People are amazing, surprising and interesting. They change reality with power of thought and make things happen. What is most exciting - all people are completely different in their attitudes and behavior. But this comes with price - it is difficult to understand people and even more difficult to find the best way to deal with them.
Many people, who see programmers as extensions of their computer systems, will be surprised to discover that programmers are amazing individuals too. Programmers exhibit similar to other people behavior, they have different personalities and need individual approach.

I offer in this post a simple theory about Three Dimensions of a Software Programmer that could help to put relations with these individuals on some rational basis.

Axioms

There are two basic axioms in foundation of the theory

1. Constancy - some programmers consistently outperform others under same conditions.
2. Variability - performance of a programmer varies under different conditions.

(more…)

An expert have much better models of reality and methods to build them than an ordinary specialist. The expert, armed with these models, can quickly put pieces of a problem puzzle together, find explanations and solve the problem.

Models can be related to anything - software systems, business domain or your personal relationships. (more…)

Definitions
rule: prescribed guide for conduct or action
intuition: instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes)
tacit knowledge: automatic, unexpressed knowledge that provides context for people, places, ideas, and experiences. Tacit knowledge is not easily shared. As Polanyi said: “We know more than we can tell.”
context: the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

Problems with rules

Most rules didn’t come from heaven. They come from ordinary people. They are product of practice, theories, traditions and fear.
Problems:

• context-free - rules reflect standard situations without considering your specific circumstances
• limited verification - most rules are empirical and do not pass vigorous analysis, strict prove and experiments
• time sensitive - many rules become outdated quickly in dynamic professions, industries and societies
• overcautious - fear fuels many rules and seeks to protect from the worst scenario, often imaginable
• low skills denominator - rules tuned to match capabilities of the majority without accounting for individual strengths and weaknesses
• misinterpretation - tacit knowledge of experts, which forms base for many rules, is difficult to transfer in correct and understandable form

(more…)

Disclaimer: This post is devoted to a person who wants to become an expert - the top player in a specific field as programming, soccer or chess. This post will be not interesting for people who are satisfied with their current performance and not interested to be the best.

If you want to become an expert, it is not enough to follow your work assignments or occasionally play with interesting stuff at home. You have to push yourself hard in specially designed way.

@Work
Your paid work tasks and projects are not designed to make you an expert. Your company expects results from your work: reliable, with minimal mistakes and focused on the company main goal - make money. Your employer could provide minimal training to help you with job requirements. However, your growth will be constrained by company needs, timelines, work assignments and acceptable methods. We cannot blame our organizations - this is part of the deal - they pay for your work and expect specific results. But… is this the best way for you to become an expert, acquire new skills and gain knowledge? To become an expert, you have to make many mistakes, learn from them, experiment with alternatives and work hard on your weaknesses. How many organizations do allow this risky, unproductive and unreliable way of working?

@Home
Your play at home with interesting stuff has problems too. To satisfy your programming instincts and curiosity, you will probably select what you enjoy to do and eager to try. You’ll immense in this activity and find great satisfaction from doing it. But…  is this the best way to become an expert by doing only what you like? Becoming an expert requires hard, sometimes unpleasant work, specifically designed to improve your performance and push you over comfort zone. (more…)

source

Qualities of well composed code:

1. Quick discovery and understanding of programming logic and components
2. Clear organization (for human brains)
3. Ease of reuse, modification and evolution
4. Close connection between customer ideas and system implementation

(more…)

I was always against Copy and Paste programming. I condemned people who use this practice as discrediting the honorable profession of The Programmer. This evil activity inflates application code without adding anything useful. This shameful practice causes various complications - more code, more things to remember, needless complexity, and difficulty to manage and synchronize related changes in the future. But at some point, I admitted to myself - things are not so black and white. I do Copy and Paste in my code, it is difficult to resist this seductive activity.

The only indulgence is that I’m very keen to eliminate bad effects of Copy and Paste before finishing my task.

I use two main approaches for writing new code. The first is Top-Down - I have clear design ideas how I should program and I know what classes and components to use. I go ahead and write code from scratch using my memory and power of intellect :). There are few problems with this approach. Unfortunately, my memory is not so great and knowledge is not so vast. Regularly I have new tasks that I don’t know or don’t remember how to program. Sometimes I don’t get immediately what other people programmed without debugging. And often I want to save time and avoid re-implementing the same idea again. And that is why I also use the second approach - Bottom-Up. I copy and paste code first. And after I figure out how this code works, how to use, fit and improve it. (more…)

Pair Programming is a great way to build software systems. When Pair Programming works, it has significant benefits:

• better ideas - continuous brainstorming, larger knowledge pool, less gaps in understanding and more brain power to solve design problems;
• better quality - fewer bugs, instant validation of ideas, consistent approach and stricter adherence to team conventions;
• better knowledge - experience and knowledge sharing, deeper understanding of why, how and what was done;
• increased productivity - better focus and higher intensity, pushing each other and motivating to achieve best results, less procrastination and wasting of time;
• more enjoyment - most people like to work in groups and solve together interesting problems.

Extreme Programming leaders insist that all significant development should be done in pairs. But can we say that Pair Programming is the best method in all situations?

(more…)

The approach to programming is concerned with finding the best ways to translate programmer’s intention into the good system design and code.

The programming is communication. The programmer continuously add, change and refine ideas in the code. Source code has two important goals: tell a computer what to do and tell people what the computer should do. The program code is the only true medium for storing and communicating ideas about the software system behavior. Quality of the ideas expression in the code directly affects overall quality of the system.

So, what are characteristics of the good code?

1. clear - easier to work with ideas;
2. minimal - less effort to understand and change ideas;
3. testable - easier to validate ideas.

These are 6 top reasons for bad design and code:

1. lack of expertise
2. unrestrained technical curiosity and creativity
3. missing big picture: system purpose and customer goals
4. blindly following popular methods and over-using technology
5. sloppiness; lack of attention to details
6. over-complicating design to have more work or increase job security

The programmer can write better code (and avoid most of these problems) by improving programming style and approach.

(more…)

The Elements of Pragmatic Programming Style is the collection of rules for pragmatic programmers. This collection doesn’t pretend to be comprehensive guide how to program. Rather it concentrates on fundamentals: how any programmer can build better software for the customer. Some of the rules are obvious, but, surprisingly, many programmers don’t even think about them. They make same mistakes over and over again. I hope this post will inject a healthy dose of pragmatism into your programming style and make it a bit better .

Style Components:

• Intention - understand your task and how to get it done
• Approach - basic principles of writing code
• Composition - organization of code
• Expression - expressing ideas in code
• Object Oriented Pragmatic Style

The goals of Pragmatic Programming Style are

1. Building reliable software fast.
2. Delivering maximum value for the customer.
3. Writing code that is easy to understand, change and share.

Intention

“Everyone hears only what he understands.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Understand your task and how to get it done

Sidereal
(more…)

Software teams have three main strategies to achieve success: retreat, evolution or revolution.

• Retreat - refusal to act or the art of knowing when to say NO. 
• Evolution - continuous improvement and generation of ideas stemmed from existing set of ideas.
• Revolution - rapid advance with radical and disruptive ideas, overhaul of existing core ideas.

How can software teams choose the best strategy? They should consider three components:

1. The Players
2. The Game
3. The Dynamics

(more…)