Review: Software Craftsmanship

I recently read Pete McBreen's Software Craftsmanship: The New Imperative. This was a pretty interesting book and it was excellent timing because I finished it just before Dan North published his post that set off an avalanche of debate about the topic.

What can I say... Hmm. After all the debate, I still consider myself to be a craftsman. Why? That is an interesting question. I think that there is misunderstanding about the movement. I think craftsmanship is all about building maintainable software and training the next generation of programmers to build maintainable software. As a professional, ROI is king. Everything I do, from personal study to TDD to CI to leading group discussions about the craft is so that my team can produce better, more maintainable software that produces long term business value. This is what makes me a craftsman. I have seen too many projects lose focus and become unmaintainable piles of crap. I have seen too many failed rewrites. I have seen too much money wasted by people who should know better.

The training aspect of craftsmanship alone intrigues me. When I think about the early part of my career, I get pissed off at the vast about of time I spent following blind alleys and being essentially undirected. I have to thank Ross and the guys at FARVV for getting me started in the right direction. I only wish I had received that kind of instruction much earlier.

There are a lot of other interesting points made in the book and in the follow up posts that responded to Dan. I think that anyone who considers himself a craftsman/tradesman/professional software engineer of any sort would be well served to be aware of the debate and why it is ongoing. The more we know, the better off our industry as a whole will operate.

Ok, so that wasn't a very focused review. I think you should read the book. Put it at the front of your reading queue.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

TFS to SVN Conversion with History

Recently, the team I was on wanted to move our source code from Team Foundation Server to SVN for reasons that had almost nothing to do with source control directly. This would be a pretty simple operation, but we didn't want to lose access to the history when the operations team turned off the machine running TFS. We couldn't find any direct paths for moving history from TFS to SVN, so instead we chose to use git as an intermediary. Here's how we did it: Step 1 - Install the tools Install msysgit: http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/ Install git-tfs: https://github.com/git-tfs/git-tfs Step 2 - Pull TFS history to local git repository git tfs clone <tfs-project-url> "$/<tfs-project-name>/<tfs-project-folder>" <localfolder> example: git tfs clone http://tfs-001:8080/tfs/projectroot "$/Reference Architecture/ReferenceArchitecture" RefArch Step 3 - Initialize git-svn * User Lower Case - Caps will make it fail! * Change direc...
Read more

Simpler Tests: What kind of test are you writing?

One common problem that I see in test suites is confusion about what each test should cover. This confusion often leads to tests that are either too broad or too focused to accomplish the goal of the author. When writing a test, it is important to think about what kind of test it will be and the constraints that make that type of test effective. There are a few broad categories of tests that I keep in mind to help focus my testing: Unit Tests Also called micro tests, unit tests form the foundation of any good testing strategy. These are tests that test a single class or method in isolation from it's dependencies. Mocks and stubs help us isolate the code under test and make our tests more focused and expressive. A test that touches any external resource such as the database, the file system, a web service, etc is never a unit test. The primary purpose of unit tests is to validate that the subject under test is functionally correct for the expected inputs and outputs. Additiona...
Read more

Architecture at different levels of abstraction

Image
This week I am attending the O'Reilly Architecture Conference in NYC with my team and I had the pleasure of attending a two day training on Building Evolutionary Architectures presented by Neal Ford and Rebecca Parsons . During this session, on of the things we talked about extensively was coupling. We looked at dependency maps for different architectural styles including the big ball of mud . We saw something like the following and almost everyone agreed, "That is a bad architecture." Big Ball of Mud This reminded me of something I has seen elsewhere before, and after a quick search, I found it: Amazon and Netflix Death Star Architectures The ball of mud is considered obviously wrong by most architects, but the death star seems to be held up as an ideal by just as many and likely most of the same architects. Why is this? Are afferent coupling (inbound dependencies) and efferent coupling (outreaching dependencies) only important at a certain sc...
Read more