Ever since I read through the part of Ready Player One where the
movie 'War Games' appears I've been thinking that we should watch it in
class one day instead of the other media that we usually do watch
(Silicon Valley). I even mentioned it to some of my classmates out loud.
I know that watching it was probably planned in the course all along (I
believ that it's in the nature of our professor to have things planned
like that all along) but a tiny part of me still likes to believe that
he overheard me saying it in class and thought 'you know what? yeah we
should watch War Games one of these days' and so he mercifully got it
and played it for us.
Anyway, I really enjoyed the
movie. Even though our professor warned us that the movie was old and
that it showed a lot I don't quite believe it did. Not enough for that
warning. Where it did, it didn't bother me at all. I think that when a
movie is good like that my brain just accepts the universe it presents
to me without questioning it. Another influential factor is (I think)
that our professor was there in the setting that the movie presents, and
I think he can remember and/or relate to the things in the movie,
looking back. He sees and has lived the aging with the movie
(Gracefully).
One of the things that I enjoyed the most
about the movie is that despite having been around for a long time it
actually kind of touched upon the single thing that actually worries me
about computer security nowadays: with so so many super important,
mission-critical or classified or life dependant information and
procesess being hosted or automated with computers and the internet, I sometimes
consider the possibility of two or more powerful groups (not nations
necessarily) getting into conflict or crysis because of something that
happended in the computer-data or internet social media world. Just like
the characters in the movie, it's a scenario that I wouldn't like to
live through.
Sunday, February 24, 2019
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Software Craftsmanship
I liked this episode of SWE Radio. Uncle Bob Martin is an interesting guy to listen to, and I think that the host of the show makes a good job as an interviewer, extracting the fundamental opinions that Bob has on a lot of issues. Martin esentially presents a very interesting take on the process of creating software. He says we should craft software.
Martin presents and defends.. what I guess you would call a movement called Software Craftsmanship (I know, it's kind of bad that the name tries to appeal to a relatively young industry and yet it excludes an entire gender). He explains that basically, ever since agile came about, the software industry lost an important focus on software quality. That it is overly concerned with agile processes and meeting business goals. He believes this is wrong, in the sense that the situation is contradictory: software quality helps meet business goals in the long term.
To solve this issue, he says, the software industry should be composed mainly of software 'craftspeople' (he actually says 'craftsmen' /: ). A community of professionals, something that sounds like a guild (he references the law industry and the medical industry), that craft products and should be proud of how they do it.
Even though I think that this is a good idea, I also believe that our software industry is so so varied that it would be hard for everyone involved to follow this movement closely. Especially for the industry at the smaller and smallest scales, this whole movement gives me a feeling that the discipline and effort involved are just too much work for the scale. Just like with doctors or lawyers or even carmakers, I can see this working very well at higher levels, at bigger scales (In fact, in my experience, a culture like this is expected from a programmer at the largest scales). It sounds like a top-down solution that leaves out the bottom tiers. Maybe I'd like to hear about something that is more bottom-up.
Martin presents and defends.. what I guess you would call a movement called Software Craftsmanship (I know, it's kind of bad that the name tries to appeal to a relatively young industry and yet it excludes an entire gender). He explains that basically, ever since agile came about, the software industry lost an important focus on software quality. That it is overly concerned with agile processes and meeting business goals. He believes this is wrong, in the sense that the situation is contradictory: software quality helps meet business goals in the long term.
To solve this issue, he says, the software industry should be composed mainly of software 'craftspeople' (he actually says 'craftsmen' /: ). A community of professionals, something that sounds like a guild (he references the law industry and the medical industry), that craft products and should be proud of how they do it.
Even though I think that this is a good idea, I also believe that our software industry is so so varied that it would be hard for everyone involved to follow this movement closely. Especially for the industry at the smaller and smallest scales, this whole movement gives me a feeling that the discipline and effort involved are just too much work for the scale. Just like with doctors or lawyers or even carmakers, I can see this working very well at higher levels, at bigger scales (In fact, in my experience, a culture like this is expected from a programmer at the largest scales). It sounds like a top-down solution that leaves out the bottom tiers. Maybe I'd like to hear about something that is more bottom-up.
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Is Design Dead?
These past articles have left me with a strange feeling of.. something that is similar to boredom. Not in a bad or offensive sense, just something... aniclimactic. I end up feeling like these people are too surprised, or overly excited, or worried about the things they are talking about. It is a strange thing to experience. But this was the article that finally allowed me to understand why I was having those feelings. I looked at the dates. I finally laid my eyes on the dates when these materials were written.
This piece of writing in particular (Is design dead?) was written for a conference that was held in the year 2000. That was nearly two decades ago (damn we are old!). So now I understand that when these people talk abou this as if it was just discovered the day before or as if it was beamed down from an alien spaceship is because it was! (not the alien part).
These authors were just learning and gathering experience with new ways of doing the things that they had been doing (probably) for years. They were indeed concerned with what it all meant and how the future was going to be for the industry they knew.
Today, even as rookies, most of us are familiar with iteration and evolution. We came about when these ideas were already out there and being used to produce software at the largest of scales. When Fowler says "no, design is not dead" it is obvious to me now, when I'm conscious that even when you build projects in iterations and evolutions you are always making little design choices, always desigining, even if at the tiniest of levels. But now I understand why it wasn't obvious to him. Why it wasn't obvious to them. Back then.
This piece of writing in particular (Is design dead?) was written for a conference that was held in the year 2000. That was nearly two decades ago (damn we are old!). So now I understand that when these people talk abou this as if it was just discovered the day before or as if it was beamed down from an alien spaceship is because it was! (not the alien part).
These authors were just learning and gathering experience with new ways of doing the things that they had been doing (probably) for years. They were indeed concerned with what it all meant and how the future was going to be for the industry they knew.
Today, even as rookies, most of us are familiar with iteration and evolution. We came about when these ideas were already out there and being used to produce software at the largest of scales. When Fowler says "no, design is not dead" it is obvious to me now, when I'm conscious that even when you build projects in iterations and evolutions you are always making little design choices, always desigining, even if at the tiniest of levels. But now I understand why it wasn't obvious to him. Why it wasn't obvious to them. Back then.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
Who needs an architect?
It seems to me that this dude (Martin Fowler) was (at least at the time of writing this piece) as confused as I am about sofrware architecture. He is inconclusive (to say the least) about software architecture itself. He does make some subtle and interesting points (most of which I agree with) about the process, art or act of making software but I really disliked how he had to ramble on and on about the search for the 'true definition' of software architecture when it appears to me that his article is not about that perse. I'd be grateful if he could just state his points plainly and just make his thought-train-discovery process and discussions (the rambling about the definition of architecture) available to the reader if he/she desires it. I'm not reading his stuff for entertainment.
His entire article could be summarized in the following: "There is no one definition of 'software architecture' because it is a very subjective concept because building software is not limited or bounded by anything physical, but only by the minds and intelligence of the people doing it." I agree with that. I didn't need the rest.
In my eye design has a very simple definition: You are going to produce an object. A thing. That thing has to meet/have a very peculiar set of goals and requirements. If you create your object in such a way that does, you've made a good design. Otherwise, you haven't.
That is my personal definition, the one that I go with in my life. It is very general. Anything beyond that would be a bit too specific for me to try to apply it generally like I do with the one I mentoned. This is why the authors piece on the search for a specific and yet generally appliable definition of what he calls 'architecture' is very unenjoyable to me.
His entire article could be summarized in the following: "There is no one definition of 'software architecture' because it is a very subjective concept because building software is not limited or bounded by anything physical, but only by the minds and intelligence of the people doing it." I agree with that. I didn't need the rest.
In my eye design has a very simple definition: You are going to produce an object. A thing. That thing has to meet/have a very peculiar set of goals and requirements. If you create your object in such a way that does, you've made a good design. Otherwise, you haven't.
That is my personal definition, the one that I go with in my life. It is very general. Anything beyond that would be a bit too specific for me to try to apply it generally like I do with the one I mentoned. This is why the authors piece on the search for a specific and yet generally appliable definition of what he calls 'architecture' is very unenjoyable to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)