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.

Bullshit-Meter

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.

Epilogue

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.

Code Camp Experiences II

A review of our first company code camp using Code Retreats like Corey Haines would do. Short summary: It was a lot of fun and we learned a lot. Go try it out yourself!

Last friday, we held a Code Camp instead of an Open Source Love Day (OSLD). We reserved a whole day for the company to pratice together and share our abilities on the coding level. While this usually already happens every now and then with pair programming sessions, this time we all worked on the same assignment and could compare our experiences. And this comparability worked great for us. This article tries to summarize our setup and the outcome of the Code Camp

Setup of the Code Camp

We tried to imitate a typical Code Retreat day in the manner of Corey Haines. If you haven’t heard about Code Retreats, Corey or the software craftsmanship idea, you could read about it in the links. The presentation of Corey at the QCon conference about software craftsmanship is also a valuable watch.

There are some resources on the internet about how to run a Code Retreat event from the organizational and facilitator’s point of view. This material gave us a good understanding of the whole event, even though our setup was different, as we had no explicit facilitator and fixed workplaces, already prepared for pair programming usage. We didn’t invite external programmers to the event, so every participant was part of our development team. We had to end the event by 16 o’clock due to schedule conflicts and started at 9 o’clock, so our retreat count would be lower than 6 or even 7.

Basically, we tried to program Conway’s Game of Life within 45 minutes in pairs of two developers repeatedly. After the 45 minutes have passed (supervised by an alarm clock), we deleted the code and gathered for an iteration review of 15 minutes. Then, we started over again. This agenda should repeat throughout the day. No other activity or goal was planned, but we anticipated a longer retrospective meeting at the end of the day.

Execution of the Code Camp

The team gathered at 9 o’clock and performed setup tasks on the computers (like preparing a clean workspace). At 09:15, we held an introduction meeting for the Code Camp. I explained the basics and motives of Code Retreats and presented the rules for Conway’s Game of Life. The team heard most of the information for the first time, so nobody was particularly more experienced with the task or the conduct.

The first iteration started at 10 o’clock and had everybody baffled by the end of the iteration. The first retrospective meeting was interesting, as fundamental approaches to the problem were discussed with very little words needed for effective communication. Everybody wanted to move into the second iteration, which started at 11 o’clock.

At the end of the second iteration, two of the four teams nearly reached their anticipated goals. In the retrospective, the results were incredibly more advanced compared to the first iteration. This effect was similar to my first code camp: The second iteration is the breakthrough in the problem domain. Afterwards, the solutions are refined, but without the massive boost in efficiency compared to the other iterations except the first one.

We went to lunch early this day and returned with great ideas for the next round. After a short coffee break with video games, we started at around 13:45 for the third iteration.

The third iteration resulted in the first playable versions of the game. The solutions grew more beautiful and the teams began to experiment with their approaches, as the content-related task was mentally covered. This was the most productive iteration in terms of resulting software. But as usual, the code was deleted without a trace directly after the iteration. The iteration review meeting brought up a radically different approach on the problem as previously anticipated. This inspired every team for the fourth iteration.

In the fourth iteration, every team tried to implement the new approach. And every team failed to gain substantial ground, just like in the first iteration. The iteration review meeting was interesting, but we skipped another iteration in favor of the full retrospective of the Code Retreat.

Effects of the Code Camp

The Code Retreat iterations had great impact on our team. We discussed our impressions informally and then turned back to the formal retrospective questions as suggested by Alex Bolboaca:

  • How did you feel?
  • What have you learned?
  • What will you apply starting Monday?

The first question got answered by a “mood graph”, rising steadily from iteration one to three, with a yawning abyss at iteration four. This was another strong indicator that the iterations sort of restarted with iteration four.

The second question (“What have you learned?”) was answered more variably, but it stuck out that many keyboard shortcuts and little helpful IDE tricks were learnt throughout the day. We tracked the origin and propagation of two shortcuts and came to the result that one developer knew them beforehands, transferred the knowledge to the partner in the first iteration and both spread it further in the second iteration. By the end of the third iteration, everybody had learned the new shortcut. It was impressive to see this kind of knowledge transfer in such a clear manner.

The third question revolved around the coolest new shortcuts and tricks.

But we learned a lot more than just a few shortcuts. Most of all, we had a comparable coding experience with every other developer on our team. This isn’t about competition, it’s about personality. And we’ve found that the team works great in every combination. Some subtle fears of “being behind with knowledge” got diminished, too.

Future of the Code Camp

Everybody wants to do it again. So we’ll do it again. We decided to perform one Code Camp every three months. This isn’t too often to wear off, but hopefully often enough to keep our practice level high. We also decided to run dedicated Code Camps with external developers soon. The first event will happen in December 2010.

Code Camp Experiences

Experiences gained when performing a two day code camp with a team.

Some weeks ago, I conducted a code camp with a team of twelve developers that build a software product together for years now. The team had already introduced sporadic code reviews (in the team vs. author review style), so the main emphasize of the meeting was to improve team coherence by writing code together while generally having some time off project. In this article, I describe what I had planned, what happened and what the effects are so far.

A plan for the code camp

The code camp was scheduled for two consecutive days when the whole team gathers in one room with one computer for each pair. We would switch pairs (and seats) after each iteration, with one iteration being 45 minutes coding time followed by 2-3 minutes presentation of the achievement to the team. With a recreation break of 20-30 minutes, this means one iteration every two hours.

Every iteration starts from scratch, without access to previous code fragments (see also the code retreat concept). This had several reasons: I wanted the iterations to be comparable. Some of the insights I wanted to share are dependent on directly assimilable experiences. The iterations should also be independent, without ballast from previous sessions.

On the first day, we started with a given code resembling a little puzzle game in Java Swing. The code worked, but had some bugs and was written in an awful manner. It was unknown code for the team with no emotional attachments. The assignment for each iteration was to refactor the code to something equivalently working, but much “better”. How this “better” is defined was up to the teams.

On the second day, we started with a blank editor and had the task to code the same little puzzle game (in Java Swing) we refactored the day before. Even with some practice, it was nearly impossible to finish within time, so concentration on the most important key aspects of the code was crucial. The main lesson here was to “create from scratch” rather than “fix the existing”.

What really happened

Day one

The camp started with the usual delay for setting up all the computers in a uniform manner. This couldn’t be prepared beforehands, as the computers were in use by another group. When we installed our software, we found the hotkey configuration of the whole system severely flawed (for example, Ctrl+1 was defined as “set keyboard layout to traditional chinese”).

To warm up for the first iteration, I presented the existing code and explained its structure in detail. The code was slightly too much to remember it all in one pass, so only a rough understanding remained. Every team had to examine the code again during their work.

After the warm up, the first iteration started, with everybody buzzing over the code. The 45 minutes went by really fast and the first presentations focussed on local improvements. No team had restructured the code in any meaningful way, but every solution was perceived as “better” than the original. One team failed to get their refactored code to work again.

The second iteration held the biggest surprise of the whole camp. The 45 minutes flew by and the presentations showed the difference. One team failed to work on the assignment, but every other team presented a solution that was far superior of the original code. Some teams restructured the code to an extend where the original structure wasn’t recognizable anymore. The distinction between the first and the second iteration was so great that everybody was baffled by what could be achieved in 45 minutes when you do it for the second time.

The third iteration added some interesting twists on the best solutions of the second iteration, but didn’t produce the massive boost in productivity and code quality. Everybody felt worn out afterwards, so we decided to close the coding part of this day.

While working with the Java Swing code, nobody on the team noticed the threading flaws in the code. When I pointed this out, I was asked to explain the mechanics of the Swing threading model. The team develops a web application and hasn’t much exposure to desktop application development, let alone with Java Swing. So we ended the day with a lecture about the EDT, the EventQueue and the SwingWorker.

The whole team strolled to a bar to share some beers afterwards.

Day two

After a short night, we gathered early in the morning to continue the coding part of the camp. I explained the task (develop the game from scratch) and off we went.

The first iteration yielded only very rudimentary results. One team started with an UML diagram of the application structure and had to stop after setting up the outline of every method in code. Most other teams started with the domain model and failed to attach the GUI part of the application. All solutions had similar concepts in mind, no team used test driven development or other “advanced” techniques.

As a result of the poor performance, we decided to change the rules. Instead of scrapping the whole code, every new team could take over the code base of any other team, as long as it wasn’t the own. In the second iteration, we completed the drafted solutions of the previous team. This didn’t work out, too. The teams were frustrated by their lack of results.

We changed the plan again and held a prolonged review discussion of the code camp instead of a third iteration. This was by far the better choice with hindsight.

The effects

The code camp was perceived very positively by the attendees. The main goal of the camp was not about coding, but about team coherence and team focus. We learnt a lot about the personal style and abilities of each team member because the code samples shown in the code review were directly comparable. And we revealed team problems we weren’t aware of yet, but some problems we thought would arise did not. This was a very healthy process, because some of these issues can be addressed directly now.

The side benefit of the camp, as stated by one programmer was the increased awareness that “throwing away your code and starting over isn’t as hurtful as I thought”.

Every attendee stated that they want another code camp soon.

Personal summary

The code camp greatly improved my sense for the team and for the individual team members. By sharing a common code base and performing the same tasks, I could directly see (and feel) their thoughts and abilities. The camp is a powerful way to get to really know a team. If you have to mentor a whole new team, consider performing a code camp to get in touch with them.