Building the right software

When we talk about software development a lot of the discussion revolves around programming languages, frameworks and the latest in technology.

While all the above and also the knowledge and skill of the developers certainly matter a great deal regarding the success of a software project the interaction between the involved individual is highly undervalued in my opion. Some weeks ago I watched a great talk connecting air plane crashes and interaction in a software development team. The golden quote for me was certainly this one:

Building software takes technical skill, but building the right software take human interaction and lots of it”

Nickolas Means (“How to crash an airplane”, The Lead Developer UK 2016)

I could not word it better and it matches my personal experience. Many, if not most of the problems in software projects are about human communication, values, feelings and opinions and not technical.

In his talk Nickolas Means focuses on internal team communication and I completely agree with him. My focus as a team lead shifted a lot from technical to fostering diversity, opinions and communication within the team. I am less strict in enforcing certain rules and styles in a project. I think this leads to more freedom and better opportunities for experimentation and exploration of ways to approach a problem.

Extend it to your customer

As we work on projects in different domains with a variety of customers we are really working hard to understand our customers. Building up open, trustworthy and stable communications is key in forming a fruitful and productive collaborative partnership in a (software) project. It will help you to produce a great software that does meet the customers needs instead of just a great software. It may also help you in situation where you mess up or technical problems plague the project.

The aspect of human interaction in software projects has its place rightfully in the agile software development manifesto:

Through this work we have come to value:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

The Authors of the Agile Manifesto

Almost 20 years later this is still undervalued and many software developers are still way too much on the technical side. We are striving to steadily improve our skills on the human interaction side and think it proves fruitful everytime we succeed.

I hope that more and more software developers will grasp the value of this shifted view point and that it will increase quality and value of the software solutions provided to all users.

Maybe it will make working in this field friendlier for not so tech-savvy people and allow for more of much needed diversity in tech.

Getting better at programming without coding

Almost two decades ago one of the programming books was published that had a big impact on my thinking as a software engineer: the pragmatic programmer. Most of the tips and practices are still fundamental to my work. If you haven’t read it, give it a try.
Over the years I refined some practices and began to get a renewed focus on additional topics. One of the most important topics of the original tips and of my profession is to care and think about my craft.
In this post I collected a list of tips and practices which helped and still help me in my daily work.

Think about production

Since I develop software to be used, thinking early about the production environment is key.

Deploy as early as possible
Deployment should be a non event. Create an automatic deployment process to keep it that way and deploy as early as possible to remove the risk from unpleasant surprises.

Master should always be deployable
Whether you use master or another branch, you need a branch which could always be deployed without risk.

Self containment
Package (as many as possible of) your dependencies into your deployment. Keep the surprises of missing repositories or dependencies to a minimum of none.

Use real data in development
Real data has characteristics, gaps and inconsistencies you cannot imagine. During development use real data to experience problems before they get into production.

No data loss
Deploying should not result in a loss of data. Your application should shutdown gracefully. Often deployment deletes the directory or uses a fresh place. No files or state in memory should be used as persistence by the application. Applications should be stateless processes.

If anything goes wrong or the new deployed application has a serious bug you need to revert it to the last version. Make rollback a requirement.

No user interruption
Users work with your application. Even if they do not lose data or their current work when you deploy, they do not like surprises.

Separate one off tasks
Software should be running and available to the user. Do not delay startup with one off admin tasks like migration, cache warm-up or search index creation. Make your application start in seconds.

Manage your runs
Problems, performance degradation and bugs should be visible. Monitor your key metrics, log important things and detect problems in the application’s data. Make it easy to combine, search and graph your recordings.

Make it easy to reproduce
When a bug occurs or your user has a problem, you need to follow the steps how the system arrived at its current state. Store their actions so that they can be easily replayed.

Think about users

Software is used by people. In order to craft successful applications I have to consider what these people need.

No requirements, just jobs
Users use the software to get stuff done. Features and requirements confuse solutions with problems. Understand in what situation the user is and what he needs to get to his goal. This is the job you need to support.

Work with the user
In order to help the user with your software I need to relate to his situation. Observing, listening, talking to and working along him helps you see his struggles and where software can help.

Speak their language
Users think and speak in their domain. Not in the domain of software. When you want to help them, you and the user interface of your software needs to speak like a user, not like a software.

Value does not come from effort
The most important things your software does are not the ones which need the most effort. Your users value things which help them the most. Find these.

Think about modeling

A model is at the core of your software. Every system has a state. How you divide and manage this state is crucial to evolving and understanding your creation.

Use the language of the domain
In your core you model concepts from the user’s domain. Name them accordingly and reasoning about them and with the users is easier.

Everything has one purpose
Divide your model by the purpose of its parts.

Separate read from write
You won’t get the model right from the start. It is easier to evolve the model if read and write operations have their own model. You can even have different read models for different use cases. (see also CQRS and Turning the database inside out)

Different parts evolve at different speeds
Not all parts of a model are equal. Some stand still, some change frequently. Some are specified, about some others you learn step by step. Some need to be constant, some need to be experimented with. Separating parts by its changing speed will help you deal with change.

Favor immutability
State is hard. State is needed. Isolating state helps you understand a running system. Isolating state helps you remove coupling.

Keep it small
Reasoning about a large system is complicated. Keep effects at bay and models small. Separating and isolating things gives you a chance to overview the whole system.

Think about approaches

Getting to all this is a journey.

When thinking use all three dimensions
Constraining yourself to a computer screen for thinking deprives you of one of your best thinking tools: spatial reasoning. Use whiteboards, walls, paper and more to remove the boundaries from your thoughts.

Crazy 8
Usually you think in your old ways. Getting out of your (mental) box is not easy. Crazy 8 is a method to create 8 solutions (sketches for UI) in a very short time frame.

Suspend judgement
As a programmer you are fast to assess proposals and solutions. Don’t do that. Learn to suspend your judgement. Some good ideas are not so obvious, you will kill them with your judgement.

Get out
Thinking long and hard about a problem can put you into blindfold mode. After stating the problem, get out. Take a walk. Do not actively think or talk about the problem. This simulates the “shower effect”: getting the best ideas when you do not actively think about the problem.

Assume nothing
Assumptions bear risks. They can make your project fail. Approach your project with what is certain. Choose your direction to explore and find your assumptions. Each assumption is an obstacle, an question that needs an answer. Ask your users. Design hypotheses and experiments to proof them. (see From agile to UX for a detailed approach)

Another way to find blind spots in your thinking is to frame for failure. Construct a scenario in which your project is failed. Then reason about what made it fail. Where are your biggest risks? (see How to map your fears for details)

MVA – Minimum, valuable action
Every step, every experiment should be as lightweight as possible. Do not craft a beautiful prototype if a sketch would suffice. Choose the most efficient method to get further to your goal.

Put it into a time box
When you need to experiment, constrain it. Define a time in which you want to have an answer. You do not need to go the whole way to get an impression.

From Agile to UX: a change in perspective

Usually a project starts with a client sending us a list of requirements in varying levels of detail. In my early days I started with finding the most efficient way to fulfill these requirements with written software.

Over time and with increased experience I broke down the large requirements into smaller ones. With every step I tried to get feedback from the client if my solution matched his imagination.

Step by step I refined this iterative process by developing more efficiently, getting earlier feedback, testing and asking questions for more detail about the constraints of the solution. Sometimes I identified some parts that weren’t needed in the solution.

In the journey to getting more agile I even re-framed the initial question from ‘how can I get more efficiently to a satisfying solution’ to ‘which minimal solution brings the most value to the customer’.

This was the first change of perspective from the process of solving to a process of value. But a problem still persisted: the solution was based on my assumptions of what I believe that brings value to the customer.
The only feedback I would get was that the customer accepted the solution or stated some improvements. But for this feedback I had to implement the whole solution in software.

The clash of worlds: agile and UX

Diving into the UX and product management world my view of software development is questioned at its foundation. Agile software development and development projects in general start with a fatal assumption: the goal is to bring value through software that fulfills the requirements. But value is not created by software or by satisfying any requirements. For the user value is created by helping him getting his jobs done, helping him solving his problems in his context.

This might sound harsh but software is not an end in itself but rather one way to help users achieve their goals.
On top of that requirements lack the reasons why the user needs them (which jobs they help the user do) and in which situation the user might need them (the context).
In order to account this I need to change my focus away from defining the solution (the requirements) to exploring the users, their problems and their context.

The problem with finding problems

As a software developer I am skilled in finding solutions. Because of this I have some difficulties in finding the problems without proposing (even subconsciously) a solution right away. If you are like me while talking with a client or user I tend to imagine the possible solutions in my head. On top of that missing details that are filled by my experience or my assumptions. The problem is that assumptions are difficult to spot. One way is to look at the language. A repeatable way is to use a process for finding them.

The product kata

Recently I stumbled upon an excellent blog post by Melissa Perri, a product manager and UX designer. In this post she describes a way named ‘the product kata’.

The product kata starts with defining the direction: the problem, job or task I want to address.
After a listening tour with the different stakeholders (including clients and users), the requirements list and a contextual observation of the current solution I can at least give a rough description of the problem.

These steps help me to get a basic understanding of the domain and the current situation. In my old way of doing things I would now rush towards the solution. I would identify the next step(s) bearing the most value for the client and along the way remove the shortcomings of the current solution. But wait. The product kata proposes a different way.

A different way

Let’s use an example from a real project. Say the client needs a way to check incoming values measured by some sensors. The old solution plots these values over time in a chart. It lacks important contextual information, has no notion of what ‘checking the values’ mean and therefore cannot document the check result. Since the process of checking the values is central to the business we need to put it first and foremost. Following the product kata I define the direction as ‘check the sensor values’.

Direction: check the sensor values

To see if I reached the goal the kata needs a target condition which I define as ‘the user should be able to check the sensor values and record the check result’.

Target condition: the user should be able to check the sensor values and record the check result

Currently the user isn’t able to check anything. So the next step of the kata is to look at the current condition. If the current condition matches the target condition I am done. The current condition in my example is that the user cannot check the sensor values in the right way.

Current condition: the user cannot check the values in the right way

The first obstacle to achieving the target condition is that I don’t know what the right way is. Since the old solution lacks some important information to fulfill the check my first obstacle I want to address is to find out what information does the user need.

Obstacle: what additional information (besides the values themselves) does the user need

Since the product kata originates from lean product management I need to find an efficient step which addresses this obstacle. In my case I choose to make a simple paper sketch of a chart and interview the user about which data they needed in the past.

Step: paper sketch of chart (to frame the discussion) and interview about information needed in the past

I expect to collect a list with all the information needed.

Expected: a list of past data sources which helped the user in his check process

After doing this I learned what information should be displayed and which information (from the old solution) was not needed in the past.

Learned: two list of things: what was needed, what not

Now I repeat the kata from the start. The current condition still not matches the target condition. My next obstacle is that we do not know from the vast resources of information that is needed and the possible actions during the check which are related, form a group or are the most important ones. So my next step is to do a card sort with the users to take a peek into their mental model. I expect to find out about the priorities and grouping of the possible information and actions.

After I gathered and condensed the information from the card sorts, my next obstacle is to find out more about the journey of the user during the check and the struggles he has. From my earlier contextual observation I have the current user journey and the struggles along the way. Armed with the insights from the earlier steps I can now create a design which maps the user journey and addresses the struggles with the data and the actions according to the mental model of the user.
For this I develop a (prototypical) implementation in software and test them with a group of users. I expect to verify or find problems regarding the match of the mental model of the user and my solution.
This process of the product kata is repeated until the current condition meets the target condition.

Why this is needed

What changed for me is that I do not rush towards solving the problem but first build a solid understanding by learning more about the users, their jobs and contexts in a directed way. The product kata helps me to frame my thoughts towards the users and away from the solution and my assumptions about it. It helps me structure my discovery process and the progress of the project.
My old way started from requirements and old solutions improving what was done before. The problem with this approach is that assumptions and decisions that were made in the past are not questioned. The old way of doing things may be an inspiration but it is not a good starting point.
Requirements by the client are predefined solutions: they frame the solution space. If the client is a very good project manager this might work but if I am responsible for leading the project this can lead to a disaster.
The agile way of developing software is great at executing. But without guidance and a way of learning about the users and their problems, agile software development is lost.

The developer experience (DX): Our development process

Personally I like reading stories about how others tackle problems, their way to the solution, their process. This post is intended to give you a glimpse of how we work.

Personally I like reading stories about how others tackle problems, their way to the solution, their process.
Recently our team sat down together to brainstorm what is not so good or even bad about our way of solving things. To address those problems and to improve our developer experience I researched and documented our typical development process. This post is intended to give you a glimpse of how we work.
First you have to know that we are a service business so usually a project starts with a (potential or recurring) customer coming to us with his concerns, his business needs. On the course of a typical project the following phases (some in iterations) run:

1. Identifying the problem (aka analysis)

Often the first expressed need is not the problem to be solved. We need to dig deeper and identify the core. At this point in the process we ask the customer goal oriented questions. We guide the conversation to find any constraints of the solution. One of these constraints is often the technological platform (web, mobile, desktop).
If it is a bigger problem we need to work through different levels of abstraction, one iteration at a time.
We document all the results in functional specs. These are small blocks of text in the language of the customer describing the functional side of the problem and its constraints. These specs form the basis of every project and are entered as issues in our JIRA.
Alongside we record the concepts of the domain in form of a glossary in our wiki.
Besides the text we draw complex or core parts of the domain as diagrams on paper. A rough domain model. A module concept. A high level architecture of the system.

2. Planning

In a planning poker session we estimate each issue from the analysis. The customer sets a priority. Together we develop a milestone plan for our iterations. Smaller (1 week) iterations for explorative or fast paced projects and longer (2 – 3 weeks) iterations for slow paced or well defined projects.

3. Finding a solution

Before implementing a solution to a problem in code, we create different concepts which fit the constraints we recorded earlier.
These concepts can be paper prototypes or sketches. Sometimes these are HTML mockups or simulations.
From these we choose the best suited concept by talking with the customer or from our experience.

4. Development

At the start of the project we set up the necessary internal infrastructure. This usually consists of a git repository and jenkins jobs for continuous integration. We install the libraries, frameworks and applications. We create a project in the IDE and start implementing. While developing we write automated tests where appropriate. We use manual testing to tell us what the users will see and how it behaves like we expected. When we think we are done we look for feedback.

5. Feedback and acceptance

For feedback we deploy the project on a staging or test system, email the customer so that he fulfills a manual user acceptance test.
If the customer accepts the solution we continue with the next phase. If bigger problems arise we reopen our JIRA issues or create new ones and start with the analysis again.

6. Delivery

First we need to set up a machine to our project specific needs: automatic or manual (snowflaking). This is called provisioning.
We create scripts and jobs in Jenkins for the following steps: one for release and one for deployment and commissioning.
The release step packages the project and creates documents from our JIRA issues which were resolved in this version. The deploy step takes the release artifact and transfers this to the target machine. Usually this step also runs the deployed project. Every installation (release and deploy/commisioning) is documented manually on paper to be traceable. An email to the customer tells him what the new release includes. Tags in the repository identify the deployed code.

7. Monitoring

Every error or exception occurring is sent via email to a project specific account. Additionally we create a job in Jenkins which supervises the system periodically. The job tries to reach the application and executes some health checks.

Recap of the Schneide Dev Brunch 2014-12-14

If you couldn’t attend the Schneide Dev Brunch at 14nd of December 2014, here is a summary of the main topics.

brunch64-borderedIn mid-december, we held another Schneide Dev Brunch, a regular brunch on a sunday, only that all attendees want to talk about software development and various other topics. If you bring a software-related topic along with your food, everyone has something to share. The brunch was well-attended and we didn’t even think about using the roof garden (cold and rainy). There were lots of topics and chatter. As always, this recapitulation tries to highlight the main topics of the brunch, but cannot reiterate everything that was spoken. If you were there, you probably find this list inconclusive:

International brunch

We tried to establish a video conference with a guest from San Francisco and had tried the technical implementation beforehands. But we didn’t succeed, mostly because of a sudden christmas party on the USA side. So we can’t really say if the brunch character is preserved even if you join us in the middle of the (local) night.

How much inheritance do you use?

One question was how inheritance is used in the initial development of systems. Is it a pre-planned design feature or something that helps to resolve difficult programming situations in an ad-hoc manner? How deep are the inheritance levels?
The main response was that inheritance is seldom used upfront. The initial implementations are mostly free of class hierarchies. Inheritance is often used after the fact to extract abstractions (or generalizations) from the code. The hierarchies mostly grow “upwards” from the concrete level to abstract superclasses.
Another use case of inheritance is the handling of special cases with further specialization through subclasses. The initial class is modified just enough to enable proper insertion of the new code in its own subclass.
A third use case of inheritance, upfront this time, was proposed in regard of the domain model. Behavioural typing is a common motivation for the usage of inheritance in the model, as contrasted to the technical usage of inheritance to solve non-domain problems. In the domain level, inheritance resembling a “behaves-like” relation can be the most powerful expression of actual connections between types.

Book review “Analysis patterns”

The discussion about inheritance led to questions about domain models and their expression through formal notation. An example about accounts resulted in a short review of the book “Analysis Patterns”, written by Martin Fowler in 1999. The book introduces its own notation for models to be able to express the interrelations without being dragged down into the implementation level. UML isn’t suited as it’s a notation from the technical domain. Overall, the book seems to be mostly overlooked and under-appreciated. It contains a lot of valueable wisdom in the area of domain analysis, an activity that has to be done upfront of any larger project. This “upfront activity” characteristics might have led to it being ignored in most agile processes. The book is a perfect companion to Eric Evan’s “Domain-Driven Design”.

Book review “Agile!”

Another book review of this brunch was a deep review of Bertrand Meyer’s book “Agile! The Good, the Hype and the Ugly”. The book is the written opinion of Mr. Meyer in regard of all current agile processes and very polarizing as such – he does state his points clearly. But it’s also a very well-researched assessment of nearly all aspects of agile software development. You might want to argue with certain conclusions, but you’ll have to admit that Mr. Meyer knows what he’s talking about and got his facts right (even if his temper shines through sometimes). This book is the perfect companion to all the major agile books you’ve read. It serves as a counter-balance to the dogmatic views that sometimes come across. And it serves as a (albeit personal) rating of all agile practices, a gold mine for every project manager out there. the book itself is rather short with some reiterations (you’ll get the major points, even if you skip some pages) and written in an informal tone, so it’s an easy read as long as you’re neutral towards the topic.
When we reviewed the rating of agile practices on a big whiteboard, ranging from ugly to brilliant, it didn’t took long until discussions started. If nothing else, this book will help you review your practices and beliefs.

Embedded Agile on the rise

The next topic was related to agile software development, too. In the large field of embedded software development, adoption of agile practices lagged behind substantially. This has many reasons, of which we discussed a few, but the more interesting trend was that this changes. While there is still a considerable lack of literature for embedded software overall, the number of publications advocating modifications to the agile processes to fit the intricacies of embedded software development is steadily increasing.
A similar trend can be observed in the user experience community (think: user interface designers), termed “lean UX“.

Mobile game presentation

A long-awaited highlight of this brunch was the presentation of a mobile platforms game under development by one attendee. It’s a cool-looking Jump-and-Run game in the tradition of Super Mario, with lots of gimmicks and innovative effects. The best part of the presentation was the gameplay, controlled by the developer from behind the device, upside down and with live commentary. The game is developed in a platform-agnostic manner using several frameworks and suitable coding habits. Right now, it’s in its final phase of development and will be released soon. I don’t want to spoil too much beforehands and invite Martin (the author) to insert a comment below with links leading to more information.

A change in the Dev Brunch mechanics

The last topic on our agenda was a short review of the Dev Brunch series in the last years. In 2013, we introduced the extra “workshop events” that were adapted to the “game nights” in 2014. We want to return to more serious topics in 2015 and revive the workshops. Attendees (and future ones) are invited to make suggestions which workshop they would like to see. The Dev Brunch itself will be formalized further by introducing a steady pace of bi-monthly dates.


As usual, the Dev Brunch contained a lot more chatter and talk than listed here. The number of attendees makes for an unique experience every time. We are looking forward to the next Dev Brunch at the Softwareschneiderei. And as always, we are open for guests and future regulars. Just drop us a notice and we’ll invite you over next time.

Three essential developer values

We reflected on the inner values of our team and came up with a short list that might sound trivial to you, but is honest in its motivation.

value-coinThere is the notion of “professional attitude” in software development. In the recent years, the agile movement, the craftsmanship philosophy, the pragmatic approach and the clean code developer initiative all tried (and certainly kind of accomplished) to install a set of values in developers. Most of these values are important and probably self-evident to those of us that can transcribe them into actual work decisions. It just feels right to do certain things or do something a certain way.

Local values

But what if you are challenged to articulate your own core values without using a common template like “the values of the clean code developer”? Let’s say that recurring conflicts force you to spell out the (in your view) most self-evident things to be able to describe the root of your unease. Every group of collaborators shares a set of “unspoken laws” and common beliefs that lay below the threshold of conscious application and are hard to describe to outsiders. We reflected on these core values in the last time and came up with a set of “local values” that are important to us. This blog post tries to explain them.

Probably trivialities

Before I list our three essential developer values, I want to damp your expectation about a great revelation and a whole new set of values that nobody’s ever thought about. All the value set templates listed above had and still have a great influence on us and are explored in our daily work. So you’ve probably already heard about every thought we could come up with. And our results are probably trivialities to most of you. That’s great! We didn’t set out to research something new, we tried to articulate our most mundane motivations and standards.

The three values

The following list is ordered. I start with the least of the three values and end with the most important one. That’s not to say that this list includes all values of ours, it just lists the three most important ones to adhere to the spirit of brevity (and relevance).


Yes, efficiency is the third most important skill to master when working with us. It’s a platitude in the sense that “you should be efficient” – of course you should. But we defined some aspects of efficiency that are vital to our work culture. Our developers need a heightened capability of self-inspection in regard of “being stuck”. You know that feeling when your work breaks apart into an overwhelming amount of tedious little steps? Or when you always feel like success is right around the corner, but always just out of reach? That’s just two of many aspects of getting stuck. We expect our developers to raise their hands and ask for help as soon as they sense the faintest amount of “stuckness” in their work. It takes a lot of self-confidence to admit that the task at hand is too much to handle alone, at least right now. We don’t count your report of being stuck as a personal failure, but a team-wide possibility to gain efficiency by reducing waste (wasted time in this case).
To avoid getting overwhelmed by a task in the first place, we expect our developers to assess their abilities and “readiness” towards a specific task and give an honest evaluation if they think to be “the right one for the task”. There again, pride and over-confidence can prove utterly destructive and diminish overall efficiency.


While communication itself is a tool, not a value, we rely on the proper application of this tool enough to value it our second most important trait to master. The most important question to ask is “has anybody done something similar yet?”. There is no point in re-inventing the wheel or re-learning the same lessons again and again. Don’t make assumptions – ask for specific details if necessary. Don’t be afraid to appear dumb – you’ll look even dumber if you didn’t ask and screw up. There are many aspects to communication that can go wrong.
In accordance with the efficiency value, we also expect you to be proactive to report problems or even uncertainty. Every failure contains a failure in communication. Even if you can just announce that everything goes smoothly up to this point, this is an information worth noting. After each waypoint or iteration in your current task, make a commit and leave a comment in your issue. Stay in touch with your team and don’t retreat into a “me against the world” kind of solitude. In short, we expect our developers to be open, honest and proactive in their communication.


Our most important value is reliability in the sense of trustworthiness. We want and need to trust our developers, their estimations and commitments and the repeatability of their successes. There is no benefit in “faking it” or taking credit for something you achieved by pure luck. We try to have a working atmosphere were we can rely on another, trust another and also be open with our shortcomings. There is no need to pretend, for we will ultimately see through the ruse. We want our developers to contribute to the team, not to groom their ego. In a reliable work relation, you can trust the other to deliver what was mutually agreed upon or report problems at the first moment possible. And you can expect to be valued and commended for “just doing your job”. There is a lot of the craftsman ideology in this approach and it ultimately resolves to the commandments of egoless programming. The result is a fearless, positive environment for everybody to develop their unique abilities and strength. And don’t you worry about your weak points – the team got you covered.


I hope that my shortcomings with the english language didn’t stop you from grasping the core concepts of our local value set. We mostly apply it subconsciously and definitely aren’t perfect in any aspect. But just to articulate our deeper motives helped a lot to dissect certain conflicts and gain a broader understanding exactly why we do certain things. I don’t suggest you should adopt our values, that wouldn’t probably work out. But I encourage you and your team to invest some time to reflect on your local value set and try to find a mutually understood verbalization of them. If you can share your insights on this topic, please leave a comment! We would love to hear from you.

Summary of the Schneide Dev Brunch at 2012-05-27

If you couldn’t attend the Schneide Dev Brunch in May 2012, here are the main topics we discussed neatly summarized.

Yesterday, we held another Schneide Dev Brunch on our roofgarden. The Dev Brunch is a regular brunch on a sunday, only that all attendees want to talk about software development and various other topics. If you bring a software-related topic along with your food, everyone has something to share.

We had to do another introductory round because there were new participants with new and very interesting topics. This brunch was very well attended and rich in information. Let’s have a look at the main topics we discussed:

Agile wording (especially SCRUM)

This was just a quick overview over the common agile vocabulary and what ordinary people associate with them. A few examples are “scrum“, “sprint” and “master”. We agreed that some terms are flawed without deeper knowledge about the context in agile.

Book: “Please Understand Me”

if you are interested in the Myers-Briggs classification of personality types (keywords: are you INTJ, ESTP or INFP?), this is the book to go. It uses a variation of the personality test to classify and explain yourself, your motives and personal traits. And if you happen to know about the personality type of somebody else, it might open your eyes to the miscommunication that will likely occur sooner or later. Just don’t go overboard with it, it’s just a model about the most apparent personality characteristics. The german translation of the book is called “Versteh mich bitte” and has some flaws with typing and layouting errors. If you can overlook them, it might be the missing piece of insight (or empathy) you need to get through to somebody you know.

TV series: “Dollhouse”

As most of us are science fiction buffs and hold a special place in our heart for the series “Firefly”, the TV series “Dollhouse” by Joss Whedon should be a no-brainer to be interested in. This time, it lasted two seasons and brings up numerous important questions about programmability every software developer should have a personal answer for. Just a recommendation if you want to adopt another series with limited episode count.

Wolfpack Programming

A new concept of collaborative programming is “wolfpack programming” (refer to pages 21-26). It depends on a shared (web-based) editor that several developers use at once to develop code for the same tasks. The idea is that the team organizes itself like a pack of wolves hunting deer. Some alpha wolves lead groups of developers to a specific task and the hunt begins. Some wolves/developers are running/programming while the others supervise the situation and get involved when convenient. The whole code is “huntable”, so it sounds like a very chaotic experience. There are some tools and reports of experiments with wolfpack programming in Smalltalk. An interesting idea and maybe the next step beyond pair programming. Some more information about the editor can be found on their homepage and in this paper.

Book: “Durchstarten mit Scala”

Sorry for the german title, but the book in this review is a german introductory book about Scala. It’s not very big (around 200 pages) but covers a lot of topics in short, with a list of links and reading recommendations for deeper coverage. If you are a german developer and used to a modern object-oriented language, this book will keep its promise to kickstart you with Scala. Everything can be read and understood easily, with only a few topics that are more challenging than there are pages for them in the book. The topics range from build to test and other additional frameworks and tools, not just core Scala. This book got a recommendation for being concise, profound and understandable (as long as you can understand german).

Free Worktime Rule

This was a short report about employers that pay their developers a fixed salary, but don’t define the workload that should happen in return. Neither the work time nor the work content is specified or bounded. While this sounds great in the first place (two hours of work a week with full pay, anybody?), we came to the conclusion that peer pressure and intrinsic motivation will likely create a dangerous environment for eager developers. Most of us developers really want to work and need boundaries to not burn out in a short time. But an interesting thought nevertheless.

Experimental Eclipse Plugin: “Code_Readability”

This was the highlight of the Dev Brunch. One attendee presented his (early stage) plugin for Eclipse to reformat source code in a naturally readable manner. The effect is intriguing and very promising. We voted vehemently for early publication of the source code on github (or whatever hosting platform seems suitable). If the plugin is available, we will provide you with a link. The plugin has a tradition in the “Three refactorings to grace” article of the last Dev Brunch.

Light Table IDE

A short description of the new IDE concept named “Light Table”. While the idea itself isn’t new at all, the implementation is very inspirational. In short, Lighttable lets you program code and evaluates it on the fly, creating a full feedback loop in milliseconds. The effects on your programming habits are… well, see and try it for yourself, it’s definitely worth a look.

Inventing on Principles

Light Table and other cool projects are closely linked to Bret Victor, the speaker in the mind-blowing talk “Inventing on Principles”. While the talk is nearly an hour of playtime, you won’t regret listening. The first half of the talk is devoted to several demo projects Bret made to illustrate his way of solving problems and building things. They are worth a talk alone. But in the second half of the talk, Bret explains the philosophy behind his motivation and approach. He provides several examples of people who had a mission and kept implementing it. This is very valuable and inspiring stuff, it kept most of us on the edge of our seats in awe. Don’t miss this talk!

Albatros book page reminder (and Leselotte)

If you didn’t upgrade your reading experience to e-book readers yet, you might want to look at these little feature upgrades for conventional books. The Albatros bookmark is a page remembering indexer that updates itself without your intervention. We could test it on a book and it works. You might want to consider it especially for your travelling literature. This brought us to another feature that classic dead wood books are lacking: the self-sustained positioning. And there’s a solution, too: The “Leselotte” is a german implementation of the bean bag concept for a flexible book stand. It got a recommendation by an attendee, too.


If you ever wondered what you just read: It might have been bullshit. To test a text on its content of empty phrases, filler and hot air, you can use the blabla-meter for german or english text. Just don’t make the mistake to examine the last apidoc comments you hopefully have written. It might crush your already little motivation to write another one.

Review on Soplets

In one of the last talks on the Java User Group Karlsruhe, there was a presentation of “Soplets”, a new concept to program in Java. One of our attendees summarized the talk and the concept for us. You might want to check out Soplets on your own, but we weren’t convinced of the approach. There are many practical problems with the solution that aren’t addressed yet.

Review on TDD code camp

One of our attendees lead a code camp with students, targeting Test Driven Development as the basic ruleset for programming. The camp rules closely resembled the rules of Code Retreats by Corey Haines and had Conway’s Game of Life as the programming task, too. With only rudimentary knowledge about TDD and Test First, the students only needed four iterations to come up with really surprising and successful approaches. It was a great experience, but showed clearly how traditional approaches like “structured object-oriented analysis” stands in the way of TDD. Example: Before any test was written to help guide the way, most students decided on the complete type structure of the software and didn’t aberrate from this decision even when the tests told them to.

Report of Grails meetup

Earlier last week, the first informal Grails User Group Karlsruhe meeting was held. It started on a hot late evening some distance out of town in a nice restaurant. The founding members got to know each other and exchanged basic information about their settings. The next meeting is planned with presentations. We are looking forward to what this promising user group will become.


This Dev Brunch was a lot of fun and new information and inspiration. As always, it had a lot more content than listed here, this summary is just a best-of. We are looking forward to the next Dev Brunch at the Softwareschneiderei. And as always, we are open for guests and future regulars. Just drop us a notice and we’ll invite you over next time.

Follow-up to our Dev Brunch April 2010

A follow-up to our April 2010 Dev Brunch, summarizing the talks and providing bonus material.

Last sunday, we held our Dev Brunch for April 2010. It was the start of the open air season, introducing our new office roof garden. We brunched under a clear, sunny sky (no clouds, even no vapor trails from airplanes, as they aren’t allowed to fly because of some distant volcano ash emission) and talked about agile processes and books. A major part of the brunch was graded as “informal chatter”, just as it should be like.

The Dev Brunch

If you want to know more about the meaning of the term “Dev Brunch” or how we implement it, have a look at the follow-up posting of the brunch in October 2009. We continue to allow presence over topics. Our topics for the brunch were:

  • Agile life planning – Your software development daily routine is to incrementally build software from a backlog and release it after a fixed timebox. What might happen if you transfer this process to your private life (often called “real life”)? You’ll release a week’s life every week and have a week planning meeting on sunday, filling your week/sprint backlog with the most important items of your life’s backlog. Telling from this first hand experience of about a year, it works exceptionally well, improving the leisure time quality and making “progress” visible even at harder times. The only remaining question is who acts as the product owner.
  • Converting to Scrum – First hand experience of a team that, after years of “alarm call”-style development, successfully implemented Scrum as their primary process. The effects were at least less overtime, improved progress tracking, improved code quality (though Scrum is  only a management process!) and less pressure in the project. The customer even adjusted their wording when talking about new features: “next sprint” instead of “immediately, now”. The implemented process isn’t vanilla Scrum, but works nevertheless.
  • Defending Continuous Integration – What if, after an initial phase of excitement over the new tool, the continuous integration server really reveals flaws in your project? There seems to be the tendency to kill the messenger: Shut down the CI server and everything’s fine again. This talk was about the reasoning of both sides and some basic insights gained about machine sharing. Tip of the talk: Reserve your CI server exclusively for this task.
  • Book recommendations – A random collection of technical books read in the last half year, presented with a short summary and personal rating. Titles included were Coders At Work, Founders At Work, 97 Things Every Software Architect Should Know, 97 Things Every Project Manager Should Know, 97 Things Every Programmer Should Know, Hiring the Best Knowledge Workers, Techies & Nerds and Manage Your Project Portfolio. Yes, there are some patterns visible in the book titles. And it’s a good idea to keep some checklist of read articles for most of these books.
  • Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition – The Dreyfus Model differentiates five to six different stages of learning some arbitrary skill. It makes assumptions how the members of the stages work, how they process feedback information and what they need to get better. See the comment section for more information and bonus material.

As usual, the topics ranged from first-hand experiences to literature research. For additional information, check out the comment sections. Comments and resources might be in german language.

Retropection of the brunch

Holding the brunch in the bright morning sun, surrounded by rooftops and birds, really is a huge gain for the ambience factor. We even found a solution to produce fresh coffee up there. This will be a fun summer for the Dev Brunch.

Award your Customer

Recently, we successfully finished a web app project that had many specialties we never had before. Major issues were very tight budget and time constraints (about 3 months) including an absolutely unpostponable deadline. However, the bigger concern for us was the diversity of our customer. Although we had one or two main reference persons, for the project to be successful we depended on the collaboration of a total of 8 departments.

As a first step to meet those challenges we decided on one-week iteration cycles – the shortest ever for us. At the kick-off meeting, where delegates of all departments were assembled, we presented our strategy and tried to make clear that communication and collaboration would be essential for the project to succeed. We also invited everyone to come to iteration meetings even when the agenda is not exactly about their specific requirements. After the meeting we hoped for the best.

With (almost) all departments it went like this: We did one requirements gathering appointment with one or two delegates and they either showed up once or twice on following meetings or they approved our implementation based on emailed screen shots. With most departments, email response time was good, with some, well, let’s just say holiday season didn’t really help. But altogether it was sufficient to keep the project well on track.

But wait! Did I say all departments? Not exactly! One single department actually managed it to sent at least one delegate to every single iteration meeting. And they not only enjoyed coffee and cookies but contributed a great deal every time. This was very helpful for us especially because after every iteration, we were a little bit more confident that we were still on the right track. Towards the end of the project, when success was foreseeable, we had the idea that their outstanding performance had to be rewarded somehow. So at the last iteration meeting, again with people from every department, we presented them with the Continuous Collaboration Award. ccaward They were very delighted and for the others it was a good laugh. And with the help of a little champagne and some snacks it became a very nice last iteration meeting.

As many of you know, good understanding between customer and developer can never be taken for granted. This is why agile methods always put great emphasis on extensive customer communication. A-Story-of-Project-Failure-Mitch-Lacey shows that even agile-by-the-book projects can fail basically due to lack of understanding on customer side. So do it like us and, if they deserve it, show your appreciation to your customer once in a while in a more creative way. And if you use a cup, make sure that there is also champagne around to fill it.