Max Guernsey, III

Hi Max, So have you spoken to these people? Is th...

Paul Beckford — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 02:51:50 +0000

Hi Max,

So have you spoken to these people? Is there a national debate under way? I mean a real debate where both sides are listening to each other? You have been extremely dismissive of others who clearly are as passionate as you are. Free speech isn't enough. We must choose to listen to each other too.

Your attitude is not unique. I saw a lot of it in the US, and frankly I don't understand it. It's not evidence or facts based. I offered (yet again) plenty of facts that you (again) have chosen to ignore.

There is something else going on. I don't understand it, but I know it's not healthy (as born out by the high percentage of Americans on medication for depression). It doesn't make for an healthy and happy society, that's for sure.

Hell, you don't even believe in happiness :)

Lets leave the debate there. Thanks again.

Paul.

In response to your other post: These people aren&...

Max Guernsey, III — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 00:57:25 +0000

In response to your other post: These people aren't demonstrators. They aren't demonstrating. They are a rebellion. They have launched coordinated attacks on businesses (most recently the Wells Fargo ATM attacks). They occupy (as their name suggests) public areas and make them unusable. They launch targeted attacks on wealthy passersby. They have chosen to be enemies and to operate outside the framework of law that would protect them.

The first amendment to our constitution protects the right to speak freely and peaceably assemble. Where that is threatened, I am vehemently opposed. However, the first amendment is not a cloak of invincibility under which our enemies should be allowed to organize the replacement of freedom with tyranny.*

*: I know you think that people being allowed to make choices for themselves is somehow "tyranny" but I'm not talking about pretend tyranny. I'm talking about actual tyranny, like telling people what they can and cannot do with their own assets or taxing people into "equality."

You grossly misrepresent my proposed policies. I ...

Max Guernsey, III — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 00:49:03 +0000

You grossly misrepresent my proposed policies. I hardly argue that people should be starved to death by me, the government, or society at large. Allowing someone to starve is not the same as starving them.

I also never said we should just thump random people. People who say stuff I don't like are one thing. People who engage in coordinated attacks on the fabric of our society are completely different. These people are trespassing, camping illegally, and organizing a treasonous rebellion. I think that being thumped by the cops a couple times is actually a pretty measured response, considering that we would be well within our rights to use the military against these people.

There is a huge difference between advocating attacks against civilians and what advocating attacks against insurgents hell-bent on destroying the last vestige of freedom in your country.

Max, I really do appreciate your honesty, and you...

Paul Beckford — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 00:15:56 +0000

Max,

I really do appreciate your honesty, and your openness. I was startled by the lack of national consensus in the US. The polarisation of views and the fundamentalist beliefs.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your views. As you rightly point out it is not for me to judge.

Best Regards,

Paul.

I would say however that there is Incongruence in much of what you say. Thumping people fr demonstrating is not free speech

It's not the fact that you disagree with me, o...

Paul Beckford — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:38:33 +0000

It's not the fact that you disagree with me, or a good bulk of your fellow citizens that is scary. The scary bit is that you believe thumping people, and starving them to death is a valid policy.

Not disimilar to people who fly planes into buildings.

All justified by assumptions and name calling. You've called me a socialist, and religious. Neither of which is true. I wonder what else you may have got wrong?

You conveniently ignore arguments that don't reinforce your view, like the fact that health care in the UK is a third of the cost of that in the US, whilst being free at the point of use and offering much wider cover, or that the bulk of the US deficit is caused by tax cuts and military spending, not entitlements, or that fairness is not part of the corporate psychic in the US as shown by Enron, WorldCom etc, that markets by themselves aren't fair and can and have been rigged in the past (just ask the Californian electricity consumers who were ripped off by Enron), or that the removal of market rules (Glass-Steagal) has directly led to global economic melton (initiated by the US twice in the last 100 years), the list goes on...

"Sometimes, when you look out the window and see something you don't like, it's not actually on the other side of the glass."

Good point.

Another:

"when you point your finger at others there are three fingers pointing back"

Both statements say it all :)

"Fundamentalist" and "doesn't a...

Max Guernsey, III — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 19:16:23 +0000

"Fundamentalist" and "doesn't agree with Paul" are different things even though fundamentalists don't agree with you.

Unlike the people to whom you refer, I do not think I have the truth and I am open to valid arguments. The keyword is "valid." An appeal to emotion doesn't work on me. A false foregone conclusion doesn't work on me. A convincing argument, however, would persuade me.

People with arguments in favor of robbing me to fund the lifestyle of those who don't wish to work or want risk-free investments often mistake my not accepting their arguments as true for intolerance. It's understandable. You're clever. You've probably been able to convince a lot of people that your position is the right one using those tricks. So there obviously must be something wrong with me.

However, what's "wrong" with me is that I am not as easily suckered in by the platitudes and mental gymnastics that people who argue for big government (on either side) use as the bedrock for their arguments.

All that said:

If you really think about your arguments, and pour over them for a while, you will find that it is you who is the fundamentalist and not I. After all: Which of us has referenced the so-called "good book" to convince the other? Which of us rests more heavily on the phrase "whether you like it or not?"

Sometimes, when you look out the window and see something you don't like, it's not actually on the other side of the glass.

Hi Max, You win :) The last time I heard this le...

Paul Beckford — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 18:20:25 +0000

Hi Max,

You win :)

The last time I heard this level of fundamentalism and intolerance I was at University listening to the Muslim Brotherhood. They were convince that only they possesed the truth too. And they were totally intolerant of other points of view. Many of them went on to training camps in Pakistan, and we all know how that turned out.

You sound so much like them it's scary.

Peace.

Paul.

"We are in this together whether we like it o...

Max Guernsey, III — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:22:52 +0000

"We are in this together whether we like it or not" is true but doesn't mean anything. We are also in this with cows and we farm them and eat them. Being stuck alive with another entity has no bearing on how you treat it. It just means you are and they are.

Wanting those people crushed is anything but shortsighted. Wanting them NOT crushed is where the shortsightedness is. They are enemies of fairness and productivity. They serve no purpose and reduce quality of life for those who have value.

The "what we need is balance" statement holds no water. "Balance" is a polite way of saying "compromise" which is another way of saying "you lose but it's okay because I lose too."

What we need is a system that converges on making the right decisions without compromise. In that system, people who don't contribute are starved until they start contributing or are rendered unable to breed by becoming dead.

"Can you blame me for wanting to see their sk...

Paul Beckford — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:32:36 +0000

"Can you blame me for wanting to see their skulls thumped?"

No I can't :)

But it is short sighted. We are in it together wether we like it or not. We need to keep in mind the type of society we want.

What you have in the US is low social cohesion and low social trust. There also a massive lack of empathy.

It is this social climate you want? The type of climate the allows company's like Enron to flourish?

Most people in the US don't give two hoots for fairness. Most are per occupied trying to get paid, by any means necessary.

Time to stop pointing fingers at each other, and take a long hard look in the mirror at what you are becoming.

BTW. There is truth in both sides of the argument. What is needed is balance. Fundamentalist positions don't help. Infact they are a big part of the problem.

Paul.

I agree that fairness cannot be imposed by the sta...

Max Guernsey, III — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:33:46 +0000

I agree that fairness cannot be imposed by the state. The problem isn't that the state is failing to impose fairness though. The problem is that the state imposes unfairness in the form of taxation. The very losers who suckle at the teat of a government that robs me to keep them fed and sheltered have the nerve to go protest because they aren't provided a comfortable /enough/ lifestyle for free. Can you blame me for wanting to see their skulls thumped?

"What matters are that things are fair" ...

Paul Beckford — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:39:40 +0000

"What matters are that things are fair"

Yes. And a sense of fairness needs to come from the inside. From within each individual. It cannot be imposed by the state.

WE AGREE.

The question is what type of society is most likely to promote this?

We had riots in the UK, and everyone thought this would be the trigger for the police to get tough, and the dismantlement of the social welfare systems.

Instead it was the opposite. There was a big outcry (mostly by thewell healed middle classes). We don't want to become a police state like the US. We want to keep our police service and we don't want a police force.

It was only property, we want people to obey our laws through consent, not through state force.

Now having lived in the US there is a thing or too us Brits could learn from you guys, especially when it comes to personal responsibility.

But the reaction in the UK does show the other side of the coin, and having lived in both countries, the UK is a society that is much more at ease with itself. And yes people are happier (in general).

Paul.

I'm not worried about getting sick because I p...

Max Guernsey, III — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:33:46 +0000

I'm not worried about getting sick because I pay for health insurance and other sorts. If you want a warm fuzzy feeling, you can buy it from something much more viable and capable than government.

I do not advocate taking from others and that does not at all show a flaw in my argument. I don't know why you think it does. It's actually support for my argument, since what I advocate is preventing people from stealing from one another or killing one another.

To be clear: That is preventing them from /actually/ stealing from one another or killing one another. Stealing doesn't mean using mind-powers to compel them to buy your product. Killing someone isn't having them eat your hamburgers which ultimately give them a heart-attack. Stealing from someone is physically taking their stuff without their consent. Killing someone is the actual act of making them die.

I also don't agree that this is not about soci...

Max Guernsey, III — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:25:50 +0000

I also don't agree that this is not about socialism taking hold in the United States. There is a very real threat that we can become more socialist than we already are, which is already too socialist. I don't accept someone else's happiness, or even their survival, as justification for my enslavement by the state.

...and that is what this is really about. All of the anger at the banks is not really about them acting "wrongly." Think about it: what did they really do? You could argue that the bailouts were something that the banks did but it is actually something the government did.

What the banks at which people are so angry did was make bad bets by giving loans to people who were making bad bets. People aren't angry that the banks were making bad bets like they were, they are angry that the bets didn't pan out. That's why the government bailed out the banks in the first place; a misguided attempt to limit the affect of people's bad bets.

You can say it's about people getting along harmoniously and happily. I could point out that people are happier and more harmonious in systems that are fair than ones that aren't fair and a true capitalism is the only fair way to structure an economy. Yet, I don't have to because that's not what is important.

What matters is that things are fair. A system that rewards people for contribution and punishes people for lack thereof is what is fair. While we've never come up with a system that does that perfectly, the closest approximation there is is a truly free market - something that people these days want to deconstruct.

What people want to replace it with is something that is failing now. It also failed for the Russians. It failed for everyone who's tried it in between. You could argue that it worked for the Incas they're dead and we're here debating whether or people should be allowed to be freedom.

One more thing. I agree with personal responsibili...

Paul Beckford — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:17:18 +0000

One more thing. I agree with personal responsibility (despite you assuming the contrary). Leaving someone to starve for a few days could be the most loving thing you could do.

This is not the same as stealing their food, and calling them weak for not holding on to it. This is not what you are saying, but it does show the flaw in your argument.

We are all happy for the weak to perish, until the person that is weak is us, or our children. Incidentally even the strong live in fear in such a social climate.

What happens when I'm sick, or if someone stronger then me turns up?

I saw this fear when I lived in the US. It permeated everything.

Paul.

I don't accept that people being happy and har...

Max Guernsey, III — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:11:23 +0000

I don't accept that people being happy and harmonious is "the big question" or even an important one. The universe is not a happy place. The expectation or hope of happiness is probably the cruelest thing you can give someone. After all: Hope is the worst of the evils in Pandora's Box.

I think you've missed the point totally. This ...

Paul Beckford — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:55:55 +0000

I think you've missed the point totally. This has nothing to do with socialism. It has nothing to do with religion either, although all great religions have managed to come to similar conclusions.

It is also has nothing to do with Government. I agree that there may be better models of association then our current forms of Government. Until we try them we will never know.

It has everything to do with the human condition and the fact that we are social animals.

Where we should be looking for answers is in anthropology. The big question is how can humans live together in happiness and harmony? We already know that people are unhappy when they live apart or under tyranny.

Some how the whole discussion in the US has become polarised. Capitalist/Socialist, Conservative/Liberal. These things have become labels that each group throws at each other.

The reality is that a high percentage of Americans are on medication for depression. And were I was in the south there would be regular riots if the police didn't carry guns.

In short, for all the wealth, I would not describe the US as a happy and content society that is at peace with itself...

Paul.

"At some level individuals must suppress thei...

Max Guernsey, III — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:36:08 +0000

"At some level individuals must suppress their own individual desires in favour of the interests of the group as a whole." This is a false assertion.

"Studies have shown that altruism is one of the things that separates human beings from other animals." This is also false. They have altruism, too. Especially in more social species. People - especially religious people - want us to be "separate from" or "better than" animals but we aren't. We aren't because we are animals. The only unique trait we have is the ability to copy information from one specimen to another with high fidelity.

I find your scenario highly unlikely because my children would be likely to inherit my traits on account of being made out of the same blueprints as me. Regardless, weak though humans may be, we have survived and even dominated for hundreds of thousands of years without government "help." The vast majority of the people you would have "helped" are best helped by being allowed to starve for a few days until they decide to get off their butts and get a job. The scant few who would still starve under those circumstances were taken care of by churches before government stepped in.

Yes. A few centuries of people abusing government to become powerful have occurred. That's hardly an argument for bigger government. That's an argument for smaller, more fair government - the kind I want. There is an inverse relationship between the complexity of a system of rules and that system's ability to help the people it claims to help.

...and that is the fundamental problem. I don't want anything other than liberty because liberty is right and socialism is wrong. It just so happens that all of the evidence in all of the world also demonstrates that liberty works and socialism fails. So even if you don't accept the right/wrong argument, the fact that a free society is the only kind that can really function for any sustained period of time ought to win you over.

What shocks me. Is that people can argue in favor of socialism - the enslavement of those who produce for the benefit of those who do not - despite the fact that it is both unjust and nonfunctional.

...and yes, if I had a child who refused to contribute and I had no wealth of my own to leave them, I would rather have them starve than become a festering boil on the ass of society. I'm sure once being a parent makes me crazy like it has with every other parent in the world I'll feel differently but, then, my opinion should be discounted as should the opinion of everyone who is a parent today.

Hi Max, A last point. Without altruism where woul...

Paul Beckford — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:09:27 +0000

Hi Max,

A last point. Without altruism where would we be? Well those with the might to sieze land would do so, and the rest of us would have no choice other then to become their tenants.

This is how human's have lived for centuries. It is the feudal system, Lords and peasants. Now as a Lord, the owner of the land, you would rightly be entitled to certain liberties. Like taking your pick from the virgins who dwell on your property.

Paul.

Hi Max, I've been thinking about this and som...

Paul Beckford — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:45:01 +0000

Hi Max,

I've been thinking about this and some of the things said on twitter, and I think your destain for government comes down to the idea of freedom of association.

In a family you don't get to choose your siblings. Likewise in a nation you don't get to choose your fellow nationals.

We are all stuck with the society we are given. Or are we?

I'm a strong believer that all other things being equal we end up by and large with what we deserve. So we end up with the government we deserve, and the society we deserve too.

What ever form of collective association we choose, whether it be a commune, a government, a buyer's union, the same basic rules apply. At some level individuals must suppress their own individual desires in favour of the interests of the group as a whole.

So as part of the buyers union, I may have shares in a company that has a particularly bad reputation, but despite getting a good dividend each year I may choose to boycott the said company in the interests of the common good.

I'm talking altruism here. Studies have shown that altruism is one of the things that separates human beings from other animals. I believe we are all altruistic at heart, especially once we've overcome our fears. So why do we do it? My view is because we know deep down that in the end it is in our best interests.

Your daughter or son my not be blessed with your talents and wisdom. Do you want to die and leave them behind in a society that would have them rot? Ultimately you know that a social context where you and your prodigy are valued and safe despite their apparent weaknesses is in yours and everyones self interest.

This altruistic outlook is what we commonly call love, and I think it is fundamental to the human condition, and one of our few saving graces.

Regards,

Paul.

Looks like someone beat me to the punch on this by...

Max Guernsey, III — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:57:44 +0000

Looks like someone beat me to the punch on this by over a month. That's okay. I'm hoping my massive clout will make the idea stick this time.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Max Guernsey, III — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:56:42 +0000

This comment has been removed by the author.

Liberate Wall Street

Max Guernsey, III — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:43:00 +0000

Are you tired of the Occupy movement? I am. It looks to me like a bunch of dirty hippies whining about the fact that they bought houses they can't afford and created an economic meltdown. How the hell is that Wall Street's fault?

Occupiers: You jackasses committed fraud and got away with it. Or, at the very least, your mortgage brokers did. Sure. There was a little bit of economic fallout from your decisions and the Wall Street people definitely didn't do anything to arrest the downturn you created. That hardly entitles you guys to bitch about them. It's not their job to look out for you.

Here's what I think we should do. We have a long history of liberating pansies who can't seem to take it upon themselves to fight back when occupied; most notably the French. Why don't we get together as Americans and start liberating Occupied spaces? We can start where it all began: Wall Street.

Liberate Wall Street!

Yes. Power has to be met with power. Government ...

Max Guernsey, III — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:11:09 +0000

Yes. Power has to be met with power. Government is an extremely ineffective power in numerous ways. A much better solution would be something like a buyers' union. Get together in groups, put some funds together, make group decisions about who is going to get your money. Modify the flow of money from the masses to business and business will listen. Don't like that a company is quarter-driven? Organize a boycott. Like that a company uses compost-able cups? Direct commerce toward them in large doses. That is how you change things. Like religion, government is an antiquated tool that has long outlived its usefulness.

BTW. I actually agree with Obama's politics, b...

Paul Beckford — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:52:35 +0000

BTW. I actually agree with Obama's politics, because as you know my politics is left leaning. That doesn't mean that I don't see him as a career politician though :)

The sad truth is that If he wasn't a career politician he wouldn't have made it to the white house.

Paul.

Much better then twitter! I agree with you. I wou...

Paul Beckford — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:43:19 +0000

Much better then twitter!

I agree with you. I would add one more thing however: Force has to be met with force. Power has to be met with power.

In Britain the people have invested power in the house of parliament to counter the power of the privileged, like the monarchy, aristocracy, landed gentry, etc.

This people power was won through blood, and we haven't forgotten. (as an aside the house of commons is called the house of commons, because normal people are referred to as commoners, in contrast to the house of lords).

In the US I saw no counter force combating the oligarchs and the political elite. I also saw twisted arguments about freedom and liberty used to allow the powerful to do exactly what they like.

We in the UK haven't got all the answers. I like a lot of the things Ron Paul says, I also like the fact that he is funded by normal citizens, but against the military industrial complex, someone like that doesn't stand a chance.

So what you end up with is career politicians like Obama. I see very little real conviction politics in the US. The people don't believe in politicians, because there is little to believe in. Hence the lack of participation.

Paul.

This is a million times more useful than conversin...

Max Guernsey, III — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:19:43 +0000

This is a million times more useful than conversing through Twitter.

The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Max Guernsey, III — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 08:45:00 +0000

Christmas is approaching as rapidly as ever. In fact, it's approaching at exactly the same pace it always have and probably always will. I don't know what everyone wants but I do know what most people desperately need. They need the thing that helps them get through life, cold and twisted a thing as it is.

Unfortunately, if you're in the ninety-nine percent who don't seem to have this, nobody can give it to you. That is, nobody can give it to you but you.

This year, give yourself the gift that keeps on giving: a fucking sense of humor.

The Reason for the Season

Max Guernsey, III — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:52:00 +0000

Hey everybody! Thanksgiving is coming up and I'm very excited. Of course, there's the feast but it's also a special day on which we all get together and celebrate the circumstances that afford us this free and comfortable lifestyle to which we have all grown so accustomed.

So this year, invite everyone you love to come over to your place. Gather around the table. Join hands. Pray, if you're the religious sorts. However you do it give thanks for the thing that allowed us to be us. Was it Columbus? No. Was it the corn and beans thing? I think not.

I wouldn't waste any precious thanks on those things. Instead, let's remember how it really happened and let that remind us of who we really are. We're the people who figured out how to make blankets into a weapon of mass destruction because winning a war with bullets, cannons, superior infrastructure, and trick beads wasn't going fast enough.

This Thanksgiving, instead of saying "Happy Thanksgiving," why not something that rings a little more true:

"They never knew what hit them."

"5 Whys" on the Economic Meltdown

Max Guernsey, III — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:18:00 +0000

The economy crashed.
Why? Because banks were profiteering off of loans the borrowers couldn't afford.
Why? Because people were borrowing more than they could afford.
Why? Because prices were sky-rocketing.
Why? Because government created artificially low interest rates.
Why? Because the economy crashed.

Keynesian Economics

Max Guernsey, III — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 10:41:00 +0000

I learned a new word: "Keynesian." Apparently it means this: "The free market sometimes makes imperfect or "inefficient" decisions so we should give some market control over to an entity that consistently makes terrible and wasteful decisions." That, of course, is paraphrased - a Keynesian would never admit that's what he or she is suggesting - but it definitely is an accurate way to describe the school of thought.

Keynes is another example of why academia is mostly a waste of time and money. Before we fire the lawyers into the sun, we should get rid of the economists, the sociologists (including cultural "anthropologists"), and the political "scientists."

Occupy the Slippery Slope

Max Guernsey, III — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 09:53:00 +0000

"You know what? Maybe it's not just the top 1% who's the problem. That second percent is pretty rich and therefore responsible for my lot in life, too." It's not unlikely that the #Occupy movement will take that turn and this is what it looks like...

1% becomes 2%.
2% becomes 4%.
4% becomes 10%.
10% becomes 25%.
25% becomes 49%.

Nearly half of all Americans would be screwed by them trying to "make things fair."

Then, if they get what they want (read their literature), we'll have full scale communism which screws almost everyone all the time.

So here is my modest call to action. Go to the places where they are organizing and counter organize. Help them see that they are their own problem and nobody else is responsible for the choices they make but them. Be relentless with your reason and maybe we can avert the storm they are gathering.

I think it's time to invade China

Max Guernsey, III — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:46:00 +0000

Check this out:

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/08/apple_stores_in_china_the_one.html

I know how we could enforce trademarks over there. We could threaten to default on our loans to them. We could place an embargo on them. We could start a good ol'fashion war with them. It's about time a World War didn't start in Europe, anyway.

Term Coined

Max Guernsey, III — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:16:00 +0000

A very short while ago, a friend of mind posed this question: "What do you call a handjob from a chick with no hands?"

After numerous trials and errors, we came up with this:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chernobyl+stump+stroke

My Work is Now Cut out for Me

Max Guernsey, III — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:11:00 +0000

Okay. So I let myself get sidetracked on the development of my book as a result of having a lot to do at my current job. That's the bad news. The good news is that everything has been "percolating" during this time and I've come up with a really good mental map of how I'm going to guide the reader through all the problems involved in agile database development.

Here it is...

Basically, the idea is as follows.

Goals:
We have the goal of increasing the speed with which value can be delivered by reducing the "bottleneck effect" that generally surrounds database changes. However, we cannot do that at the expense of things we've already gotten good at; namely preserving the knowledge stored in a database and maintaining the availability of its service as experienced by a user via an intermediary application.

Obstacles:
There are risks posed to the things we are already good at by increasing the speed of change. Changing structure, the way we do it now, implies risk to existing knowledge stored in a database. It also introduces the chance that an application coupled to a database might not have had time to adapt to a change in structure by the time a change is rolled out.

There is also an obstacle to agile database development in that whatever infrastructure is required to mitigate the previously mentioned risks will probably not be available for legacy databases.

(From the Other Angle) Axioms:
Databases store knowledge - that is their primary role. To acquire knowledge and make use of it, databases absorb and emit information. Another thing to assume is that people will make mistakes.

Here's the big one: databases are objects. They are objects that store knowledge on behalf of other entities, like applications.

In any environment, where there is risk or instability, test-driven development mitigates those dangers to the point of rendering them almost non-existent. This is especially true in a good object-oriented environment where behaviors can be easily isolated and tested.

Solution:
Good object oriented platforms, and really even mediocre ones, provide the notion of a class. That is: an encapsulated, refactorable unit of design that provides a reliable way to instantiate objects with predictable behavior and easy-to-couple-to interfaces.

Implementation:
We cannot simply take existing mechanisms for defining classes and apply them to databases because the forces around a database are different - they have "inertia" in the form of knowledge that cannot be lost in the course of a design change.

The core of the implementation is to introduce a predictable, highly structured create-or-upgrade path that minimizes errors, protects existing knowledge, and regulates how change is introduced to any given database instance.

The next step is to specify exactly how changes are introduced to a database by test-driving them. This all-but-eliminates the chance that a database will lose knowledge in the course of changing its design.

Once that is accomplished, provide a strong interface for your database to ensure that application developers are warned of breaking changes as soon as they possibly can be. You, yourself, can be warned of these changes by using test-driven development to specify the behavior of the current database.

Finally, there must be a way to handle errors. This is a function of good database development practices - like taking regular backups - and providing a mechanism for rapidly introducing corrections to errors that have already been committed to production. Once you have that system in place, by definition, you will have a process that can be used to enroll legacy databases into your agile database development process.

Where Does the Buck Stop?

Max Guernsey, III — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:18:00 +0000

So I just watched another Michael Moore propaganda film and the theme of individual non-accountability continues.

I have a question for anyone who is swayed to believe that homeowners are not responsible for the consequences of their actions or that workers aren't responsible for choosing to work a job where they are underpaid.

If individuals should not be accountable for the consequences of their actions, who should?

The Law of Damocles

Max Guernsey, III — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:31:00 +0000

People keep talking about the Law of Demeter. It's a pretty good law - although it seems like a hard one to break in a modern programming environment.

Anyway, I'd like to propose another law based on a classical mythical character: The Law of Damocles: All code exists with a sword poised above its head.

Shit code is better deleted than mutated. Ensure the behaviors are properly specified with tests, delete it, and start writing good code until the tests are all green again.

The Golden Hammer

Max Guernsey, III — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:46:00 +0000

I think I've finally turned up something in my search for a compelling reason to use Ruby rather than something else. Here is the first argument in favor of it that includes an actual snippet of code that I have found:

http://wowkhmer.com/2009/01/20/dotnet-coders-should-give-ruby-a-try/

I think people's insistence on Ruby being a worthwhile thing is based on its expressiveness when defining the behavior of an algorithm. Personally, I don't see how the Ruby code in that example is any more expressive than the C# code but that's not the point. For the sake of argument, I will grant that it somehow might be for some people.

It still doesn't matter. People are already able to write and understand very complex algorithms. Making them easier to implement is not a good thing. For one thing, it optimizes the easiest part of what we do. For another, it enables programmers with outdated skills sets by allowing them to do what they are comfortable doing: writing "programs" and wrapping them up in objects.

Defining algorithms is not what good programmers do. What good programmers to is encapsulate variation to such an extent that there is no need to define a complex algorithm. This is very difficult as it requires us to think about things in terms of entities with responsibilities rather than in terms of sequences of steps, some of which are conditionally executed.

So I think that Ruby is a bit of a golden hammer: It's optimized for how it looks rather than how it functions - it focuses on letting people indulge their bad habits rather than providing an incentive to correct their behaviors.

That is... unless there is some way it enables people to define abstractions and encapsulate variation better than other languages. If there is, please send me a link to an example demonstrating.

A compelling reason to learn Ruby, anyone?

Max Guernsey, III — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:37:00 +0000

I am presently in search of a clear, concise explanation of what advantage Ruby might provide over, say, C# or Java and rock-hard evidence to back up that(those) claim(s). Any suggestions?

I'm tired of hearing how teachers are underpaid

Max Guernsey, III — Mon, 30 May 2011 16:36:00 +0000

Look at this. They get full benefits and are paid around $40k/y to work about a thousand hours a year. That means that, in terms of effort that goes in versus money that goes out, they are paid about like a decent programmer on average. If my experience was at all typical, most of them do a terrible job and don't even try to do a good one. Throw into that that there is a mechanism specifically designed to ensure they don't have to do a good job (tenure), and it's a pretty sweet deal.

I would say being paid comparably to one of the most highly paid professions in our country while not being held to any real standard of quality and, in fact, being explicitly shielded from any such standards puts teachers in the category of "overpaid" rather than "underpaid." If a government wants to cut costs by bringing their pay into alignment with the value they deliver (or at least improving the alignment), then so be it. Don't like it? Find a different job.

Most of the people who should be teaching children probably aren't in it for the money anyway.

Walk away, walk away / I'll be a parade

Max Guernsey, III — Mon, 30 May 2011 16:30:00 +0000

"Modus Operandi"

Walk away, walk away / I'll be a parade

Max Guernsey, III — Mon, 30 May 2011 16:29:00 +0000

"Modus Operandi"

Why TDD Does Not Replace Compilers

Max Guernsey, III — Sat, 21 May 2011 21:04:00 +0000

There is a commonly held belief that the presence of good tests obviates the need for a compiler. It is a myth. It can easily be shown to be false and I will do so in a few paragraphs.

Conceptually
Before demonstrating in concrete terms why a compiler is still necessary. Now, perhaps it is true that the single task of adding a class to a system of classes might not greatly benefit from the presence of a compiler. It also might not be true. Either way, I'm not going to address it because it's not the hard part of what we do.

Where a compiler comes in handy in a way that the simple presence of tests cannot help us is in the process of changing design, not creating it. TDD does not replace design, it augments it by attaching executable specifications to elements thereof.

Compilers tell you when elements of your design are inconsistent. In ways that tests cannot. At least, in ways that tests cannot do without replicating the purpose and behavior of compilers. They do this by allowing you to create positive coupling that can be validated at compile time.

Duplication
To really understand the value of a compiler, you have to understand the nature of duplication. Duplication exists whenever you have to make a single change in multiple places.

Unfortunately, duplication is not actually something we can eliminate altogether. In fact, all the techniques we have been taught for eliminating duplication do not, in fact, eliminate duplication but actually replace uncheckable duplication with coupling - a form of duplication that can be mathematically checked for consistency.

For instance, the signature of a method and the calls to that method are duplication. There are cases when changing the signature also requires the calls to be changed or requires some other change like creating an overload. However, with a strong-typing system such as you often find with a compiler, you have a mechanism to ensure that all calls are at least basically in sync with the methods they are invoking.

Duplication doesn't stop you and rarely even slows you down when you are creating something new. It's when you are changing things that duplication becomes a killer. The reason it is a killer because people seldom find all instances of duplication on their own. I refer you to Shalloway's Law.

Change
Healthy products change a great deal. The more useful and important your software is, the more you are going to need to change its design. There's a small irony there, isn't there? The more your software is used, the more it will change. The more it changes, the more the design will change. The more the design changes, the more you will want to keep instances of necessary duplication in sync with one another.

The key to surviving change in any system of a reasonable size is not to eliminate duplication; that is impossible to do one-hundred percent. Instead, it is to eliminate unnecessary duplication and to comply with Shalloway's Principle (same link as before) in the case of necessary duplication.

Dependencies and Strong Typing
Strong typing, which is typically found in compiled languages, is the only tool we have invented at the time of this writing that combats necessary duplication by linking together all instances of a particular duplication. It's really the strong typing, not the compilation, but at this time the correlation is so strong that you can practically treat them as the same thing, setting aside bastardizations like VB.Net.

Strongly typed languages tend to do this by allowing programmers to create dependencies that are implied by one entity in a piece of software using another. For instance, all calls to a method depend on the definition of that method. You cannot compile things that call a method without basically correct parameters. Likewise, all references to an instance of a type grant the dependent access to its public methods and allow it to pass the referred-to object around as a parameter to suitable methods.

These dependencies can then be checked for an entire compilation unit in a single pass, guaranteeing a basic of potential correctness before even bothering to produce a program that can be tested. Note that, if there were a strongly typed, statically checked, non-compiled language, then the programmer would get the same benefits except that it would happen when the script is loaded rather than when the program is compiled. The difference between those two things would be imperceptible to most, if not all, programmers.

Strong, Weak, Explicit, Implicit, Static, and Dynamic Typing
It is also important to note that I am not arguing for or against most of the traits listed in the title of this subsection. I am arguing in favor of strong typing and against weak typing. I don't really care about implicit typing or explicit typing, nor do I care about static or dynamic typing, except to the extent that they may influence a language's ability to be strongly or weakly typed. Let's go over what these various things mean, in case it is not obvious.

A strongly typed system is one in which types and method calls can be validated prior to the execution of any part of the type system being evaluated. Dependencies are defined in some way (probably by use) that allows the basic compatibility of design elements to be automatically verified with no work required from a programmer beyond defining said design.

A weakly typed system is one that is not strongly typed. That is, one in which a developer has to do extra work to validate the consistency of relationships between entities in a system or one in which it is not automatically done before a design element can be used.

An explicitly typed system would be one in which all types, including abstractions, must be explicitly defined. Java and C# are examples of such a system. If you want to create a polymorphic relationship, you have to create some kind of interface that is implemented by variants of the abstraction.

An implicitly typed system is one in which types, including abstractions, can be inferred by some part of the programming language or environment. A lot of scripting languages do this: you define the interface for an abstraction by how the caller uses implementations. What you may or may not have considered is that C++ also had elements of implicit typing: templates created a de facto interface between the template-ized thing and its dependencies. Note that the dependencies of a C++ template are still checked at compile-time so implicit typing is, by no means, inextricably linked to strong, weak, static, or dynamic typing.

A statically typed system is one in which types cannot be redefined at runtime. C#, C++, and Java are all examples of such a language. You define a type and that's that.

Finally, there are dynamically typed languages. JavaScript would be an example of such a language, where a type could be changed after it has been loaded and even after it has produced an object to be used.

I don't care whether a language has implicit or explicit types. Nor do I care whether it has static or dynamic typing. I may have a slight bias toward the former in each category but I don't consider it a big problem if a language or platform decides to go the other way. It is specifically the strength or weakness of a language's typing system that matters in the context of this blog entry.

Strongly typed systems are preferable to weakly typed ones because they aid in refactoring and extension in ways that cannot easily be done using other tools available to date. They do this by forcing us to reconcile instances of necessary duplication before we even bother testing a code change.

Practically
Hopefully, you are at least intrigued by the theoretical information provided above. However, I recognize that abstract arguments aren't always enough to make one's case so here's a real world example. This is a simple case and, the more complex the case, the more dangerous weakly-typed systems are.

In this example, we have a template method pattern. The pattern is implemented the classical way (through inheritance) even though I seldom do that in real life. No point getting embroiled in another debate before this one is settled. :)

The Setup
In the weakly-typed language we are using (which I'm making up on the spot to avoid getting into a religious war), we have no way to define an abstract method that ensures all inheritors of our base class implement it.

Let's look at the base class now:

class BaseClass
  method DoesSomething(x, y)
    factor = 1
    factor *= ComputeFactorForX(x)
    factor *= ComputeFactorForY(y)

    return factor
  end method
end class

Now, let's consider one inheritor of this class:

class RarelyUsed extends BaseClass
  method ComputeFactorForX(x)
    return 1 + x * x
  end method

  method ComputeFactorForY(y)
    return -1 - (y * y)
  end method
end class

In addition, there are twelve other extensions of BaseClass which are used very frequently. Let's even go as far as to say that we have a strong suite of acceptance tests that validate the value delivered by the software being developed. Even with such a thing, however, it is impossible to test every combination of every object.

Now, as I've stated before. TDD is handy for helping us define the behavior of each of these classes. It may even allow us to prescribe the relationship between them. What it doesn't do automatically is enforce the relationship.

The Twist
Let's imagine that we want to test-drive an extension to the behavior of the base class. That is, we want to change the relationship between BaseClass and its inheritors. TDD allows us to define the behavior as we want and ensure it is done right:

class BaseClass
  method DoesSomething(x, y, z)
    factor = 1
    factor *= ComputeFactorForX(x)
    factor *= ComputeFactorForY(y)
    factor *= ComputeFactorForZ(z)
    return factor
  end method end class
end class

What it doesn't do is make sure that all inheritors of BaseClass conform to the contract it demands. We have to wait until the real application is put together in order to see if we did everything we need to do. Let's say we just plain forgot the type RarelyUsed. Why wouldn't we? It is, after all, rarely used and a member of a family of types that is thirteen-large.

The Punchline
How long do we have to wait for that feedback? Ironically, the best-case scenario is: "Forever." In that scenario, the bogus class is never used and will be deleted the next time someone looks at it. The next-best case scenario would be when your automated acceptance tests run. Even that creates an irritatingly-long delay.

What if it happens during manual testing? The cost of finding and fixing the problem is going to be dozens of times what it would have been if the problem were apparent when making the change originally.

What if it happens in production? The loss of goodwill is possibly irreparable but probably could be smoothed over. However, the cost of finding and fixing a problem with that kind of delay between introduction and discovery would be astronomical, when compared to the cost of finding and fixing it immediately. We're talking hours or days when compared to seconds or minutes.

The Rebuttal
One might argue that one's tests are deficient. For instance, one could have a method that checks for the existence of the required methods on an inheritor of BaseClass. That method could then be called from a test in the test suite for each inheritor.

I'll not try and claim that isn't true. It obviously is. My counter-rebuttal is this:

Yes, you can do that. You can also write your code in assembly and write tests for each method which ensure it is properly formed - that all code paths lead to an exit or to an infinite loop, that it properly puts things in the right registers, etc.

In fact, you can re-write as many parts of a strong-type-system-checker or a compiler. However, doing so either requires you to write a compiler and then use it from a whole bunch of tests or to duplicate your design in the form of tests.

Conclusion
I think I've made some strong arguments in favor of using a strongly-typed programming language over a weak one. You cannot avoid creating duplication so, in addition to keeping to to the minimum amount necessary, you should use automation to enforce as much consistency between duplicates as possible.

I've failed, however, to mention the biggest and simplest argument. I've done this partially because I'm saving it for last. Here it is: there's no cost. It's one-hundred percent free to use a strongly typed language instead of a weakly typed one.

At least, that's how all the proponents of weakly-typed languages seem to make things look. You see. I've spent days trying to get people who don't like type-safety to explain one advantage of not having it. Nobody - not one person I've talked to - has been able to identify a single reason why it even might be better to have a language be weakly typed than it is to have it be strongly-typed.

The closest anyone has come has been something along the lines of "it's more challenging, so I work harder and with more focus." Languages should not provide the challenge. There are plenty of real challenges: getting your tests right, creating a good design, and aligning implementation with business value, to name a few. We don't need made-up challenges coming from languages that represent a big step backward.

So here is my final argument: I've shown that there is an advantage to having a strongly typed system. I submit that until a single, real advantage of weak typing can be identified, that tips the scales in favor of strong typing. If someone can come up with a strongly typed language that is also implicitly typed and/or dynamically typed, then that should be considered to be a competitor to real languages like Java, C#, and Go.

TDD allows you to use a language more effectively than you could without it but cannot make up for fundamental deficiencies in that language. One such deficiency that is presently en vogue is the absence of a strong typing system. You can mitigate that deficiency by writing numerous additional tests but at a number of great costs.

Just because you write good tests doesn't mean you cannot benefit from a compiler or something that fills a similar role and nobody has been able to show me how you could possibly benefit from not having one.

A mile stone in the long road

Max Guernsey, III — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:55:00 +0000

DataClass now supports Java. It took a lot longer than I expected but it's done now.

You might be thinking "that's neat but what does it mean that it 'supports Java'?"

Before I answer that, I'll briefly remind you what DataClass does - just in case you stumbled on this entry by accident and don't already know. DataClass is a compiler that takes documents that describe a class of database and produces binaries that know how to build and interact with instances of that class. The point is to give you the same ease of development you would have for any other class of objects; for instance, allowing you to quickly spin up test instances with identical behavior to production instances.

Following is an example of a DataClass source document:

database SomeDB {
  types int as integer;

  version 1.0 : initialized {
    design {
      public table T {
        public column X with DataType = type(int);
      }
    }
    construction { 
      step sql { $[T.Declaration] }
    }
  }

  current version 1.1 : 1.0 {
    design {
      public table T : base.T {
        public column Y with DataType = type(int);
      }
    }
    construction { 
      step sql { ALTER TABLE $[T] ADD $[T.Y.Declaration] }
    }
  }
}

That would create a class called SomeDB that knew about two versions of a database design, knew how to build and/or upgrade databases to either of those versions, and had a body of symbols allowing clients to couple to public aspects of each of SomeDB's various designs (1.0 and 1.1). If stored procedures were involved, there would be a proxy for each version that allowed clients to call these stored procedures as if they were normal methods on a normal object.

Up until build 20.11.1733, DataClass would only produce .NET assemblies that connected to a database through ADO.NET. This most recent build, however, added the ability to produce database proxies and constructors in a java JAR file.

This involved a significant amount of refactoring before it could readily be supported. I had to encapsulate all the variation between Java and C# (not too hard), between the JRE and the CLR (there's a fair amount), and between JDBC and ADO.NET (they work in fundamentally different ways).

The really disappointing thing about this was that I discovered how fundamentally different JDBC and ADO.NET were very late in the game. In ADO.NET, access to schema information and binding by name are both easy and reliable. In JDBC it appears to be expected that you will bind by position - something I thought we left behind two decades ago - because binding by name is possible for certain providers but not guaranteed.

Anyway, that was a problem I could work around pretty easily. DataClass uses the logical position of a parameter or column to infer its physical position. There are, I'm sure, times that this will not suffice. In such cases, developers can use the PhysicalPosition attribute to dictate the binding position of a parameter or a column. That might look something like the following:

public procedure MyProcedure {
  // Inferred: PhysicalPosition = 1
  public parameter F;
  // Inferred: PhysicalPosition = 2
  public parameter G;
  // Explicitly: PhysicalPosition = 0
  public parameter H with PhysicalPosition = 0;
}

Another "gotcha" for Java programmers is the fact that DataClass expects physical positions to be zero-based and adjusts accordingly for the platform. So, even though the first parameter is parameter 1 when binding via JDBC, you must specify it as parameter 0. I guess the point is this: don't take JDBC's implementation details into account as DataClass hides them.

Do not trust CodeMaid

Max Guernsey, III — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:02:00 +0000

She steals CodeSilverware.

Seriously, though: CodeMaid appears to randomly delete using statements. I've done a little work to uncover the root cause and identify a fix: it is not ready for production use; uninstall it.

DataClass now available

Max Guernsey, III — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:05:00 +0000

It's been a long haul but I think it was well worth it. DataClass is now available for download, trial, or purchase.

Conference Submissions: What to Do with the Rest?

Max Guernsey, III — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 07:08:00 +0000

I was looking through the Agile 2011 submissions and I noticed something. A lot of them are pretty interesting, well thought out ideas. I do not envy the chairs of the various stages their task. They are going to have to make tough decisions about which good talks to include in the conference and who they tell "great idea but there's just no time."

It occurred to me that one mitigation for this might be if conferences like this started soliciting papers from the talks that didn't make it and collected them into a book (or collection of booklets). That way, all the neat ideas that didn't make the cut could still find their way out into the world. If done right, the conference could make a little profit off of coordinating their release.

Agile Database Development: From Requirements to Delivery

Max Guernsey, III — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 21:14:00 +0000

I've received, signed, and returned a contract for my upcoming book, Agile Database Development: From Requirements to Delivery, scheduled for release in 2012. We'll see whether the "From Requirements to Delivery" part of the title survives the book development process. Regardless, the scope of the book will run that gamut.

Something I've noticed - and I really noticed this when I got my first publication contract for Transition Testing: Cornerstone of Database Agility - is that there is nothing like a contract to focus your attention on a project. It's not even the deadline, which I feel was extremely generous on the part of my publisher. It's those words that rattle around in the back of your mind...

This is really happening. The ball is in your court, now.

There is nothing like it to motivate someone. At least, there is nothing like it to motivate me.

Submissions for Agile 2011 Entered

Max Guernsey, III — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:06:00 +0000

Hi Everyone,

I've made three entries into the Agile 2011 submission system:

I'd love any review and feedback that anyone may offer.

A Pretty Functional Dynamic Proxy for jni4net

Max Guernsey, III — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:17:00 +0000

Wish you could use the dynamic keyword to access java objects created using jni4net? I use this class to do that. Feel free to reproduce it, modify it, or incorporate it into your own products so long as you don't claim that it is "yours" and start suing other people who use it.

It's cut-and-pasted out of my code so there's no guarantee that you won't need to tweak it a little. One might say it's pretty much guaranteed that you will. :)

using net.sf.jni4net;
using System.Dynamic;

public class JavaObjectProxyFactory
{
  public class JavaObjectProxy : DynamicObject
  {
    private readonly java.lang.Object o;
    private readonly java.lang.Class c;

    private JavaObjectProxy(
      java.lang.Object o,
      java.lang.Class c)
    {
      this.o = o;
      this.c = c;
    }

    public static dynamic GetInstance(
      java.lang.Object o,
      java.lang.Class c)
    {
      return new JavaObjectProxy(o, c);
    }

    public override bool TryGetMember(
      GetMemberBinder binder,
      out object result)
    {
      var field = c.getField(binder.Name);

      if (field == null)
      {
        result = null;
        return false;
      }

      result = ConvertToDotNetObject(field.get(o));

      return true;
    }

    public override bool TrySetMember(
      SetMemberBinder binder,
      object value)
    {
      var field = c.getField(binder.Name);

      if (field == null)
      {
        return false;
      }

      field.set(o, ConvertToJavaObject(value));
      return true;
    }

    public override bool TryInvokeMember(
      InvokeMemberBinder binder,
      object[] args,
      out object result)
    {
      var signature = new java.lang.Class[
        binder.CallInfo.ArgumentCount];
      var arguments = new java.lang.Object[
        binder.CallInfo.ArgumentCount];

      for (var i = 0; i < args.Length; ++i)
      {
        java.lang.Object arg = 
          ConvertToJavaObject(args[i]);
        if (arg != null)
        {
          signature[i] = arg.getClass();
          arguments[i] = arg;
        }
      }

      var method = c.getMethod(binder.Name, signature);
      if (method == null)
      {
        result = null;
        return false;
      }

      result = ConvertToDotNetObject(
        method.invoke(o, arguments));

      return true;
    }

    private object ConvertToDotNetObject(
      java.lang.Object o)
    {
      if (o == null)
      {
        return null;
      }

      if (o is java.lang.String)
      {
        var s = (java.lang.String)o;
        return new string(s.toCharArray());
      }

      return GetDynamicProxy(o);
    }

    private java.lang.Object ConvertToJavaObject(
      object p)
    {
      if (p == null)
      {
        return null;
      }

      if (p is string)
      {
        return new java.lang.String((string)p);
      }

      return (java.lang.Object)p;
    }
  }

  public static dynamic GetDynamicProxy(
    java.lang.Object o)
  {
    if (o == null)
    {
      return null;
    }

    return JavaObjectProxy.GetInstance(o, o.getClass());
  }
}

Enjoy.

"Happy Holidays" is what terrorists say. Merry Christmas!

Max Guernsey, III — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:02:00 +0000

Even though I'm not a Christian, merry Christmas everyone.

As a gift to the public at large, I've lowered the price of the Goad Testing PDF to free. So get your copy now.

-- Max

United Airlines: An Example of Why Airlines must be Allowed to Fail

Max Guernsey, III — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:44:00 +0000

United Airlines just fucked away an entire day of travel for me and managed to not get me anywhere.

I guess it's my fault, really. How silly was it of me to think that eighteen hours was enough time to transport me three hundred miles.

On the other hand, you do have to cut me a little slack because I could have driven to San Francisco from Bend and checked in to my hotel in the time it took United to decide they weren't going to send us where we paid to go.

So here's what happened. I showed up a good two hours early. You know... like you're supposed to. I was told there was going to be a "slight delay" of two hours. "Okay," I said. "That's okay. That's why I am giving myself so much time to get where I need to go."

The idea was to give myself enough time to ensure that the airlines couldn't possibly screw up my very important trip. Long story short: I'm pissing and moaning about the flight being canceled nine hours later (right after I got home).

There was not one person on that plane who would have been less satisfied with a trip to Oakland and a train-ride to SFO than they were with what they got (nothing). Airlines are, by and large, idiocratic entities. Stupid people are allowed to set up elaborate systems that are simultaneously incapable of meeting the fictitious needs initially envisioned and incapable of dealing with the actual needs of real customers.

When a limb is that rotten, the only thing left to do is chew it off. We must allow the airlines to fail.

Session Materials - "Transition Testing: Cornerstone of Database Agility" - 12.10.2009

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:00:00 +0000

DataConstructor v20.09.1805 is released and now available.

DataConstructor SDK v20.09.1805 now available.

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:14:00 +0000

DataConstructor v20.09.1805 is released and now available.

iContactProxy SDK v20.09.1726 now available.

Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:23:45 +0000

iContactProxy v20.09.1726 is released and now available for download.

The BitmapCompare News channel is now open!

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:30:00 +0000

An introduction to the Bootstrap news channel.

Free Seminar: Data Structure Metamorphism - May 8, 2008 - Wrap-Up

Sun, 11 May 2008 03:07:39 +0000

Our seminar at the XP users group went pretty well. We got some great feedback and the next one will be better-still.

Free Seminar: Data Structure Metamorphism - May 8, 2008 - Wrap-Up

Sun, 11 May 2008 03:07:39 +0000

Our seminar at the XP users group went pretty well. We got some great feedback and the next one will be better-still.

Part VI: Structure and Information, Revisited

Fri, 09 May 2008 22:43:21 +0000

By Max Guernsey, III - Managing Member, Hexagon Software LLC
A new discussion of how structure, behavior, data, and information relate in the database world.

Free Seminar: Data Structure Metamorphism - May 8, 2008 (repost)

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:11:34 +0000

We've obtained a venue on Seattle's west side:
Data Structure Metamorphism: Controlled Emergence of Database Design
hosted by The Seattle XP User Group.

Free Seminar: Data Structure Metamorphism - May 8, 2008 (repost)

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:11:34 +0000

We've obtained a venue on Seattle's west side:
Data Structure Metamorphism: Controlled Emergence of Database Design
hosted by The Seattle XP User Group.

The Courses News channel is now open!

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:44:44 +0000

This is where we will post notices of upcoming courses and seminars.

The Courses News channel is now open!

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:44:44 +0000

This is where we will post notices of upcoming courses and seminars.

Common Components SDK v1.6.0 now available.

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:32:16 +0000

Common Components SDK v1.6.0 can be downloaded. The graph-building piece has been upgraded to support "forwarding" and a new block of functionality has been added to support dynamic rule ordering.

Free Seminar: Data Structure Metamorphism - May 8, 2008

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:18:33 +0000

We've obtained a venue on Seattle's west side:
Data Structure Metamorphism: Controlled Emergence of Database Design
hosted by The Seattle XP User Group.

Free Seminar: Data Structure Metamorphism - April 24, 2008

Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:22:45 +0000

The response to our last free seminar was so positive, we decided to do it again with a new name:
Data Structure Metamorphism: Controlled Emergence of Database Design
hosted by Net Objectives.

Part V: Collaboration

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:25:15 +0000

By Max Guernsey, III - Managing Member, Hexagon Software LLC
A discussion of how the need for collaboration doesn't change between Agile software and databases.

Refactoring Data - March 25th, 2008: Success!

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:08:10 +0000

We had approximately fifty-percent attendance and a very positive response.
As promised, we have made the slides available in PDF format.

Update: Refactoring Data - March 25, 2008

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:14:48 +0000

This is an update on a previous post. The new deadline to RSVP is 3-24-2008.

Part IV: Change

Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:46:29 +0000

by Max Guernsey, III - Managing Member, Hexagon Software LLC
Ruminations on the nature of change in the database world as opposed to in the software world.

Part III: Testing

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:03:31 +0000

By Max Guernsey, III - Managing Member, Hexagon Software LLC
We consider how current testing practices apply to the database world.

Free Seminar: Refactoring Data - March 25, 2008

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:16:34 +0000

Hexagon Software is proud to announce its first free seminar:
Refactoring Data: Mitigating the Risks of Structural Changes
hosted by Net Objectives.

Part II: Builds & Deployment

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:48:21 +0000

By Max Guernsey, III - Managing Member, Hexagon Software LLC
Here we talk about how we should think of database creation. Many of us currently think of it as an operational concern. This can lead to a number of stumbling blocks when attempting to introduce agility...

Part I: Evolution

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:57:11 +0000

By Max Guernsey, III - Managing Member, Hexagon Software LLC
In this installment we discuss what I think is one of the most central and least portable practices: evolutionary development. Why is this so important? It's the practice that let's designs emerge. Without the ability to change our design for the better, we have to plan for every kind of variation; if not every variant. Why does it not work with data? Simple: databases don’t evolve.

A New Series: Rethinking Agility in Databases

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:29:29 +0000

Author: Max Guernsey, III - Managing Member, Hexagon Software LLC
We cannot simply reapply the Agile practices we have developed for software development to databases. Instead, we need to reduce these practices to their essence - the principles which underly them. From those principles, we can then rebuild practices for databases.

DataLink SDK v0.2.0 now available.

Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:44:50 +0000

DataLink v0.2.0 is released and now available for download. This is the beginning of a new product.

DataLink SDK v0.1.0 now available.

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:20:04 +0000

DataLink v0.1.0 is released and now available for download. This is the beginning of a new product.

License Enforcement SDK v1.5.0 now available.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:34:48 +0000

The License Enforcement SDK v1.5.0 has been released and is available for download.

DataConstructor SDK v1.5.1 now available.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:34:26 +0000

DataConstructor v1.5.1 is released and now available. This version is based on Common Components 1.5.1 and installs assemblies into the GAC.

ALERT: Windows Vista Security Issue With Install Package

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:31:54 +0000

It has come to our attention that Windows Vista security changes make it difficult for some customers to install our products.

License Enforcement SDK v1.4.0 now available.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:31:47 +0000

The License Enforcement SDK v1.4.0 has been released and is available for download.

The Basics of Test Driven Database Design

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:30:42 +0000

Author: Max Guernsey, III
The basics of test-driven development for databases. It does not directly reference Hexagon Software DataConstructor but everything it discusses can be achieved with DataConstructor.

DataConstructor SDK v1.5.0 now available.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:30:37 +0000

DataConstructor v1.5.0 is released and now available. This version represents a significant leap forward.

DataConstructor SDK v1.4.0 now available.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:30:34 +0000

DataConstructor v1.4.0 is released and now available. This version represents a significant leap forward.

Immutable, Self-Referential Graphs: Why & How

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:27:38 +0000

Author: Max Guernsey, III
This entry explains why immutability is important, even in self-referential graphs, and demonstrates how it can be achieved using Hexagon Software Common Components.

Common Components SDK v1.5.1 now available.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:27:33 +0000

Common Components SDK v1.5.1 can be downloaded. It has been upgraded to depend on Bootstrap 1.4.0 and the installer places assemblies in the GAC.

Common Components SDK v1.5.0 now available.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:27:31 +0000

Common Components SDK v1.5.0 can be downloaded. It comes with an expanded set of Reference implementations and a new object-lease-management framework.

Common Components SDK v1.4.0 now available.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:27:28 +0000

Common Components SDK v1.4.0 can be downloaded. It introduces a few new features in the same vane as ChainObjectProcessorBuilder.

Bootstrap SDK v1.4.0 now available.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 06:25:41 +0000

Bootstrap SDK v1.4.0 has been released.

We now have a Resources page

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:33:00 +0000

We now have a page linking to other services and resources that we think promote Lean and Agile programming.

DataConstructor SDK v1.3.0 now available.

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:28:00 +0000

DataConstructor v1.3.0 is released and now available. This version is signed with our code-signing certificate.
This version of DataConstructor is also based on version 1.3.0 or later of License Enforcement, Common Components, et al.

License Enforcement SDK v1.3.0 now available.

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:59:00 +0000

The License Enforcement SDK v1.3.0 has been released and is available for download.

Common Components SDK v1.3.2 now available.

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:44:00 +0000

Common Components SDK v1.3.2 can be downloaded.

The DataConstructor News channel is now open!

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:31:00 +0000

You've found the source for the latest DataConstructor news and alerts.
Check this page on a regular basis, if you're interested in releases, features, or product updates.

Common Components SDK v1.3.0 now available.

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:19:00 +0000

Common Components SDK v1.3.0 has been released. It contains three new features:
1. Support for immutable object-graphs with circular references
2. Strategy objects that can easily be extended by composition
3. Advanced XML serialization

Bootstrap SDK v1.3.0 now available.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:29:00 +0000

Bootstrap SDK v1.3.0 has been released.

VSGlue SDK v1.3.0 now available.

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:26:00 +0000

VSGlue SDK v1.3.0 has been released.

Bootstrap SDK v1.0.3 now available.

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:36:00 +0000

Bootstrap SDK v1.0.3 has been released.

VSGlue SDK v1.0.3 now available.

Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:02:00 +0000

VSGlue SDK v1.0.3 has been released.

Coming Soon: Inventory Liquidator.

Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:11:00 +0000

Soon we will be releasing a new application called "Inventory Liquidator."

The Applications News channel is now open!

Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:01:00 +0000

An introduction to the Applications news channel.