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.
What questions can I ask an interview candidate that would allow me to know whether he's a "copy-and-paste coder"?
We're finding that even when candidates answer coding questions well in an interview, once on the job they'll still tend toward copying rather than refactoring.
Anyone else have similar experiences?
The first step in our interview process is a 5-minute online question. We give the candidates something like "FizzBuzz" or "Recursive fibonacci" or "Find factorial of n".
We don't have any rules. Nothing about pasting, or the code needing to compile, or what language it should be in - just do it. The 5-minute timeframe forces most candidates down one of two roads - write some pseudocode (or mostly-working code), or Google it.
When we get the answer, we Google the answer. Roughly half the time, it's been copied from some site. Our expectation is that if they spent 5 minutes finding the answer on Google, it should not only compile but it should be the absolute cleanest, best example of a solution for that problem out there. About half the time, the pasted answers are utter crap. We even get a number that didn't paste the entire snippet in, missed a whole chunk!
Copy-pasters tend to be exposed when they don't have a compiler to check them. Their modus operandi is paste, compile, tweak, compile. If they just paste a solution from a web page into another web page and submit it, they have nothing telling them they need to fix it.
This has worked extremely well - no one has made it to the phone screening who shouldn't.
I have people describe (in detail) a hard problem than they were proud of having solved. It's pretty easy to tell if they never really understood the details or simply hadn't worked through the problem themselves. Enthusiasm (sparkle even!) while describing the solution is a big plus. Gotta have a love for problem solving!
I've had this problem with candidates as well. The trick is to reduce the number of questions that only rely on definitions. You can provide them with code that needs refactoring and ask them what they would do to improve the code. This is a very open-ended question that shows how the candidate thinks.
A lot of interviewers like to ask questions where the candidate writes new code, unfortunately it is rare that developer is writing new things from scratch. Focus more on presenting existing code to the candidate and asking them to work with it to solve a problem.
Even with these questions it is possible to get a copy-and-paste coder as an interview is not necessarily how they will act in the real world.
That's my two cents.
I have two approaches, and always use both of them. They take fifteen minutes total, and I use them as the last third of an entry-level job interview.
Ask a very simple question based in theory.
"Are you familiar with the Vector class in Java? Write in pseudocode an implementation of the class supporting add, get, and clear." If they're not familiar, ask about ArrayList. If they're not familiar on either, explain what they do. The idea is that they can write a
linked list, and know what one is.
If I'm unsure at that point, ask them to write a method to sort the list manually; no using Arrays.sort() or similar. Have them explain a sorting algorithm. I don't care which one they choose, I don't care how efficient it is, any will do.
"What's the last thing you wrote that you were proud of?"
We wrote a test that basically checks to see if someone knows how/why to refactor.
We created a simple mockup application (allow the user to create predefined shapes and move them around on the screen) but introduced many types of errors on purpose.
One of these was copy & paste coding (the same functionality repeated in multiple places). Another was to embed logic for each shape into the event handlers. Terrible, terrible stuff - the worst ideas we could think of.
This allows us to see whether the candidate would recognize the opportunities for improvement and which approaches they would take to solve them.
It was a take home test and the candidate could either rewrite the application or provide notes on what kinds of changes they would make.
Not that this excuses it, but one reason developers may copy and paste code is that they don't understand the code that they're working with. For example, if you hire a C# or Java developer, and put him on a Fortran system and tell him to get work accomplished, he is going to copy and paste throughout that system due to lack of understanding.
In addition that that, quality of code can play a part in this. I know of one particular system that was not allowed to be refactored, but new changes had to be introduced. The developers had to do what they had to do to get the task done in a timely manner.
Of course, both of these scenarios don't excuse copy and paste coding, but it's worth a look inside the organization to understand why this may happen.
Don't ask common questions and/or ask them to explain their code.
You could modify your approach a bit. Do your tech review and phone screen, sure, just up the challenge of your coding test. Instead of asking simple programming test questions as a pre-screen, come up with a fairly complex programming project that they can solve - something can be scrounged up pretty quickly that can be pretty much ungoogle-able. Give them time after the interview to complete it, and require that it be well document and easy to understand. Then schedule a follow-up where you discuss the solution and ask the candidate things such as "What were you thinking here?!"
Examples of the types of projects of which I am thinking:
Write a program that plays a single hand of poker among three players
Write a flood-fill program for a random field provided by the user
Write a small check register program that accepts input from a .CSV and a starting balance, and outputs the current balance, allowing the user to view the transactions that have been read.
If they are on-site, make them whiteboard something. Lets you see how they will divide-and-conquor a problem in abstract. Watch what they focus on, what they omit, ask questions as they continue, and if you want to be a little evil - change the rules halfway through.
Break out parts of it and have them write the pseudocode on the whiteboard.
Related
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.
Apologies if this has been covered frequently, but I was wondering about how other people approach personal task management.
I've read (parts of) GTD, proceeded to get excited, installed a tonne of plug-ins all over the place, then let it all fall by the wayside. I've used todoist, outlook, google calendar, project. I've tried writing lists in a notepad, in 'notebook', on post-it-notes and in spreadsheets etc. None of it lasts.
Why is a simple and effective todo application so difficult to find? Because the application is so frequently used, I find that any small niggles with the application become overly exaggerated after a few days use.
So far, my favourite application is a variation of todo.txt called task
What do you use?
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but a "simple and effective todo application" is so hard to find because you are using the tool as a substitute for self-discipline and commitment. Statements like 'I've read parts of this and tried that and that and that but minor interface issues cause me to drop it in a few days' imply that you are looking for magic bullets and excuses.
Minor issues with the tools are a poor excuse to abandon the effort.
Pick a system and a tool and stick with it
No tool will give you the self-discipline and commitment necessary to change your habits
personal time-management is about changing your viewpoint and habits, not finding the "right" tool
caveat: some systems are more suitable than others for your personal work requirements. If you're a developer, a calendar-based system like Franklin Planner is probably not going to work, while a list-based system like GTD probably will.
Suggestion: google and review the various systems, pick one, and commit to it for at least a month. Try GTD and pen-and-paper, for example, then get fancy once the system is a habit. Once you know how you need to work the system and are committed to it, look for the perfect tool. In the meantime, the perfect tool is the enemy of the good practice, to mangle a quote ;-)
I use text files. Each contains a list of projects, separated by blank lines. Each line of a project's space includes syntax like:
'-': Item of interest
'*': TODO's
':': Code changes
'AWT': (Awaiting something external)
Text files live together and projects move in and out fluidly:
work.txt: Current work / active projects
deferred.txt: Stuff to do someday
done.txt: Finished; archived for records
The text file system is fast, effective, globally compatible and loads in a fraction of a second.
I think I'm like you (were, 2 years ago): too lazy to do anything until I find the perfect tool for it..
Yes, folks saying tools should never be mistaken to be a substitute for executing the plan, are absolutely right...
That said, one tool that seems "perfect enough" for me to drop thoses excuses for GTD: org-mode for Emacs. I really hope so, anyway.
I think this is almost a duplicate of How can I apply David Allen’s “Getting Things Done” as a programmer?
See also:
What Can Someone Do to Get Organized Around Here?
Time management tricks, tools & tips
What do you use to keep notes as a developer?
ToDoList is also an alternative
This is related to Task/issue tracking system with command-line interface which also mentioned todo.txt
Personally, I use the to do list on my Palm PDA, which syncs with Apple iCal.
I'm experimenting with better managing my time. I like starting out simple and building to complexity as it's required, rather than implement some behemoth bollocks that's hard to maintain.
To that end, i use simple lists.
http://tadalist.com
it's stupidly simple, free, and internets based so it follows me everywhere. winner
In our company we use Google Docs Spread Sheet - it's great beacuse you put all tasks into cells and you can share and coedit this document with others. It's very easy to use and doesn't require you to fill a lot of forms.
I use a sticky notes program called NoteZilla
Just scratch your task/idea/notes and forget about it. This is why I like sticky notes. No need to categorize, group. All that can still be done in NoteZilla.
I use TiddlyWiki. It's simple to use, all in one html file (so very portable).
It works great for me.
I'm echoing the above comment to some degree. For me, the tool is pretty much secondary to establishing the mindset and habits that would allow me to incorporate GTD principles in a consistent fashion. I really do love it, when I can get it to go. There's a nice sense of control and direction that comes when I can be disciplined about doing the small stuff - weekly sweeps, periodic reviews and all that.
My next GTD challenge is to get out of the trees so I can see the forest. :-) David Allen talks about the 50,000 foot, 30,000 foot, 10,000 foot views relating to goals. It's all very high-minded, but I have to get above 500 feet yet.
If you're familiar with GTD, there's a nice summary deck PDF over at DIY Planner:
http://www.diyplanner.com/diyp_official/diyp3cl/diyp3_gtdref_cl_2up.pdf
If you're a paper planner junkie (I am) the site's like crack :D
Hope it helps.
I use myLifeOrganized. The bottom line is you just need to start documenting the next thing you have to do on each task. MLO lets you easily and quickly do that.
It has a handy rapid task entry dialog and you can quickly enter data into it. You can document as much or as little as you want. This software, because of the ease of adding stuff to it, has saved my butt many times. It has helped me remember things that I had forgotten. I now wonder how many things I've forgotten over the years and didn't realize it.
I run it off a usb stick and I have it on my phone. I even use it to help me outline code.
As others have said, GTD is all about discipline: actually doing the things on your list. But, be sure to prioritize.
For my task list management, I currently use Remember the Milk, which is fairly handy with its IM integration (it sends IM reminders). My biggest challenge has been remembering to add the tasks, but I'm getting better at it, since somebody pointed out I could make a recurring task to remind me :P.
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
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.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I am doing some research into common errors and poor assumptions made by junior (and perhaps senior) software engineers.
What was your longest-held assumption that was eventually corrected?
For example, I misunderstood that the size of an integer is not a standard and instead depends on the language and target. A bit embarrassing to state, but there it is.
Be frank; what firm belief did you have, and roughly how long did you maintain the assumption? It can be about an algorithm, a language, a programming concept, testing, or anything else about programming, programming languages, or computer science.
For a long time I assumed that everyone else had this super-mastery of all programming concepts (design patterns, the latest new language, computational complexity, lambda expressions, you name it).
Reading blogs, Stack Overflow and programming books always seemed to make me feel that I was behind the curve on the things that all programmers must just know intuitively.
I've realized over time that I'm effectively comparing my knowledge to the collective knowledge of many people, not a single individual and that is a pretty high bar for anyone. Most programmers in the real world have a cache of knowledge that is required to do their jobs and have more than a few areas that they are either weak or completely ignorant of.
That people knew what they wanted.
For the longest time I thought I would talk with people, they would describe a problem or workflow and I would put it into code and automate it. Turns out every time that happens, what they thought they wanted wasn't actually what they wanted.
Edit: I agree with most of the comments. This is not a technical answer and may not be what the questioner was looking for. It doesn't apply only to programming. I'm sure it's not my longest-held assumption either, but it was the most striking thing I've learned in the 10 short years I've been doing this. I'm sure it was pure naivete on my part but the way my brain is/was wired and the teaching and experiences I had prior to entering the business world led me to believe that I would be doing what I answered; that I would be able to use code and computers to fix people's problems.
I guess this answer is similar to Robin's about non-programmers understanding/caring about what I'm talking about. It's about learning the business as an agile, iterative, interactive process. It's about learning the difference between being a programming-code-monkey and being a software developer. It's about realizing that there is a differnce between the two and that to be really good in the field, it's not just syntax and typing speed.
Edit: This answer is now community-wiki to appease people upset at this answer giving me rep.
That I know where the performance problem is without profiling
That I should have only one exit point from a function/method.
That nonprogrammers understand what I'm talking about.
That bugfree software was possible.
That private member variables were private to the instance and not the class.
I thought that static typing was sitting very still at your keyboard.
That you can fully understand a problem before you start developing.
Smart People are Always Smarter than Me.
I can really beat myself up when I make mistakes and often get told off for self-deprecating. I used to look up in awe at a lot of developers and often assumed that since they knew more than me on X, they knew more than me.
As I have continued to gain experience and meet more people, I have started to realise that oftentimes, while they know more than me in a particular subject, they are not necessarily smarter than me/you.
Moral of the story: Never underestimate what you can bring to the table.
For the longest time I thought that Bad Programming was something that happened on the fringe.. that Doing Things Correctly was the norm. I'm not so naive these days.
I thought I should move towards abstracting as much as possible. I got hit in the head major with this, because of too much intertwined little bits of functionality.
Now I try keep things as simple and decoupled as possible. Refactoring to make something abstract is much easier than predicting how I need to abstract something.
Thus I moved from developing the framework that rules them all, to snippets of functionality that get the job done. Never looked back, except when I think about the time I naively thought I would be the one developing the next big thing.
That women find computer programmers sexy...
That the quality of software will lead to greater sales. Sometimes it does but not always.
That all languages are (mostly) created equal.
For a good long while I figured that the language of choice didn't really make much of a difference in the difficulty of the development process and the potential for project success. This is definitely not true.
Choosing the right language for the job is as important/critical as any other single project decision that is made.
That a large comment/code ratio is a good thing.
It took me a while to realize that code should be self documenting. Sure, a comment here and there is helpful if the code can't be made clearer or if there's an important reason why something is being done. But, in general, it's better to spend that comment time renaming variables. It's cleaner, clearer and the comments don't get "out of sync" with the code.
That programming is impossible.
Not kidding, I always thought that programming was some impossible thing to learn, and I always stayed away from it. And when I got near code, I could never understand it.
Then one day I just sat down and read some basic beginner tutorials, and worked my way from there. And today I work as a programmer and I love every minute of it.
To add, I don't think programming is easy, it's a challenge and I love learning more and there is nothing more fun than to solve some programming problem.
"On Error Resume Next" was some kind of error handling
That programming software requires a strong foundation in higher math.
For years before I started coding I was always told that to be a good programmer you had to be good at advanced algebra, geometry, calculus, trig, etc.
Ten years later and I have only once had to do anything that an eighth grader couldn't.
That optimizing == rewriting in assembly language.
When I first really understood assembly (coming from BASIC) it seemed that the only way to make code run faster was to rewrite it in assembly. Took quite a few years to realize that compilers can be very good at optimization and especially with CPUs with branch prediction etc they can probably do a better job than a human can do in a reasonable amount of time. Also that spending time on optimizing the algorithm is likely to give you a better win than spending time converting from a high to a low level language. Also that premature optimization is the root of all evil...
That the company executives care about the quality of the code.
That fewer lines is better.
I would say that storing the year element of a date as 2 digits was an assumption that afflicted an entire generation of developers. The money that was blown on Y2K was pretty horrific.
That anything other than insertion/bubble sort was quite simply dark magic.
That XML would be a truly interoperable and human readable data format.
That C++ was somehow intrinsically better than all other languages.
This I received from a friend a couple of years ahead of me in college. I kept it with me for an embarrassingly long time (I'm blushing right now). It was only after working with it for 2 years or so before I could see the cracks for what they were.
No one - and nothing - is perfect, there is always room for improvement.
I believed that creating programs would be exactly like what was taught in class...you sit down with a group of people, go over a problem, come up with a solution, etc. etc. Instead, the real world is "Here is my problem, I need it solved, go" and ten minutes later you get another, leaving you no real time to plan out your solution efficiently.
I thought mainstream design patterns were awesome, when they were introduced in a CS class. I had programmed about 8 years as hobby before that, and I really didn't have solid understanding of how to create good abstractions.
Design patterns felt like magic; you could do really neat stuff. Later I discovered functional programming (via Mozart/Oz, OCaml, later Scala, Haskell, and Clojure), and then I understood that many of the patterns were just boilerplate, or additional complexity, because the language wasn't expressive enough.
Of course there are almost always some kind of patterns, but they are in a higher level in expressive languages. Now I've been doing some professional coding in Java, and I really feel the pain when I have to use a convention such as visitor or command pattern, instead of pattern matching and higher order functions.
For the first few years I was programming I didn't catch on that 1 Kbyte is technically 1024 bytes, not 1000. I was always a little perplexed by the fact that the sizes of my data files seemed slightly off from what I expected them to be.
That condition checks like:
if (condition1 && condition2 && condition3)
are performed in an unspecified order...
That my programming would be faster and better if I performed it alone.
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 years ago.
Improve this question
In pair programming, the experience of every member of the team can be spread to new member. This experience is always in sync with the code, because the "senior" of the pair knows how the code works and what the design is.
So what is the utility of design documentation in this case ?
UPDATE
I don't imply no design, I imply no documentation.
With a team which practice pair programming I think that everybody is disposable, because everybody knows the code. If the senior developer leaves, I think that there is always at least one person who knows the code, because the experience was shared before.
What if your team is larger than 2 persons?
Just because two people know a part of a system does not mean it shouldn't be documented.
And I would be glad to know that I don't have to remember every tiny detail of a system just because it it's stored nowhere else than in my head.
For a small system this might work, but as the system gets larger, your limiting yourself and your colleagues. I'd rather use the memory capacity for a new system than to remember everything of the old system.
Have you ever played "telephone?" I don't think you should play it with your codebase.
What if the senior programmer leaves the company/project?
The set of deliverables should be decided independently of whether you use pair programming or not.
Six months or two years later, all the people involved could be in a different project (or a different company). Do you want to be able to come back and use the design documentation? Then, produce it. If you don't want to come back, or the design is simple enough that with the specs and the code you can understand it without the aid of an explicit design document, then you may skip it.
But don't rely on the two people explaining the design to you one year later.
Maintenance. You can't expect the team to remain static, for there to be no new members or loss of old members. Design documentation ensures that those who are new to the project, that have to maintain it years down the line, have information on decisions that were taken, why the approach was chosen, and how it was to be implemented. It's very important for the long term success of a project to have this documentation, which can be provided via a combination of traditional documents, source comments, unit tests, and various other methods.
I don't see that pair programming makes design documentation obsolete. I immediately have to think about the Truck factor. Sure, the senior may know what the design is. But what happens when he is ill? What happens when he gets hit by a truck? What if he is fired?
Pair programming does spread knowledge, but it never hurts to document that knowledge.
Who knows about the first-written code? The answer is nobody knows, because it hasn't been written. The reason it hasn't been written is because nobody knows what to do, hence the need for a design document.
Pair programming is just two people sharing one computer. By itself, it says nothing about what kind of design methodology the pair(s) uses.
Pair programming, when taking as part of "Extreme Programming", means following the Extreme Programming guidelines for design. This typically involves gathering and coding to "user stories". These stories would then stand in place of other design documentation.
The experience of people may be in sync with the code, as you say. But the design decisions are not all captured in the code - only the choices made are there.
In my experience, to really understand why code is designed the way it is, you need to know about the design choices that were not selected, the approaches that had tried and failed etc. You can hope that the "chinese whispers" chain transmits that correctly, given that there's no record of this in the code to refresh memories or correct errors...
... or you can write some documentation on the design and how it was arrived at. That way, you avoid being taken down a dark alley by the maintenance programmers in future.
Depends what you mean by "design documentation".
If you have functional tests - especially behaviour-driven development (BDD) tests, or Fitnesse or FIT tests then they're certainly a form of "active documentation"... and they certainly have value as well as being regression tests.
If you write user stories and break them down into tasks and write those tasks on cards for pairs to do then you're doing a form of documentation...
Those are the two main forms of documentation I've used in XP teams that pair on all production code.
The only other document that I find quite handy is a half-page or so set of bullet points showing people how to set up the build environment for a development machine. You're supposed to maintain the list as you go along using it.
The code base may be so large you can't humanly remember every detail of what you were intending to implement. A reference is useful in this case.
Also, you need a design if you are interacting with other components etc.
Well if you want a spreadsheet program instead of a word processor a design doc use useful :-)
XP, pair programing, agile, etc... do not mean you do not have a plan, it is just a far less detailed plan (at the micro level) of what is going on. The use cases that the user picks are more of the design, and it is more of a living document than with other styles of design/programming.
Do not fall into the trap that because youa re doing something "cool" that you no longer need good practices - indeed this style of programming requires more discipline rather than less to be successful.
Pair programming is an opportunity for the team to avoid having to spend a large proportion of the project time on documenting everything. But the need for documentation depends on how good you are at remembering the important stuff and how good your code is. You may still want lots of documentation if the code is difficult to work with.
You could try some experiments:-
Document a couple of small parts of
the design and note how often you
have to refer to it.
Document stuff that is always a pain
to work with.
No Nor does lack of pair programming mean you need documentation. Documentation is needed! What it looks like may surprise you!
An agile team will decide when and what documentation is needed. A good rule of thumb, if no one is going to read it, don't write it. Don't get caught up in the waterfall artifact thinking by provide artifacts because the Project Manager says so.
Most think of documentation as something you do with Word. If an agile team is working properly, the code itself, with TDD (test driven development) will have a set of automated test that document and enforce the requirements. Image, documentation that is in sync with the code ... and it stays that way.
Having said that, pairing does help domain, application, practice and skill knowledge propagate through the team very quickly. Pairing also helps ensure that the team follow the engineering practices including TDD and other automated test. The results are that the application remains healthy and future change is easy to bring about.
So, bottom line, pair programming produces better documentation. It does not eliminate documentation (although you might not be able to find a Word document).
I am a pro-advocate and a fan of documentation. Pair programming does not require "one senior developer". In my experience with pair programming, developers of all levels are paired together, for the purpose of rapid development. There are many times I worked with junior developers and would trade off on the keyboard. There are many times I worked with senior architects and would trade off on the keyboard. Documentation is still necessary, especially with your core components and database.
Pair Programming only enables your coding and logical aspect.
But documentation is good practice. Always do documentation...
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.
During a typical day programming, I implement functions in a way that I would like to remember. For instance, say I tuned a DB insert function that, when I come across the situation again, I want to find what I did to resuse.
I need a place to keep the solution(what I did), and I need to find it somehow, which may be months or a year later. Using a mind map sort of idea, I was thinking about a personal wiki, but then I heard the stackoverflow podcast mention using this site for such a reason. Does anybody else keep track of slick things they've done so that they may find it sometime in the future. If so, what did you use, and in general, how do you use it?
i like to personal blog idea and using the stack for it. i'll try the idea of posting at the stack and then answering it myself, with the benefit of other people potentially giving their opinion.
As long a the stack will be around for a while :)
Jeff Atwood recommends using Stack Overflow for this kind of thing. Post a question (your problem) and then post an answer (the solution you found). This lets you share the information with the world, and maybe get some valuable feedback or better solutions.
(Wow, I got downvoted for repeating what Jeff Atwood said. I won't do that again, I promise.)
I use neomem all the time. I write notes to myself. Then I can later search for it.
You may find these questions useful
Where do you store your code snippets?
Tracking useful information
What is you preferred site for code snippets?
I use a personal Wiki, my del.icio.us bookmarks and my own blog for that. Usually my blog: When I learn something that I know I might stumble on again I write a short post in my blog.
I use WikiDPad or Wiki-On-A-Stick. It works not only for code snippets but also to take notes, record typical problems you get and how to solve them and documentation. Take my word for it, it makes your job a LOT more easier if you have proper notes... and add the power of interlinking to it and you have a killer resource. I have very bad memory and taking notes has improved my performance by an order of magnitude. It also saves you from having to ask someone the same question twice or thrice. Also, if anyone asks the same question, you can just helpfully point them to the wiki and they can read it and add to it if they need to.
The technical term for what you are thinking of is "code snippets", and googling for that will find you many programs designed to store them for a variety of platforms, including entirely web-based ones such as this one.
I set up dekiwiki on a server at work that my coworkers and I use for company specifics stuff but also for general programming tips that arise as well.
A simple wiki, may be useful. SeeTiki Wiki
I always put it on my blog. Not only am I able to get back to it later, there is also a chance that it can help someone else as well.
It's oldschool, but I keep notes in a notebook. Makes remembering solutions (or the problems that caused them) a bit easier. Usually I make 1-2 pages of notes a day.
The digital equivalent of this would be keeping a private blog or journal. Easy enough to add a search program to help you find stuff.
Worthwhile things that my boss might be interested in, like bugs and user calls all get entered into bug tracking software where it is more formally handled.
I use the excellent Trac project management system for my personal projects, and I use it's wiki as a brainstorming and note-taking tool. And, because it also hooks into the Subversion repository and the bug tracking system, I can link from my notes right to a particular section of code or a bug report.
I keep my personal projects on assembla. Wiki, Issue Tracking, Source Control... very useful.
Check to see if your editor has some kind of annotations feature. Ideally you could link a particular location in code with a small note, and store it in a centralized place. If it doesn't, that kind of plugin wouldn't be too hard to build, your biggest hurdle is going to be how to link the piece of code to a file (due to the volatile nature of code) and even that one isn't insurmountable.