion and notions of the hereafter are especially relevant when "the here" is so lousy and so short.
Man has no nature, only a history [Ortega Y Gassett]
there seems to be an absence of informal and comfortable places to gather and talk and thus a further reduction in "informal networks of help".
The business of modern society is service… Thus, service is to care which is to love and love is the universal apolitical value.
The tool defines the problem rather than the problem defining the tool.
There is no greater power than the right to define the question.
The easiest way to create a monopoly is to invent a language and procedure which will be unintelligible to the layman.
When we talk about skilled work it is not the nature of the craft, but the social relation of the worker to management that is under discussion. The full expression of the worker's skill conflicts directly with the needs of management.
One of the real satisfactions of skilled work is that, like an artist, your hands produce what your mind conceives.
The frustration of not being able to apply his skills on the job is often the motivation for doing it at home.

Working effectively with legacy code

is an excellent book by Michael Feathers (isbn 0-13-117705-2). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
A few years ago, I gave my friend Erik Meade a call after I'd finished work one night. I knew Erik had just started a consulting gig with a new team, so I asked him, "How are they doing?" He said, "They're writing legacy code, man."
To me, legacy code is simply code without tests. I've gotten some grief for this definition… I have no problem defining legacy code as code without tests. It is a good working definition, and it points to a solution.
In nearly every legacy system, what the system does is more important than what it is supposed to do… Frankly, it's very important to have that knowledge of what the system actually does someplace.
When teams aren't aware of their architecture, it tends to degrade. What gets in the way of this awareness? … The brutal truth is that architecture is too important to be left exclusively to a few people.
When you have tests around the areas in which you are going to make changes, they act as a software vise [vice]. You can keep most of the behaviour fixed and know that you are changing only what you intended to.
The most subtle bugs that we can inject are bugs related to inheritance. … The language feature that gives us the most possibility for error when we lean is inheritance.
Orthogonality is a fancy word for independence… One of the startling things that you discover when you start removing duplication zealously is that designs emerge.
Sometimes it makes sense to add a variable to a class and use it to sense conditions in the method that we want to refactor.
…not all behaviours are equal in an application.
Code is pretty fragile material.
At this point in my career, I think I'm a much better programmer than I used to be, even though I know less about the details of each language I work in.
The primary purpose of a compiler is to translate source code into some other form, but in statically typed languages, you can do much more with a compiler.

Mastery

is an excellent book by George Leonard (isbn 0-452-26756-0). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
You have to be willing to spend most of your time on a plateau, to keep practising even when you seem to be getting nowhere.
Our hyped-up consumerist society is engaged, in fact, in an all-out war on mastery.
Sometimes, when the moment came to go to class, I would be feeling particularly lazy. On those occasions I would be tempted to do almost anything rather than face myself once again on the mat.
Practice, the path of mastery, exists only in the present.
To see the teacher clearly, look at the students… The best teacher generally strives to point out what the student is doing right at least as frequently as what she or he is doing wrong.
A doctor practises medicine and an attorney practises law, each each of them also has a practice.
The master of any game is generally a master of practice.
The courage of a master is measured by his or her willingness to surrender. This means surrendering to your teacher and to the demands of your discipline. It also means surrendering your own hard-won proficiency from time to time in order to reach a higher or different level of proficiency.
The essence of boredom is to be found in the obsessive search for novelty. Satisfaction lies in mindful repetition, the discovery of endless richness in subtle variations on familiar themes.
For the master, surrender means there are no experts. There are only learners.
It can be argued that what is most abstract is most fundamental and often most persistent over time.
Those we know as masters are dedicated to the fundamentals of their calling. They are zealots of practice, connoisseurs of the small, incremental step. At the same time - and here's the paradox - these people, these masters, are precisely the ones who are likely to challenge previous limits.

NDC cyber-dojos

Last week Olve Maudal and I ran two cyber-dojos at the NDC conference in Oslo. The first one attracted only a few people, partly due to some confusion about where it was being held. But what it lacked in quantity it more than made up for in quality. Uncle Bob and Corey Haines seemed to invent a new style of pair programming where Uncle Bob used his left hand and Corey used his right hand! Several people posted encouraging tweets:
  • @KevlinHenney: If you are at #ndc2011 today, I strongly recommend the cyber-dojo with @JonJagger and @olvemaudal this afternoon.
  • @UncleBobMartin: #ndc2011 cyber-dojo was very cool. Too bad you missed it. Must not be very many programmers here
  • @CoreyHaines: Terrific fun at #cyber-dojo at #ndc2010 Only 4 of us there today, you should come to the repeat on Friday after lunch!
  • @occulto: Best thing today: doing a kata in #cyber-dojo with @sondreb, @unclebobmartin and @coreyhaines #ndc2011 try it on Friday!


More people attended the second one. Corey was there again, along with Michael Feathers and Jon Skeet. Once again the tweets were very encouraging.





In the evening Olve created a TurnKey Linux VirtualBox server image to make it super-easy to run your own cyber-dojo. It's less than 500MB and downloadable from http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22404698/TurnKey-CyberDojo-20110610.ova.

Mike Long has written a pdf on how to set it up.

Thankyou to Olve and Mike and to everyone who attended.


Lean on the Compiler by Hiding (C++)

My Lean on the Java Compiler by Hiding post has proved quite popular so I've been thinking about if it could also work for C++... It can. I'll use Singleton as a example again. Suppose you have a C++ class like this:



class legacy
{
public:
    legacy();
    void eg1();
    void eg2();
    ...
};
#include "legacy.hpp"
#include "singleton.hpp"

void legacy::eg1()
{
    singleton::instance()->call();
}

void legacy::eg2()
{
    singleton::instance()->call();
}

Again, you want to create a seam for singleton access. The first step is to introduce the hiding identifier in the header file:

class legacy
{
public:
    legacy();
    void eg1();
    void eg2();
    ...
private:
    class singleton;  // <-----
};


Now Lean on the Compiler. All the calls to singleton::instance() no longer compile because the global singleton class is now hidden by the local singleton class just introduced. Next, in the source file add a global variable called instance of type singleton* and refactor all occurrences of singleton::instance() to instance.
#include "legacy.hpp"
#include "singleton.hpp"

singleton * instance;

void legacy::eg1()
{
    instance->call();
}

void legacy::eg2()
{
    instance->call();
}

Then Lean on the Compiler again to make sure there are no typos. Next remove the global variable called instance from the source file and refactor the header file to this:

class singleton; // <-----

class legacy
{
public:
    legacy();
    void eg1();
    void eg2();
    ...
private:
    singleton * instance; // <-----
};

Finally, initialize the instance member in the constructor definition.

legacy::legacy()
    : instance(singleton::instance())
{
}

I haven't tried this on real legacy code either. Caveat emptor!

Lean on the Compiler by Hiding (Java)

Here's a small trick which might not be out of place in Michael Feather's excellent book. I'll use Singleton as a example. Suppose you have a class like this (Java):



public class Legacy
{
    public void eg1()
    {
        stuff(Singleton.getInstance().call());
    }
    public void eg2()
    {
        more_stuff(Singleton.getInstance().call());
    }
}

And you want to create a seam for the singleton access. The first step is to introduce two public fields:

public class Legacy
{
    public int Singleton;
    public Singleton instance;

    public void eg1()
    {
        stuff(Singleton.getInstance().call());
    }
    public void eg2()
    {
        more_stuff(Singleton.getInstance().call());
    }
}

Now Lean on the Compiler. All the calls to Singleton.getInstance() no longer compile because the Singleton class is now hidden by the int Singleton just introduced. Next refactor all occurences of Singleton.getInstance() to instance (the other identifier just introduced, you can pick any name for this one but it's type must be Singleton).

public class Legacy
{
    public int Singleton;
    public Singleton instance;

    public void eg1()
    {
        stuff(instance.call());
    }
    public void eg2()
    {
        more_stuff(instance.call());
    }
}

Then Lean on the Compiler again to make sure there's no typos. Finally refactor to this:

public class Legacy
{
    public Singleton instance = Singleton.getInstance();

    public void eg1()
    {
        stuff(instance.call());
    }
    public void eg2()
    {
        more_stuff(instance.call());
    }
}

The name lookup rules for Java allow this to work but I don't think this idea will work in C++ (for example). I haven't got time to try it now as I'm heading off to the NDC conference in Oslo. I only thought of it yesterday. I haven't tried this on real legacy code. Caveat emptor!

Update. I have a C++ version aswell.

Adapt Parameter and Preserve Signature

Working Effectively With Legacy Code by Michael Feathers (isbn 0-13-117705-2) is a great book. The very first dependency breaking technique (p326) is called Adapt Parameter. It uses this Java example:



public class ARMDispatcher
{
    public void populate(ParameterSource request) {
        String[] values
            = request.getParameters(pageStateName);
        if (values != null && values.length > 0)
        {
            marketBindings.put( 
                pageStateName + getDateStamp(),
                values[0]);
        }
        ...        
    }
    ...
}


Michael writes:

In this class, the populate method accepts an HttpServletRequest as a parameter. ... It would be great to use Extract Interface (362) to make a narrower interface that supplies only the methods we need, but we can't extract an interface from another interface. ...


and a bit later...

Adapt Parameter is one case in which we don't Preserve Signatures (312). Use extra care.


Well, here's a variation on Adapt Parameter where we do Preserve Signatures. I'll stick with the Java example, but the idea is broadly applicable...

First we create our ParameterSource interface and fill it with the signatures of the methods in HttpServletRequest that our populate method calls:

public interface ParameterSource
{
    String[] getParameters(String name);
}
then we implement the adapter for HttpServletRequest:
public class HttpServletRequestParameterSource 
    implements ParameterSource
{
    public HttpServletRequestParameterSource(HttpServletRequest request) {
        this.request = request;
    }

    public String[] getParameters(String name) {
        return request.getParameters(name);
    }

    private HttpServletRequest request;
}
Next we add an overload of populate taking a ParameterSource and implement it with an exact copy-paste:
public class ARMDispatcher
{
    public void populate(ParameterSource request) {
        String[] values
            = request.getParameters(pageStateName);
        if (values != null && values.length > 0)
        {
            marketBindings.put(
                pageStateName + getDateStamp(),
                values[0]);
        }
        ...        
    }

    public void populate(HttpServletRequest request) {
        String[] values
            = request.getParameters(pageStateName);
        if (values != null && values.length > 0)
        {
            marketBindings.put(
                pageStateName + getDateStamp(),
                values[0]);
        }
        ...        
    }
    ...
}
Now we Lean on the Compiler (315) to make sure we haven't missed any methods in HttpServletRequest that our populate method calls. Add any we missed to the ParameterSource interface. Implement them in HttpServletRequestParameterSource as one liners. When it compiles we can refactor to this:
public class ARMDispatcher
{
    public void populate(ParameterSource request) {
        String[] values
            = request.getParameters(pageStateName);
        if (values != null && values.length > 0)
        {
            marketBindings.put(
                pageStateName + getDateStamp(),
                values[0]);
        }
        ...        
    }

    public void populate(HttpServletRequest request) {
        populate(new HttpServletRequestParameterSource(request));
    }
   ...
}
And now we have a seam we can pick it at...
public class FakeParameterSource 
    implements ParameterSource
{
    public String[] values;

    public String[] getParameters(String name) {
        return values;
    }
}


Tao Te Ching

is an excellent book translated by R.L.Wing (isbn 0-7225-3491-4). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages

In trying to understand a work like the Tao Te Ching, it is important to keep in mind that Chinese characters are not so much representations of words as they are symbols of ideas.
Because of its idea-embedded nature, the Tao Te Ching is a work that brings truth to the adage: It is better to read one book one-hundred times than one-hundred books one time.
True power is the ability to influence and change the world while living a simple, intelligent, and experientially rich existence.
Simplicity in conduct, in beliefs, and in environment brings an individual very close to the truth of reality.
When expectations are dropped, the mind expands, and reality expands along with the mind.
Nothing exists without the presence of its opposite.
Practice non-interference.
A house filled with riches cannot be defended.
Individuals who master themselves become less egocentric
Evolved Individuals strive to be intuitive, spontaneous, and simple.
Never fall completely into step with current society.


Spot the Tao Te Ching Bug

Most mornings I read one of the 81 entries in Tao Te Ching . My copy is called The Tao of Power, translated by R.L.Wing. Highly recommended. I use dice together with the chart in the picture (from page 19) to make a random selection. This morning I happened to notice that I never seem to get certain numbers. Closer inspection of the chart shows why...

Pride and revulsion

Here's a bug that bit me recently. I wrote a very small quick and dirty TDD header for C in my CyberDojo. It has a macro called CHECK_EQ which you use as follows:
CHECK_EQ(int, 42, 9*6);
Part of the macro looks like this:
#define CHECK_EQ(type, expected, actual) \
    ... \
    type e = expected; \
    type a = actual; \
    ... \
Can you see the problem? Well, suppose it's used like this:
    int e = 42;
    CHECK_EQ(int, e, 9*6);
Can you see it now? The problem is that this line in the macro
    type e = expected; \
gets expanded into this line:
    type e = e; \
Ooops. I thought about choosing a very cryptic name instead of x. Perhaps incorporating __LINE__ as a suffix. But I felt there had to be a solution that would always work. After some thought I came up with this. Brace yourself...
#define CHECK_EQ(type, expected, actual) \
   ...
   if (#expected[0] != 'x') \
   { \
       type x0 = expected; \
       type x1 = actual; \
       ... \
   } \
   else \
   { \
       type y0 = expected; \
       type y1 = actual; \
       ... \
   } \
   ...
Like Tom Duff, I feel a mixture of pride and revulsion at this discovery.

The war of art

is an excellent book by Steven Pressfield (isbn 0-446-69143-7). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
Every sun casts a shadow, and genius's shadow is Resistance.
The enemy is a very good teacher [Dalai Lama]
The human being isn't wired to function as an individual.
The truly free individual is free only to the extent of his own self-mastery.
Rationalization is Resistance's spin doctor.
Nothing is as empowering as real-world validation, even if it's for failure.
That's when I realized I had become a pro. I had not yet had a success. But I had had a real failure.
The professional knows that by toiling beside the front door of technique, he leaves room for genius to enter by the back.
Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, magic, and power in it. Begin it now. [Goethe]
The Self wishes to create, to evolve. The Ego likes things just the way they are.
We humans seem to have been wired by our evolutionary past to function most comfortably in a tribe of twenty to, say, eight hundred.

Kluge

is an excellent book by Gary Marcus (isbn 978-0-571-23652-7). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
The best science, like the best engineering, often comes from understanding not just how things are, but how else they could have been.
One molecule of DNA polymerase does its job in a perfectly straight-forward fashion, but the other does so in a back-and-forth, herky-jerky way that would drive any rational engineer insane. Nature is prone to making kluges because it doesn't "care" whether its products are perfect or elegant. If something works, it spreads. If it doesn't, it dies out.
What can evolve at any given point in time is heavily constrained by what has evolved before.
The vast majority of our genetic material evolved in the context of creatures who didn't have language, didn't have culture, and didn't reason deliberately.
What is recent is rarely fully debugged.
Our memory is organized to focus primarily on our own experiences.
Other studies have showed that people are more likely to accept falsehoods if they are distracted or put under time pressure.
Organisms tend to value the present far more than the future.
That which is clumsy is rarely reliable.
In physics, they have laws; in biology, we have gadgets [Francis Crick]
The value of imperfections extends far beyond simple balance, however. Scientifically, every kluge contains a clue to our past; wherever there is a cumbersome solution, there is insight into how nature layered our brain together; it is no exaggeration to say that the history of evolution is a history of overlaid technologies, and kluges help expose the seams.

How do you make toast?

I'm doing two days consultancy in Cornwall. Yesterday for the folks at Research Instruments in Falmouth and today for the folks at Absolute Software in Redruth. Both are really great places to work and it's a joy visiting them.

I'm staying at the Penventon hotel. My usual breakfast routine is tea, porridge, and toast. They have a big silver toaster. You put your slices of bread into the front, it pulls them in slowly, applies a lot of heat, and then drops them down a shute.

Yesterday they came out mostly black.

I tried scraping them with a knife. I won't bother next time. They never taste good when you do that. All I did was create black dust for someone to waste time cleaning up. They didn't taste good. I didn't eat them.

I was reminded of the joke:

How do you make toast?

You burn bread and scrape the burn off.

Today I put my toast in the same as before. The toaster slowly pulled them in, applied heat, and dropped them down the chute. The slices were under toasted this time. So I put the slices in again. The toaster pulled them in again, applied heat again, and dropped them down the chute again. Just right. No knives. No scraping. No black dust. No cleaning up. I added marmalade. I ate them. Lovely.

Free

is an excellent book by Chris Anderson (isbn 978-1-9052-1148-7). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
The internet is the first distribution system in history that is as well suited for the niche as for the mass, for the obscure as well as the mainstream.
Just as Moore's Law dictates that a unit of computer processing power halves in price every two years, the price of bandwidth and storage is dropping even faster.
For most of human history manure has determined how much food we had... Historians often look at the great civilizations of the ancient world through the lens of three grains: rice, wheat, and corn. Rice is protein rich but extremely hard to grow. Wheat is easy to grow but protein poor. Only corn is both easy to grow and plump with protein.
Humans are wired to understand scarcity better than abundance.
At some point in your life, you may wake up and realize that you have more money than time.
What [Alan] Kay realized was that a technologist's job is not to figure out what technology is good for. Instead it is to make technology so cheap, easy to use, and ubiquitous that anybody can use it.
Abundant information wants to be free. Scarce information wants to be expensive.
Paradoxes are the opposite of contradictions. Contradictions shut themselves down, but paradoxes keep themselves going, because every time you acknowledge the truth of one side you're going to get caught from behind by the truth on the other side.
Information is what British anthropologist Gregory Bateson described as "a difference that makes a difference."
The electricity consumed by a server now costs more over the life of that server than the server itself.
Rather than depriving life of purpose, material abundance created a scarcity of meaning.

Bounce

is an excellent book by Matthew Syed, subtitled The myth of talent and the power of practice (isbn 978-0-00-73505404). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
Ericsson also found that there were no exceptions to this pattern: nobody who had reached the elite group without copious practice, and nobody who had worked their socks off but failed to excel.
It is the quality and quantity of practice, not genes, that is driving progress.
The ascendency of the mental and the acquired over the physical and the innate has been confirmed again and again.
My dad never asked me to play golf. I asked him. [Tiger Woods]
Child prodigies do not have unusual genes; they have unusual upbringings.
Top skaters fall over more during their practice sessions.
But while the adaptability of the human body is impressive, it is the plasticity of the brain that has astonished researchers.
If you don't know what you are doing wrong, you can never know what you are doing right.
These were some of the clearest findings I've ever seen. Praising children's intelligence harms their motivation, and it harms their performance. [Carol Dweck]
Lowering standards just leads to poorly educated students who feel entitled to easy work and lavish praise. [Carol Dweck]
Many of the contemporaries of Galileo (inventor of the modern telescope) really did think there was something morally dubious about the telescope; that it was taking humanity beyond the powers expressly sanctioned by God.

JavaScript: The Good Parts

is an excellent book by Douglas Crockford (isbn 978-0-596-51774-8). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
This is not a book for beginners... This book is small but it is dense. There is a lot of material packed into it. Don't be discouraged if it takes multiple readings to get it. Your efforts will be rewarded.
JavaScript's popularity is almost completely independent of its qualities as a programming language.
JavaScript is the first lambda language to go mainstream. Deep down, JavaScript has more in common with Lisp and Scheme than with Java.
strong typing does not eliminate the need for careful testing.
despite its deficiencies, JavaScript is really good.
Unlike many other languages, blocks in JavaScript do not create a new scope, so variables should be defined at the top of the function, not in blocks.
An object is a container of properties, where a property has a name and a value. A property name can be any string, including the empty string. A property value can be any JavaScript value except for undefined.
An inner function also enjoys access to the parameters and variables of the functions it is nested within... This is called closure. This is the source of enormous expressive power.
That act of nothingness gives us confidence that the function does not recurse forever.
What matters about an object is what it can do, not what it is descended from. JavaScript provides a much richer set of code reuse patterns.
Much of the complexity of class hierarchies is motivated by the constraints of static type checking.
var memoizer = function(memo, formula) {
    var recur = function(n) {
        var result = memo[n];
        if (typeof result !== 'number') {
            result = formula(recur, n);
            memo[n] = result;
        }
        return result;
    };
    return recur;
};

var fibonacci = memoizer([0, 1], function(recur, n) {
    return recur(n - 1) + recur(n - 2);
});

Simple and Usable

is an excellent book by Giles Colborne (isbn 0-321-70354-5). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
If you ask people they'll say everything is important and anything is feasible.
We tend to keep things, even when they're broken.
Your first design may seem like a solution, but it's usually just an early definition of the problem you are trying to solve. [Luke Wroblewski]
Broken gets fixed. Shoddy lasts forever. [Jack Moffett]
Feature lists sell so as long customers don't get a chance to use the product.
Mainstreamers want "good enough quickly;" experts want "perfect in as long as it takes."
People prefer to be pilots, not passengers.
"Seven plus or minus two." Many psychologists now believe short-term memory may be rather smaller - perhaps just four items.
Simple organization is about what feels good as you're using the software, not what looks logical in a plan.
Designing simple user experiences often turns out not to be about "How can I make this simple?" but rather "Where should I move the complexity?"
The secret to creating a simple user experience is to shift complexity into the right place, so that each moment feels simple.
Don't try to fill your user's mind with your design.

Nudge

is an excellent book by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (isbn 978-0-141-04001-1). As usual I'm going to quote from a few pages:
School children, like adults, can be greatly influenced by small changes in the context.
There is no such things as a 'neutral design.'
Roughly speaking, losing something makes you twice as miserable as gaining the same same thing makes you happy. In more technical language, people are 'loss averse'... Loss aversion helps produce inertia.
Most teachers know that students tend to sit in the same seats in class, even without a seating chart.
Eating turns out to be one of the most mindless activities we do. Many of us simply eat what is put in front of us.
Social scientists generally find less conformity, in the same basic circumstances as Asch's experiments, when people are asked to give anonymous answers.
On average, those who eat with one other person eat about 35 percent more than they do when they are alone; members of a group of four eat about 75 percent more; those in groups of seven or more eat 96 percent more.
Self-control issues are most likely to arise when choices and their consequences are separated in time.
Even hard problems become easier with practice.
The best way to help Humans improve their performance is to provide feedback.
For most of their time on earth, Humans did not have to worry much about saving for retirement, because most people did not live long enough to have much of a retirement period.

public: footpath

You know you know C++ when you see a sign like this and you think, "there's a colon missing after public."

rules of thumb

don't rush

I don't think I can put it any better than Jerry Weinberg did when I interviewed him:

Things take the time they take, not the time you hope they will take. Pushing for half-time produces half-baked.


As a self-employed software coach/consultant I get to travel a lot and visit a lot of companies. At the best companies there is a palpable sense of not rushing.

think team

Software development is all about collaborative learning. I think one of the weakest points of the Agile Manifesto is it's lack of emphasis on teams. The very first word of the four "X over Y" statements is Individuals :-( XP at least takes a firm step beyond programming as an individual activity by mandating pair programming. I look at Sit Together, a practice from XP1 and I think s/Sit/X/. In other words, whatever X is, X Together.

increase visibility

Software and the process of developing it can be, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, mostly invisible. You think more clearly when you have something concrete to tie your thinking to. You manage things better when you can see them and see them constantly changing. It's no accident that Kanban boards are as popular as they are.