Archive for the ‘technical’ Category

Turkey Dog

November 27, 2015 Leave a comment
Categories: technical Tags:

Loneliness Mitigation

September 13, 2015 Leave a comment

As a programmer who devilishly loves to poke the “agilencia” in the eye on Twitter, I sometimes feel like a lone wolf searching for a pack to join.

In order to cure my loneliness, I decided to lure some fellow programmers out of the shadows to see where they stand. Thus, I seeded my timeline with this provocative tweet.


Looky here! I somewhat succeeded in achieving my goal of “loneliness mitigation”:


Don’t get me wrong, I really like and admire some members of the non-programming agilencia. I’m actually sorry that I used the the word “majority” in my seed tweet.

Categories: technical Tags: ,

Dude, Let’s Swarm!

September 12, 2015 Leave a comment

Whoo hoo! I just got back from a 3 day, $2,000 training course in “swarm programming.” After struggling to make it though the unforgiving syllabus, I earned my wings along with the unalienable right to practice in this new and exciting way of creating software. Hyper-productive Scrum teams are so yesterday. Turbo-charged swarm teams are the wave of the future!


I found it strangely interesting that not one of my 30 (30 X $2K = 60K) classmates failed the course. But hey, we’re now ready and willing to swarm our way to success. There’s no stoppin’ us.


Flat, Independent, Hierarchical, Inter-Dependent

August 17, 2015 Leave a comment

Flat And Independent

Assume that company ABC develops products for customers in domain XYZ as follows:


To remove the “development process” variable from further consideration in this post (because, thanks to consultants, it seems like everybody and their brother thinks process (traditional, Scrum, XP, LeSS, SAFE, Lean, etc.) is the maker or breaker of success), assume that all the teams use the same development process.

As the figure implies, each product is tailor-made for each customer. Since there are no inter-team dependencies and there is no hierarchy in the organizational structure, each team is an island unto itself and fully responsible for its own success or failure.

The tradeoff for this team independence is that the cost of development for company ABC may be higher than alternative strategies due to the duplication of work inherent in this Flat And Independent (FAIN) approach. For example, the above figure shows that components A and B are developed from scratch 3 times and component 2 is developed twice. What a waste of resources, no? However, assuming that components A and B only need to be developed once and reused across the board requires that component A is identical for all customers and component C is identical for customers 2 and 3. However, even though the products are targeted for the same domain this may not be true. The amount of overlapping functionality for a given component is dependent on the amount of overlap between the customer requirements applicable to that component:


If there is zero requirements overlap, or the amount of overlap is so small that it’s too expensive to gauge, then financing three separate component development efforts is more economically viable and schedule-friendly than trying to ferret out all overlaps and embracing the alternative, Hierarchical And Inter-Dependent (HAID) strategy…..

Hierarchical And Inter-Dependent

Now, assume that company DEF also develops products for customers in domain XYZ, but the org employs the HAID strategy as follows:


In this specific instantiation of the HAID (aka product line) approach:

  • Core asset component B is developed once and reused three times
  • Core asset components A and C are developed once and reused twice

Beside the obvious downside of core asset components D, E, and F being developed but not reused at all (violating YAGNI in this specific case when it actually applies), there is a less obvious but insidious inefficiency in the two layer hierarchical structure: the product teams are dependent on, and thus, at the mercy of the core assets team. The cost and schedule inefficiencies introduced by this hierarchical dependency can make the HAID approach less economically viable than the traditional, seemingly wasteful, FAIN approach. But wait! It’s worse than that. If you’ve been immersed in the HAID way of life for too long, like a fish in water that has no concept of what the hell water is, you may not even know that you’d be better off if you initially chose, or currently revert to, the FAIN strategy.


Inappropriate application of, or poor execution of, the HAID approach to product development reminds me of the classic framework dilemma in software development. You know the feeling. It’s when you break out into a cold sweat after you choose a development framework (or development process!) and you suddenly realize that you’ve handcuffed yourself into submission after it’s too late to reverse the decision. D’oh!

I guess the moral of this story is nothing new: “just because you changed strategies to become more effective doesn’t make it so.” Well, maybe there is no moral, but I had to end this post some-freakin’-how.

You, Thoughts, Behaviors, And The Environment

August 5, 2015 5 comments
Categories: technical Tags: ,

Is It Safe?

Remember this classic torture scene in “Marathon Man“? D’oh! Is It Safe Now, suppose you had to create the representation of a message that simply aggregates several numerical measures into one data structure:

safe unsafe

Given no information other than the fact that some numerical computations must be performed on each individual target track attribute within your code, which implementation would you choose for your internal processing? The binary, type-safe, candidate, or the text, type-unsafe, option? If you chose the type-unsafe option, then you’d impose a performance penalty on your code every time you needed to perform a computation on your tracks. You’d have to deserialize and extract the individual track attribute(s) before implementing the computations:


If your application is required to send/receive track messages over a “wire” between processing nodes, then you’d need to choose some sort of serialization/deserialization protocol along with an over-the-wire message format. Even if you were to choose a text format (JSON, XML) for the wire, be sure to deserialize the input as soon as possible and serialize on output as late as possible. Otherwise you’ll impose an unnecessary performance hit on your code every time you have to numerically manipulate the fields in your message.


More generally….


The Big Ones


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 589 other followers

%d bloggers like this: