Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 months ago.
Improve this question
I've been working as a software developer for almost a year (not much though) in a corporate environment but all I've done so far is a raw software implementation of company needs. Senior coworkers don't seem to be doing some fairly different stuff. In fact their "benefit" for being experienced is simply an app design and getting their hands on new projects first. My elder software developer friend's jobs don't seem to differ from the overall picture.
Currently I'm a student of a CS department and what I really want to bring in this world is some innovative(not new but innovative) stuff that haven't been there. Something as great as google wave or JARVIS (if that can be done at all) or even much better, but yet it looked like that's not possible. The question is: when do people in a corporate environment choose to create something innovative? (from your experience/thoughts)
These are your options:
A) find a company that does something that you like
B) Find a company that gives you time to do your own thing
C) do your own thing at home
Notable innovation usually only occurs at a few select companies (Google, as others have said, Microsoft, though they're not doing it as much, and Apple). However, the main thing for an innovative program comes from just an idea.
Can you think of something others haven't done? Can you do it? Will you do it?
If the answer to any of these is no, then you're not going to be the guy coming up with "The Next Big Thing". It only comes from having an idea, and doing something with it. (I read something about this recently, I think from Joel, but not on his blog. Anybody know the article I mean?)
Unfortunately, working in a corporate culture, unless that corporation promotes new ideas (see above), you're going to be stuck doing the same crap as everybody else. I know for myself, I spend all day in front of a computer, looking at code. When I get home, I keep meaning to work on my own "innovative" idea, but I play video games, drums, with my dogs, go to the gym, hang with friends, whatever. I have no desire to spend yet another few hours in front of a computer working on more code.
The same thing happens to a lot of people, and unless you can get past this, you're never going to build something.
So, simple answer: When you have an idea, and actually do something with it.
Most of the time, the answer to your question would be never.
The motivation to go off and do something innovative is entirely dependent on the person. When it comes to typical corporate America, I wouldn't expect to be creating anything innovative and amazing. I would say the majority of anything truly interesting and innovative happens after hours on their own time if the person in question has a real job.
what I really want to bring in this world is some innovative(not new but innovative)
Don't we all. Sigh.
If you're actually brilliant, you'll have opportunities to do this. "working as a software developer for almost a year" Remain calm. The "long run" is 30 or 40 years of a working life.
If you're like the above-average people I've met, you'll be just able to produce software that's good enough to help your company get ahead. Until dumb management subverts things.
If you're like the rest of us, you'll spend your career struggling to chase after the above-average folks.
For the most part, software innovation doesn't happen very much in environments such as yours, and when it does it is usually done as a "skunkworks" project without official management approval. If you want to be involved in innovative work your goal should be to eventually work for a software technology company like Google or the like, or you can just join one of the many open source projects out there. Doing the latter is a good way to build credentials to get a job with a more interesting employer.
It shows when you can prove you have a market for your innovative software. Have a proof of concept ready and be prepared to defend your idea. If it can really bring in the cash, it will catch someone's eye. Ideas that are provocative yet fail to gain any financial support remain to be followed in your own spare time.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I work as a lone developer in a very small company. My work is quite chaotic and I'm looking for ways to make it more organized.
One problem is that my projects have practically no management. Rarely anyone asks me what I'm doing, or if I have any problems. At some point there was talk about weekly status meetings, but that's some time ago. Seems that if I'd want something like that, I would have to arrange those myself.. Sometimes I'm a bit lost on what I should do next because I don't have tasks or a clear schedule defined.
From books and articles I have found many things that might be helpful. Like having a good coding standard (there exists only a rough style guide which is somewhat outdated in my opinion), code inspections, TDD, unit testing, bug database... But in a small company it seems there are no resources or time for anything that's not essential. The fact that I work in the embedded domain seems to make things only more complicated.
I feel there's also a custom of cutting corners and doing quick hacks on short notice. This leads to unfinished and unprofessional products and bugs waiting to emerge at a later date. I would imagine they are also a pain to maintain. So, I'm about to inherit a challenging code base, doing new development that requires learning a lot of new things and I guess trying to build a process for it all at the same time. It might be rewarding in the end, but as not too experienced I'm not sure if I can pull it off.
In a small shop like this the environment is far from optimal for programming. There's many other things needed to be done occasionally like customer support, answering the phone, signing parcels, hardware testing, assembly and whatever miscellaneous tasks might appear. So you get the idea about the resources. It's not all bad (sometimes it's enlightening to solve some customer problems) and I believe it can be improved, but it's the other things that I'm really concerned.
Is it possible to have a development process in a place like this?
Would it help to have some sort of management? What kind of?
Is it possible to make quality products with small resources?
How do I convince myself and others that the company which has worked successfully for decades needs to change? What would be essential?
Maybe there's someone working in a similar shop?
Use Source Control for EVERYTHING
Develop specifications and get signoff before starting - there will be resistance, but explain it's for their own good.
Unit tests! It hurts because you just want to get it done, but this will save you in the long run.
Use bug tracking - Bugzilla or FogBugz if you can afford it.
My advice is not to be extreme. From my experience, pure agile or pure traditional will not work. Before you use any process, know what it mean to solve.
I personally use a variation of Agile RUP. I do some upfront effort such as investigate the actual needs, do high-level design with possible extension. And ask customer to sign-off some major high-level requirements.
If you work in small group, detail design or specification may not worth. Of course, if there is some libraries that are shared by many, it will be worth the trouble.
Deciding what to invest in up-front depending on its risk (likelihood and effect).
Moreover, many SW best practice is really 'best' like version control, automatic testing (to me I only used it way to early detect regression as I do not believe in TDD as driven force of the development). I suggest you read 'Pragmatic Programmer' it presents many of those techines.
As to answer you questions:
(1). Is it possible to have a development process in a place like this?
Yes, but as I say, trailer it to fit your organization.
(2). Would it help to have some sort of management? What kind of?
Management helps but no control freak. Plan what to do when: integrate, resolve conflict, dead line of some mile stone. And roughly keep them on schedule (I particularly like Scrum's sprint).
(3). Is it possible to make quality products with small resources?
Definitely as soon as the size of the work, the time to develop and the size of the team is balance. If you definition of Quality is the same with me. To me, Quality means: solve the problem it set out to in an efficient and reliable fashion.
(4). How do I convince myself and others that the company which has worked successfully for decades needs to change? What would be essential?
Point out the problems. If there are none, why change? If you want to change, you should be able to identify the problem OR potential problems. Point out the problem.
Some big one are:
Without any process, it is harder for new recruited to blend in as they must learn from observing other how to deal with things.
Without process, it is harder to work in stress.
Without schedule, it is hard to determine the progress.
Without automatic testing, it will takes more time to identify problems and regression.
Without version control, it will be harder to roll-back mistake and separation of work to each team members will be mess.
Just my though.
You need to work with the owner and setup short medium and long term goals. You will want to let them know progress even if only through email.
You will need to enforce some order on your workday or you will never get anything done (those long term goals).
Divide your day up into chunks when you can code, when you are working on hacks to keep it togther, when answering emails etc.
Definitely setup a bug tracker. This can help keep your email clean. You can even setup an email address to forward bugs to be categorized later. This is good because the bug reporters will eventually tire of the bug tracker and want to just email you the bugs anyway.
edit
And as lod3n said, source control, but you are using that already right???!!?!
Been there, done that.
The book Planning Extreme Programming helped a lot. I used 3x5 cards stuck on a wall. This kept my boss informed of my progress, helped with estimates and planning, and kept me on track. The Planning Game gives good ammo if your boss's expectations are unrealistic.
Unit testing, as others have stated, helps even if you're a sole developer. I find the TDD style valuable.
lod3n is absolutely right about Source Control.
I've gone with XP-style iterations before; you may want to establish a backlog of items (even something simple like a spreadsheet or 3x5 cards) as well.
Avoid deathmarches. Stick to 40 hours in the sense of not working overtime 2 weeks in a row. Spend extra time outside of work learning new skills - not just technologies, but principles and best practices.
Have a bug tracking system, both for defects and new features. Don't rely on your memory.
Continuous integration and an automated build can help even a single developer.
Can't emphasize the recommendation for source control enough.
I've decided I don't need unit tests because I can have automated functional/integration tests instead: because with incremental development there's no need to test before integration.
as crazy as this sounds I use scrum just because I like the concepts of sprints, and backlogs. It makes it easier to set realistic goals. Of course the idea of scrum master and team is all you but if you are working on outside projects where it is possible that you may pick up an extra team member with your backlogs it will be easy to distribute work. Maybe I just like backlogs. With scrum you will need to get someone to be the product manager to talk about the features of the product. Version control is a must at probably should be implemented b4 even worrying about a software development process. I have worked in a company that started from 2 developers and went to 12 in a year. We started with no version control and low coding standards. The changes you will need to make will be gradual so don't worry about rushing to do a 180. Set a goal to change one thing a month and find supporters of your changes to make things go smooth.
As well as the recommedations of others I'd say that if you are tight on resources but have more say over how things get done you should make good use of off the shelf and open source products and libraries. This leverages the efforts of others, saving you time, ensures your code base doesn't become too esoteric and adds to your skillset so you don't end up being an expert in something that's useless everywhere else.
First, lets make a distinction between a development process and best practices. Best practices like source control, defect tracking, unit testing, etc. are an given.
Then there is the actual development processes. I would always recommend having a process, no matter small or large the team is. The trick is finding the right process. You have a process now - it is just an ad-hoc process that doesn't seem to be working out too well for for you. Rarely can you take a textbook development process and directly apply it. What you need to do is tailor the process to your companies needs and culture. Look at as many development paradigms as you can and try to find something that is a good fit and them start molding it to your needs. You may have to try and fail with a number of different processes. Perhaps the Personal Software Process will be a good starting process, maybe an agile process, a variant of RUP? You have a lot of options, start trying them out.
You are also going to have to work with the rest of your organization - they need to be a part of the process. You may be the lone developer, but a development process involves more than the developer, it involves ever person that has a say or impact in the product.
This may not be a specific answer, but my point is that you will need some kind of process. So start researching them and trying them out and molding them to your needs until you have something that works.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
What are some solo developer programming methodologies for smaller projects?
Just about any development methodology will work in a solo environment except for those that explicitly require a team (such as side-by-side programming). But even then you could get around that by just creating some imaginary friends/teammates or developing a multiple personality disorder.
Even as a solo developer you can use methodologies applied to large development teams.
Write a Spec.
Layout a UML.
Do pencil-and-paper UI design.
Hallway testing: If your expect a large crowd, ask Mom if it's easy to use.
Peer review: You can build ad-hoc review teams with other solo developers.
Keep an up to date schedule.
and so on...
I solo develop all the time, and these practices keep me in line with my own work and give my bosses a great resource to know what I've done and how far along I am. And they keep me on track, to boot!
The rubber duck methodology comes to mind:
http://lists.ethernal.org/oldarchives/cantlug-0211/msg00174.html
Many agile techniques work great solo:
User interviews and stories: If you don't know what your users want, why would your software be useful?
A simple spec: Or even just be a mission statement. "Let people broadcast short messages to their subscriber lists." "Use in-degree to sort internet search results." "Let people collaboratively answer programming questions." Whatever.
A strictly-ordered todo list: Helpful to keep you from drowning in thoughts.
Tangents log: A good to-do list has a "to-don't" component, so you don't obsess over things you aren't going to do (yet).
YAGNI: Stay on target. This is very important when working by yourself, because no one is there to tell you "No! Don't reinvent dynamic typing in Java! Get back to the project." To-don't lists help with this.
Test-driven development: Writing tests forces you to think about the end result, rather than getting bogged down in implementation details. You'll get bogged down enough anyway; no need to make it worse.
Frequent releases: Make yourself stick to deadlines. "We'll have a feature-complete version that includes user stories 1-4 by Friday. It won't connect to the network or save data to disk, but XYZ..."
User testing: Have your buddies look at what you're making on a decently frequent schedule -- maybe once a month, maybe every week, depending on how many friends you have and how much beer/pizza you want to feed them. Pay very close attention to what they say and do and think when using the software.
And other things that only seem like they make sense in big projects can help a lot:
Source control: Install git. It's bone simple. Use it. Don't obsess over it.
Off-site backups: Y'know. In case of house fires or floods.
A blog: But you're only allowed to write there when a release comes out. ;) Also helps you build an audience for your product before it even ships.
Hope this helps! Solo programming on a large project can be very daunting.
Follow what is laid out in this Stack Overflow question:
What Tools/Techniques can benefit a solo developer?
Also. Use Source Control. You wouldn't believe how many times I've been bitten by that on personal projects.
There's this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Software_Process
It's probably overkill
The issue is more a question of what you are comfortable with and what problems you hope to solve. Most methodologies are used by a solo developer at some point (pair programming is a notable exception). The issue is are you actually alone, or just working by yourself? I have found that it is invaluable to have people I can bounce ideas off of. Furthermore having someone else to look at you code (peer review) is a great way to find issues that you just cannot "see". So to agree with Aiden Bell "Programming on your oen is uncool."
I would try and connect to a community (like SO) where you can bounce ideas off of others. Then you need to build your methodology in such a way as to allow for interruptions when you send an idea out.
Does that make sense? Why are you programming alone?
Pat O
Not really an official methodology, but I have done a lot of solo development (independent consultant and ISV), and here are the things I have found to be important:
Find an online organization (like
oisv.com) to share thoughts and
ideas
Make sure you take time to interact
with actual people in the real world
Set project goals, deadlines, and
milestones
Take time to do appropriate up-front
design and project planning
Set aside working hours are stick to
them
Don't work too much and burn yourself
out
Nothing is ever perfect, so strive
for good code that works, not
perfection
Get some non-programming hobbies
This is more of trick than a methodology. When you're debugging, explain the bugs out loud to yourself as though you were trying to explain it to a co-worker. It feels silly, but forcing yourself to articulate the problem out loud often reveals what the problem is.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Our company has been thinking about scrapping our interview procedures and bringing each candidate in for a 4-5 hours sit-down with some of the programmers and just do some pair programming.
I like the idea in theory but I am not sure how you can really make it fair for each candidate. How would you rate them? Wouldn't their input really depend on what each programmer was working on that day?
Any thoughts on whether this is a good idea/bad idea or how to make it work is what I am kind of looking for here.
Cheers!
EDIT:
RESULT - AS requested
We are going to conduct the first steps of the interview the same as before. Phone followed by face to face. Instead of bringing them back for a third and final grilling, we are going to bring 3 developers back to sit with all 7 members of the team. We have decided to let the team decide who is then hired.
We have come to this conclusion for a couple of reasons. We believe this will empower the developers by giving them a choice who they are working. The second reason is group dynamic. We think it is really important to have a good group dynamic and it is hard to tell until after you hire a person if they will fit in or not.
So the end result is we are going to go ahead with the pair programming sessions but in a completely different way and for a completely different way than was originally intended.
Any thoughts or criticism of this approach is more than welcome!!
(this edit is posted as an answer below so feel free to downvote if you feel this is not the best approach)
Unless you use pair programming extensively in your real-world development, I'd be very hesitant to use this. I've met any number of high-quality professional developers who have mentioned a strong aversion to pair programming and whose skill would not be well-judged in such a process.
I hope you have a bunch of steps ahead of this one. For this to work you need an excellent resume and phone screen. You don't want to spend oodles of time on candidates that you shouldn't be talking to in the first place.
So you suggest an initial interview
and possibly have the second interview
as the pair programming session? – Ted
Smith (1 min ago)
Yeah. You might even think of having a simple coding interview happen over the web using something like CoPilot.
The easiest way is to give each person the same programmer to work with and the exact same piece of code.
The problem you're going to run into, is that hiring isn't like programming. There isn't a step by step process to lead to the right answer as to who to hire. (you can have multiple steps to make the decision easier). You have to evaluate each one on their strengths etc. and essentially make an educated guess as to which is the best one to hire. Sometimes you guess wrong.
The other thing about pair programming you're going to have to watch out for is the amount of time necessary to have each candidate at that stage go through that kind of a test. If I were looking for a job, I would be hesitant to go an interview at a company that would ask me to do that. Why? Because that is a lot of time, and if I am interviewing at multiple places, I could spend literally days just going to interviews for jobs I may not even get or want. Someplaces like Google or MS would be an exception, but most places are not like those two. (Not to mention the fact that if they are working on real code, you are essentially asking them to do someone's job for free).
As a personal anecdote, I got smacked around in an interview because of a technique like this. I had gone far in their interview process; passed the resume checks, the code submission and this was the face to face portion of the interview.
I was fresh out of university and had never pair programmed before nor done TDD. They sat me down to do a deck of card exercise and it flopped. Badly! I didn't understand why the interviewer was writing tests that seemed so dumb* (IE "return null;") and they didn't explain why and of course being foreign to TDD I didn't know what questions to ask. The end result was that it looked like I couldn't program my way out of a paper bag.
If you're going to do this type of exercise you need to cater to the interviewee because they're going to be in different spots with their aptitude. This means that you'll get different assessments that may not be based on actual talent and are thus going to be heavily biased.
**Now that I understand TDD, I do understand tests like this and how it's supposed to work, but man did that ever seem stupid at the time!*
I just had an interview with a San Francisco based company that prides itself on Agile methods/etc. I was to interview the CEO himself. I have about 20 years of experience in the industry, but have never pair programmed or developed using TDD approach. I was told it would be a "programming interview" but had not idea what to expect, and before we started the guy said that he thought that I may agree that all interviews should be done this way. (which in retrospect was nothing more than an arrogant statement).
Anyway, at the interview the exercise was to develop a class using TDD. It took me a second to adjust my thinking on the entire process, again since I had never pair programmed or done TDD. While I stumbled here and there I did ok in the end. but his reply was the I did not exhibit the aggressive back-and-forth nature that they require for their pair programming environment. Now, that could also have been an underhanded way of saying that "I didn't think you did great" kind of message.
Luckily I didn't need the job and to be honest the experience made me realize that I'd rather find a different career than having to be a software engineer that HAS to work in pairs, day in day out, when it came to developing code. Odd thing is that on occasion I have worked with another person on code simultaneously, so anything is possible.
In end I guess it was a good outcome since they didn't think I was a good fit and I didn't care for their working methods. But we would have came to the same conclusion had I talked a for a few minutes more about myself and had he given me a little more info on how they go about their work. Which is to say that there are other ways of finding a good fit candidate than putting them through the stress of pair programming with a complete stranger; bogus way to gauge competency imo.
One particular company uses a technique called extreme interviewing. For the extreme interview they will bring in say 30 developers and group them into 15 pairs. They will explain that they are looking for people who work well with others. That they will make a hiring decision based solely on their ability to work with others.
They will provide a problem for the pairs to solve. They will emphasis that they are not interested in the solution just each programmers ability to work with others. For each pair they will provide an observer of the pair. During the exercise (about 2 to 4 hours in duration), the observer will takes notes about a person ability to pair ... not the solution.
They are amazed how many programmers focus on solving the problem instead of collaborating. Of the 15 pairs, they will identify about 4 to 6 developers for a second interview. Those developers will be asked to come back and spend a week with the team (they get paid). After a week, they decide who to keep. Generally about half of them (2 to 3 developers).
When they are done, they have developers that are able to collaborate and after a week working with various pairs, the team has a strong indication who can effectively develop software. The process is both innovative and effective. They have had a high success rate with those they have hired.
I just had a pair programming interview a few days ago and to be honest, I don't really like it. I was notified of this a day just before the interview and then the interviewer told me that pair programming is what eventually I am going to do anyway in work. I went into the office and was paired up with someone who is a very senior software engineer. The company is in San Francisco and they are a well renowned company for pair programming, everyone pair programs in the office. At first it seemed to be fine, he explained about all the tools they used, their own unit testing framework that they build, and a bit of the project. He then basically wrote a bunch of unit tests and wanted me to work on the implementation to make it pass. Just as an FYI, the code base that already exists is huge, I would say 10k lines, it's not like a super complex project, but it is complex for someone to just step in and then write code without prior understanding of the class hierarchy etc. I find it really hard to believe that he expects someone to jump right away in a 10k line of source code that already exists. It just doesn't match for a pair programming interview, a smaller code base would help. I struggled a bit from navigating through the classes and going back and forth because I can't remember class names as I was overwhelmed by the amount of classes/code that already exists. To be honest, this really made me do horrible in the interview process. In the end I didn't feel really good about it. I haven't done pair programming before, mostly is just during assignments in my college year.
To me the power of pair programming can be harnessed if you're already proficient/comfortable with your pair, but is not really suitable for interview. Sometimes I would like to ask questions to my pair, but then I thought if I ask too much questions, then they would assume I were stupid and can't perform. If this was already on a real job, I wouldn't hesitate to ask, but in an interview it's hard.. you want to ask because your pair should help you out when you're stuck, but at the same time it's an interview, so you can't really ask much.
That is just my experience that I have from pair programming interview, my suggestion if you really want to do this:
be sure that you don't give the candidate to work with a large code base, work with a
smaller one and therefore he/she can show his/her skills to the max
be up front with the candidate before pair programming interview, can you ask questions
when you're stuck, should you be able to do this and that, what can't you do
be as detailed as possible
In the end, I wouldn't suggest it. It's hard to measure a candidate's performance in pair programming, and it might be biased as well.
I like this idea. However I think it might be difficult to do since it would require the candidate to have some knowledge of the project you would pair on with him. Also, 4 to 5 hours seems a bit long. What if you immediately see that it is not going to work out, are you going to sit through the whole session with the candidate?
Good question though. Stuff to think about.
Why not? Also, it's not like interviews are always (or ever) fair. You should evaluate the end results of the new approach against the traditional interview-based approach.
Also, a mini interview before the pair programming session might be good to keep from wasting the programmers' time with people who would be a bad fit.
From my limited experience, my feelings are mixed. I like the idea of pairing as part of an interview, esp. if the company uses pairing often, because it gives both a better feel for the fit. As a candidate, I've often gone through interviews where I sat in a room answering questions for a few hours, but afterward didn't have a good feel for what it would really be like to work in their environment. Pairing may be more beneficial than a random coding exercise, unless the interviewer is skilled at working someone through those. And I like being able to discuss technical stuff from both sides. And as a candidate, I'd rather interact with someone than just answer questions or solve code problems on my own.
But... as others have noted, the time needed can be an issue. I've gone through a couple days of pairing interviews and found some periods good, while others felt like a few hours were wasted: one because the developer wasn't working on something that lent itself to pairing (esp. given my background), the other because an env issue prevented much useful work for a while. If the job doesn't work out, it can be frustrating to have taken a day or two off work for this.
One place trying this approach wasn't sure if they should have someone outside the company working on a customer's project. They also worried that explaining the domain and work being done would take too long, though without that the candidate may not be able to contribute much. So they chose an open source project the employee was working on.
This seems to be a key point: there needs to be a well chosen task that the candidate can understand quickly and be able to contribute to. The latter part will depend somewhat on the candidate's skills. Also key would be the employee's ability to evaluate someone with this approach. Not everyone is great at normal interviewing, and that's probably more true of a pairing interview.
Also, if a company doesn't do much pairing then this kind of interview may not be as useful. There does seem benefit in seeing someone code (as Joel Spolsky notes), and this could be a good way to do that. But if pairing is not a typical part of the job, then perhaps a full pairing session isn't appropriate. Maybe a modified version.
I'd be curious what companies who have taken this approach think of the results. Reading some of the other answers to this question shows that it doesn't always seem ideal from the candidate's view.
To keep it fair, you'd have to make every participating staff member have a prepared problem to evaluate the candidate on. Preferably something taken form the real world in their company experience, but something that has already been resolved. This is a good chance to evaluate the knowledge on a problem and evaluate not just programming skills.
I hate it when too specific questions are answered. I had an interview once where a programmer was testing my knowledge of the STL which I used extensively and was trying to get me to answer that a custom allocator was needed. I had heard of them but never used them (esp in windows) and was made to feel dumb. IOW, avoid being judgmental.
So my point is, ask practical questions that aren't so much about testing programming knowledge as you can evaluate more qualitative personality and problem-solving approaches if you use the "pair programming" idea.
Good question!
Honestly, that sounds like a great idea, though Jason Punyon is certainly right that you should do a lot of weeding before you waste significant amounts of your developers' time on culls. You get a glimpse at an important metric out of it that's otherwise nearly unobtainable in interviewing: what someone's like to work with.
I don't think there's really any need to be concerned about it being "fair" based on the subject matter or trying to present consistent situations to different candidates, if you maintain the right evaluatory attitude -- that it isn't about whether they "got the right answer" or jumped through the right set of hoops, but what sort of effort, problem-solving, communication aptitude and flexibility they showed. You'd lose most of the benefit of the exercise by turning it into an artificial test, not to mention changing it from something that your developers can get some benefit from (or at least still get some work done during) to a massive waste of their time.
Joel Spolsky has an excellent Guerrilla Guide to Interviewing which talks about, amongst other things, programming tasks.
Trivia: Joel Spolsky is a co-founder of stackoverflow.com
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I love working with Rails but I keep tripping up against my own inefficiency: I'll spend time implementing some "useful" function only to discover subsequently that it was already in the framework, had I but known it!
Particular areas of wheel reinvention for me are
helpers and built-in class extensions
recently-released features that may not yet have lodged in my brain
plugins (a taxonomy of Rails plugins, if such a thing makes sense, would be a boon)
migration options
less-frequently used rake tasks
the options hash on just about everything
Obviously (?) we can't all remember all this stuff all the time. There are "cheat sheets", but unless they're up-to-date they can potentially compound the problem by appearing authoritative when they're really targeted at older versions.
What do you do to minimize this excise? Can anything be done?
I wondered if a set of Big Visible Charts might help, although goodness knows where I'd stick them in an open-plan office.
One thing here is to know about the existence of particular feature (plugin, gem, etc) in the first place. That's why
I try to keep up to date with the information about the edge Rails.
I follow many blogs and try to if nothing else then run over the titles every day, just to have it leave at least some tiny footprint in my memory.
That's for the passive part. Now for the active:
As I fly through the new features/plugins I try to imagine at least some use case in which it might be helpful in what am I working on right now - this exercise helps me to remember the thing, since I connect it to my actual conceptual system.
In my less serious projects I really try experiment with new things.
On SO I often answer questions I'm not sure about or I don't really know anything about but they seem interesting to me - then I do some research and extend my knowledge on that particular topic.
I don't think that "big visible charts" can help in the long run. I only use cheat sheets when learning new things and it's really only a short term thing. Exellence is a habit, as Aristotle said.
This isn't just a problem with Rails, but with any framework. Programmers I know who have worked for years with Delphi still are shocked to find simple standard functions that they'd replicated.
WRT Rails, Mike Gunderloy recently wrote about highlighting text, and ended with this wise tidbit:
It’s worth taking a dip into ActionView::Helpers occasionally to see what other bits of functionality are lurking that you’ve forgotten about.
Any time I need to do something I think should be easier than it is, I do a quick check there, as well as Google, to make sure I'm not about to waste a ton of time.
I face this problem as well- and it was a lot worse when I first started with RoR. Now after over 1.5 years, I know what's available pretty well.
Basically what I do is if I am using parts of the framework I know... no big deal. If I need to do something I will likely have to create myself, I first google it or search the Rails API. Lately I have also begun searching github and some of the plugin sites like railslodge.com.
While this does not completely solve the problem, it has helped dramatically.
I surf over the rails blogs in my RSS feed reading the headlines and just enough to figure out what the article is about. This gives me a good breadth of knowledge but pretty shallow. Still it lets me know what is out there. Like yesterday when I saw a blog post about a highlight helper (I had no idea it existed. Now I do and if I ever need it I know to look for it - even without reading the post in depth). I also open the posts I want read in depth in another tab for later (I used to use ReadItLater but it got out of hand) and as i read them i write notes in a post on my own blog more for my own benefit than for others - to get into memory and to ensure I can find it later.
The other thing I do when I am entering uncharted or forgotten territory is to I ask a question here about best practices or specific details even if I think I know the answer. For example I couldn't remember the names of the popular plugins for tracking edit histories of records (acts_as_audited and acts_as_versioned). I had the answer in 15 minutes.
It turns solo programming into programming in one of those cool noisy dev shops with a foosball table and lots of other people who know stuff i don't.
I tend to assume that most types of basic problems I'm solving have already been solved by someone else; by starting with the assumption my thoughts aren't along the lines of "how do I build this" but "where do I find it" and of course google, the wikis and the plugin and gems lists all play a part in that. I have written very little code that isn't directly related to my business domain.
I write tests first. Then code. Sometimes the framework does it for me and I don't have to write code. :)
I don't think Rails is any different than other frameworks... it takes a while to know where things are. The best you can do is read the API docs and see what's there. You don't need to learn how to use it, just what is there and get an idea of how to look for it when you need it.
Also, it's not a bad thing to write code that someone else already has. You learn from it. Later you just swap in the framework mojo and see if your tests still pass. If so, you're good and you know how the internals of one part of the framework probably work.
I believe the key to eliminate the time wasted on reinventing the wheel is to have a very handful tool to search inside the Rails helpers/capabilities.
On one hand a good choice of IDE could help a lot. On the other hand - a very good online (offline) edge documentation with an ability to quick search through it. These days one of our russian Rails programmers made one: http://railsapi.com/. The search is done in a very MacOS style, making it a very good choice for a fast diggin'.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a challenge I need some input on.
I am currently recruiting programmers for a new development department. I am looking for people that are brilliant at their work – so brilliant that they might “lack” some other things that I normally would require them to have (e.g. speaking Norwegian and (to be honest) – social skills in order to be able to meet the customer (I’ve worked with several of them before :) )).
My issue is in regards to communication between the client (customer) and the development team.
Background: We have a strategy of becoming our customers extended development department over the next two years. E.g. they consider us as their own department just sitting somewhere else. While we are on our way towards this target, we will have to make money on smaller projects. The work is there, so I am not afraid that we will not manage to stay alive.
But – we all know that good communication with the customer is one of the key elements on providing the customer with what they actually want (we are scrumming by the way) instead of something else. How do I manage to do this with people that do not speak the language, or again, does not even have the skills to communicate with the customer (you all know someone very bright that is going into deep technical issues with a customer that hardly knows the difference between Firefox & Opera)?
I have landed on a solution where I will be the interface towards the customer, the customer will join in on planning sessions, etc., and where the team will still do the demo. But in regards to continuous communication (daily) between the dev team and the customer, I will be the one doing the comms.
I know that this is not the optimal solution – being a middle man a lot of information can disappear between the customer, me and the team. Have anyone been in a similar situation?
Create a wiki. Create a page for your customer which contains pictures, business information, things to look out for, etc.
Have everyone contribute to the wiki, including the customer.
As time goes on, this page (or pages if you split the information on numerous pages) will allow
new developers to understand the customer faster
see the possible problems that may arise
your developers would contribute to the wiki since they have a tangible documentation where everyone can see how much they have contributed to the customer.
make the customer feel as if he is part of the development process
since the wiki is, by effect, a collaboration document, a common language will appear between everyone. It might not be the same as speaking your customer's language, but it will be a combination of your customer's and developer's language.
We've had a somewhat similar situation when we did "Beta programs" for select customers. When the customers had questions, they could only turn to the developers at that stage of the project because e.g. the helpdesk was not yet familiar with the new features.
We also used a "middle man" for doingt the communication with the customer and then passing it on to the developers, and this has worked quite well for us. What were the advantages? The customer alsways knew exactly whom to contact, the communication was consistent, some on the simpler questions could be answered without the need to "bug" the development team at all while some more difficult questions could be "boiled down" from a superfluous explanation to the real problem before handing the question over to the developers, both giving the developers more time to concentrate on what they do best.
Of course, if you want this to work, you'll have to make sure you pass on information between development and the customer in a timely manner, but I think it can be worth the effort (and in fact, our developers prefer it that way).
Communication skills are arguably more important than technical skills. A programmer that doesn't communicate well may well cause enough disruption to negate what they bring to the table technically.
Having said that, you still have to realize that not everyone is the best person to be "customer facing". You might designate one or more members of the team as liasons to your customers, and have the communication go through them when possible.
The developers should be shielded from the customers. Developers are usually hardcore technical people who eat C++ templates at breakfast. The customers are often very non-technical. A customer asking a badly formulated question on some trivial issue to the developer usually irritates the developer a lot causing at least a temporary loss of productivity. So it's better to have special paid people that work in between.
Don't underestimate the value of being in the same place. If communication skills are lacking, being able to point and say "look at this" can be far quicker and more effective than trying to explain everything in a meeting or email. But from "they consider us as their own department just sitting somewhere else" this doesn't sound like it is an option for you.
Generally I expect that at least some of your developers will be open to learning proper communication with the customer. Involve those developers with the communication (even if it's painful at first). English is a pretty universal language and your customer will probably be able and willing to speak it.
Shield the developers that DON'T want to communicate or learn to communicate with the customers. They may damage your relationship with the customer and you will damage your relationship with your employee.
Be careful about allowing written contact between the customer and your developers. Written communication often gets interpreted wrong, especially when written by people who do not have much experience writing carefully balanced e-mails, memos or letters.
As you build your relationship with your customer, you'll get to know eachother's personalities, and communication will be smoother.