LCNUG presentation on Silverlight

[This was originally posted at http://timstall.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/lcnug_presentation_on_silverlight.htm]

Yesterday I had the opportunity to present at the LCNUG about Silverlight. It was our third meeting and we had about a dozen people. Given the deep talent, it was very humbling. With a small group of talented people, the presentation became more of a back-and-forth discussion, which is great.

 

You can download a copy of the PPT presentation here: silverlightppt.zip. (I tried using Cliff Atkinson's ideas from Beyond Bullet Points.)

 

Here was the abstract:

Silverlight is a new Microsoft technology to radically enhance the UI experience. Silverlight provides several huge benefits, like a vector-graphics API, programming in a compiled .Net language (like C# or VB), a rich object model, and finally solving the cross-browser problem. We will provide a general overview of Silverlight, with an emphasis on common gotchas and where to learn more.

This is the second time I've been able to present at a user group - previously I discussed MSBuild as an automation language.

Word choice is important

[This was originally posted at http://timstall.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/word_choice_is_important.htm]

Communication is important, we often use words to communicate, therefore our word choice is important too. Even slight variations in word choice can have very different meanings and connotations. Here are some examples. I'd be curious to hear what examples you've come across in your experience.

 

Wording 1	Wording 2 (More clear)	What's the difference?
I'll get that done by the morning	This job will take 5 hours.	The first implies that you're working all night on it, the second gives you flexibility.
He stepped down from management to be a developer again.	He transitioned from manager to developer.	The first implies that managers are more "important" than developers, which is not always the case. The good companies provide a technical track for senior technical folk, such that transitioning from manager to developer could be a lateral shift, not a demotion.
I've made changes	I've made improvements	Are the changes good or bad?
(talking to a manger) I need this new tool	We need this new tool	Emphasizes that it's not you who needs a "favor" (i.e. a new tool), but rather for the benefit of the team.
This project requires a senior developer	This project requires a skilled developer	The project really needs skill, which doesn't necessarily mean "the developer with the most years of experience."

 

I realize it's just words, but the meanings behind those words are important.

 

[UPDATE]: I am absolutely not saying that one should spin, deceive, or try manipulating people with word choice. No one wants someone else trying to manipulate them with words. The goal is to use clear word choice that clarifies real intention, not use "sneaky" words to trick others or hide important details.

Book: Code Leader

[This was originally posted at http://timstall.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/book_code_leader.htm]

I'm always fascinated by the difference between average developers, and good developers. Therefore any book that helps explain how to go "to the next level" is going to capture my interest. Patrick Cauldwell's Code Leader: Using People, Tools, and Processes to Build Successful Software does. With a forward by Scott Hanselman, the book lives up to the hype. Patrick sees the big picture, and leverages his experience to explain a dozen concepts used by good developers - the ones who other developers look to as leaders (hence the title). I'm paraphrasing his chapter titles:

1. Buying vs. Building
2. Test-Driven Development
   1. "writing fewer lines of code should never be considered a design goal."  (13)
3. Continuous Integration
   1. "and developer time is always more expensive than hardware" (25)
   2. He emphasizes that while many projects are tempted to offload their build scripts to a junior dev (to free up the senior devs to do something "important"), it's really in the projects best interest to have your best talent create the build process as that immeasurably benefits every aspect of the project.
   3. "Nobody can check in changes at 5:00 p.m. on Friday before going on vacation." (39)
4. When is it done?
   1. "Nothing paralyzes a team faster than trying to reach consensus on every design point." (45)
5. Testing
   1. "Testing is perceived as less 'fun' than writing 'real' code." (57)
   2. "A clean build server is a happy build server." (89)
   3. "One of the most important parts of your strategy should be to demonstrate progress as early as possible." (97)
6. Source Control
   1. I love this: about source control, he mentioned that some are free - "(free as in puppy, not free as in beer)" (112)
7. Static Analysis
   1. He mentions several tools: NDepend, FxCop, Simian
8. Contracts and Interfaces
9. How to limit dependencies - an emphasis on Dependency Injection and Inversion of Control
10. Model-View-Presenter (MVP)
11. and more...

Overall, a very good book. It's filled with tools and practical examples. I think that every dev lead should be familiar with the topics that he discusses.

The problem with "would you bet your job on that?"

[This was originally posted at http://timstall.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/the_problem_with_would_you_bet_your_job_on_that.htm]

Here's a story:

Bob the developer is plugging away on his feature. He's made a detailed estimate. Bob's manager, Monty, asks for the estimate. "I expect 4 weeks," Bob answers, explaining the reasons for the proposed schedule. Bob is a developer, he just wants to dutifully get the project done, and he knows that the boss wants it done yesterday.

Monty is one of those managers who can squeeze the most from his employees, so he pushes back (half jokingly) with "Really, are you sure? Would you bet your job on that?"

Visibly flustered, Bob squirms in his seat, "Um, ah, I'm not fully sure, I can recheck things..."

"Aha," Monty quietly assures himself, "No developer is going to pull a shoddy estimate past me!"

As everyone leaves, Monty feels puffed up, and Bob feels like he's not worth two cents.

I've actually seen this sort of nonsense happen before (thankfully never at Paylocity). Sure, occasionally there are do-or-die decisions where the company goes under if the wrong action is taken. But the vast majority of the time, it's a hot-shot manager thinking that they're going to show "those developers" who really sees the big picture. After all, the manager is merely asking for a proper estimate (or feature, or technical component, or bug fix, etc...).

 

The problem with this managerial approach is that it's not a fair wager. The developer essentially puts up $100,000 (their job, which may include benefits and multiple year's worth of work), whereas the manager only puts up a nickel. Even if the developer is incredibly confident, it's still not worth the bet.

 

I'm sure somewhere out there, there is a perfect comeback. The best I can think of is (1) leaving that project (with a manager like that, the project is probably doomed anyway), or (2) calling out the manager and remaining confident "No, I'm not betting my job, I'm giving you a detailed estimate. Do you think there's an error in the estimate, or would you like to shrink the feature scope?" That puts the focus back on objective facts, pulls you back to the same side (you're both working together to get the project done), shows the manager that you're above silly games, and avoids an ego match.

Technical things that devs do besides coding

[This was originally posted at http://timstall.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/technical_things_that_devs_do_besides_coding.htm]

As Paul Glen pointed out in his good book Leading Geeks, while many jobs are based on visible action (i.e. a mechanic on an assembly line), software engineering is largely based on thinking - which is not a visible action. Therefore different rules apply. For example, a software engineer could be working hard, plowing through a complex design in their mind, but it may look like they're just staring off into space. The problem is when those software engineers have non-technical managers who don't understand this, and instead expect their developers, like any other type of good employee, to constantly be "working", by which the manager means "moving", by which they ultimately mean "typing keystrokes for new, production features".

 

But this is silly. Your best developers are rarely your fastest type-writers. The problem is that there are so many value-added tasks beyond just typing keystrokes:

• Learning

  • Researching new technologies and techniques

  • Learning a tool or DSL that helps you write better code in the future

  • Mentoring others

• People and Communication

  • Holding meetings

  • Documenting (like updating the team wiki)

• Non-production coding

  • Writing unit tests

  • Refactoring

  • Fixing bugs

  • Making reusable utilities and architectural components

Point is that an honest, value-adding developer could sometimes spend the whole day barely touching "new feature" code, yet still contribute tons of value to the project. My concern is that many developers seem apologetic for this, almost like "Gee boss, sorry, I had a slow day today, I'll work extra hard tomorrow to make up for it" You didn't have a slow day, you were just plowing through the unappreciated, yet necessary part of the project. It's much like building the car engine - you don't directly see the engine, but the car won't run without it. Just like it's a "first class" task for a mechanic to fix the car's engine, it's also a first class task for developers to do things besides typing keystrokes for immediately visible features.

The need and benefit of mentoring

[This was originally posted at http://timstall.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/the_need_and_benefit_of_mentoring.htm]

Most software applications today are just too big for a single person to handle, therefore projects are built by teams of people. Often these teams have junior members, and therefore it's essential to help these junior members learn and grow - i.e. they need to be mentored. Now sometimes it's an "emergency project", and there simply isn't time to mentor someone, but this is a dead-end approach. The successful, on-going projects are constantly mentoring the junior guys so that they have an every-growing pool of capable developers.

 

The beauty is that if you've got an eager dev, and you spend a few hours training them on a task or technique, then they can handle that technique going forward. This frees you up from that type of task, and lets you focus on higher level problems. In one sense, if you're to "move up", you need to ensure that the current class of problems you have are handled. You have a few options here:

1. Work lots of overtime, so that you're handling both your old problems, and the new one's you'll encounter at the new position. This approach isn't sustainable.

2. Make those problems go away, usually by solving them properly and simplifying the maintenance with automation. This is a good temporary solution, but ultimately the automation breaks, or the process itself needs to be modified, and then you get blindsided at the most inconvenient time.

3. Mentor someone else to take over your automated process. This is ideal. It involved other people on the team, and encourages that newly-mentored developer to understand and improve the process you original set in motion.

I personally find a good way to mentor people (and be mentored myself) is to emphasize the skills that they like and are practical to them, initially work with them one on one, then let them toy around with it on their own, then connect them with another person who can answer questions (your "backup"), while always keeping your door open to questions.

 

I've seen many senior devs, with good intentions, declare that they're "too busy to mentor people right now". Sometimes this is because the company only rewards immediate coded features, as opposed to long-term team growth, and a dev isn't jumping to do what they won't get rewarded for. Other times it is because the dev just doesn't know about mentoring - no one mentored them and they "toughed it out" the "old fashioned way". Still, other times it's because the senior dev is, to put it politely, being short-sited. As the saying goes: "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life."

 

If you spend 4 hours ("but that's half a day!") mentoring a junior dev on how to fix security hacking issues, or use the new validation framework, and they then do those tasks for the next year, which saves you even 2 hours a week  - you've just been spared 100 hours. So, there are many benefits to mentoring:

• An hour of mentoring could easily give you 20 hours back - now that's a good return.

• There's a great feeling in helping others.

• Perhaps someday that junior dev will learn a technology that's new to you, and they'll return the favor.

• Teaching something to some else truly forces you to understand it yourself.

• It helps build a closer team.

I think because of all this, the best companies will always be actively mentoring each other.

Does your team culture encourage learning?

[This was originally posted at http://timstall.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/does_your_team_culture_encourage_learning.htm]

In the ever-growing field of software engineering, continually learning is essential. While a lot of developers internally have the drive, they're stuck in a team that externally makes it difficult to learn. Here is a checklist of simple questions to gage how much a team encourages learning.

• Spending money

  • Will managers buy a technical book without giving the developer a hassle? For management to spend $30 on a book, for which a developer then spends dozens of personal hours digesting and learning a whole new skill, is an incredible rate of return. If management is too short-sighted for that ("aw, can't you get it online", "did you check your local library first", "the project budget can't afford that", etc...), then your team is toast. Of course a developer could abuse this by requesting to fill an entire book shelf, so common sense applies. A book is month is very reasonable.

  • Will management provide adequate resources to explore a new task? For example, if you're investigating continual integration, you will need a spare build server.

• Encouraging team collaboration

  • Can your team set up a wiki such that everyone can easily share trivia and knowledge?

  • Are code reviews encouraged by all the managers and influential contributors?

  • Do senior team members actively mentor junior members, or are developers too busy pounding out features to "waste" on mentoring?

• Scheduling

  • Do most features allot at least some time for research and improvement - even 5-10%? That means if you spend a whole week plugging away at a feature, management is okay if you take at least a few hours to explore a tangent, or incrementally improve the system?

  • Microsoft, as well as many user groups, occasionally sponsor free local events. Management may not pay thousands to send you to fancy training, but will they at least let you occasionally take the day to attend a free training session?

• Process

  • Do your processes display public results, and are those processes documented, such that anyone on the team can investigate and understand them? Or, are the processes cautiously guarded by some "builder master" guru or manager who doesn't want anyone else to see the big picture for fear that it would somehow "threaten" them?

• Features

  • Are the interesting features shared across the team, such that everyone gets a chance to explore cool technologies, or does the architect/team-lead hog the cool features for themselves and leave the boring work to others?

  • When your team needs a research project, is it assigned internally so that your own guys get the opportunity to learn about it, or is it sold off to some external consultants, or is research forbidden altogether ("we don't have time/money to learn to do things  better")?

• Management

  • Development requires innovation, which requires risk, which inevitably results in the occasional "failure". Does management allow developers to take a calculated risk (i.e. not belittling or embarrassing the developer when it doesn't work out)? If not, developers will be afraid to innovate, which means they're be afraid to apply what they've learned, which will reduce their incentive to learn new things.

  • Will management emphasize the total cost of ownership, which ultimately can only be reduced by continual education of the entire team? If managers only emphasize the current task ("we don't have time to do it right, we need to get this feature coded now."), and learning (even if it's for the current task) means you're not actually programming (i.e. "typing in keystrokes") at that moment, then managers will discourage developers from learning. In other words, is learning seen as a first-class task?

  • Does your promotion system emphasize career goals, which in turn emphasize some learning goal?

These things do not necessarily imply a good or bad learning environment:

• Sending developers to expensive training - Back during the .com bubble, there was plenty of cash to send anyone to training. However, as mentioned above, there are still plenty of ways for a company to encourage learning without sending the developer to a fancy training session.

• Asking you to handle an occasional boring task - Ultimately any engineering project will have something tedious and boring that needs to be done. This doesn't mean that the team is anti-learning. However, if every task is boring and hacked, then that's an obviously bad sign.

• Emailing links to "best practice" articles - Any kid can email links to coding guidelines or best practices that someone else wrote, and for which it requires the discipline of other developers to actually adhere to. There's nothing brave or helpful about yet another checklist.