|XP is just a number
Winning people over to better development practisesby simon.proctor (Vicar)
|on Mar 13, 2006 at 17:21 UTC
I've decided to make one last ditch attempt at getting co-workers to apply better practises to work. To date, I'm the only one to write test suites and do any form of defensive programming. I've tried to win people over to better styles through informal conversations but most have confessed that they don't see the point to it all.
However, I have finally managed (after years!) managed to get a weekly development meeting going with agendas etc. So I'd like to give it another shot. I'm aiming to do a mini presentation on the whole thing. To help with that I figured it would be useful to have a general script that I can print and give out (for people to read later). I'd take this longer prose and summarise it into key bullet points and hopefully encourage people to read the fuller thing (or failing that give me a script to work to). I also want to produce a simple project that starts as a ball of mud and has tests and defensive programming applied.
I've got a wordy first draft which is heavily stolen from books and sites such as refactoring.com and code complete. I'm not bothered about that too much but I would appreciate feedback on what to add and how to construct the demo app. Also, if anyone has done anything like this before and has tips to share - I'd be grateful!
I'll just re-iterate though - this is a wordy first draft!
Design, Implementation and Refactoring
Design is considered a 'wicked problem'. In many cases, to produce a design the problem is solved twice. To produce the design, the problem is solved (even if only in part) and then solved again to prove that the solution works. In fact, it may be that only once the problem is solved that side problems emerge. Their existance proving to be unknown until the original problem had been worked on.
Whatever the process, a design is produced via a combination of heuristic judgements, best guesses and assumptions. Many mistakes are made in the process of the design because of this. In fact, a good solution and a sloppy one may differ only in one or two key decisions or perhaps choosing the right tradeoffs.
Because this, good designs evolve through meetings, discussions and experience. In some cases, they also improve through partial implementation (hence the 'wicked problem' moniker).
A design, to stand a chance of working, should also restrict possibilities. Because time and resources are not infinite the goal of the design should be to simplify the problem into an acceptable form for implementation. Not all processes for this are the same. Each new problem introduces an entirely new set of variables. Failure to recognise this can result in the wrong technique, tool or process being applied.
The success of the implementation can be measured in different ways. Glibly, it can be measured as 'it does what we want' and is then left to rot until the next problem occurs. Many projects associated with problems fail due to poor management, requirements (etc) but equally many (especially software projects) fail due to complexity.
Managing complexity is a key factor in ensuring success. If a solution is too complex (either by design or evolution) then it becomes increasingly impossible to maintain. This is a major source of cost and resource overhead.
Complexity can arise in these simple cases (say):
Characteristics of a good design:
It is often the case that the first implementation (or even the first few of many) are not easily maintainable, simple or reusable. Rather than stay stuck in the design process, it can and is more advantageous to take a pragmatic approach. As stated, it can be impossible to completely solve a problem satisfactorily without first solving it.
Here, the best approach is to attempt to make the best decisions possible at the time. Then, re-examine the problem and solution for signs of a good and/or bad design. With the experience of the implementation, improvements can be easier to spot and mistakes easier to find. This process is called refactoring. Refactoring can include shifting to patterns or between patterns where applicable, removing now uneeded functionality or reducing complexity.
By refactoring, we examine what we thought we knew, what we tried and what actually happened and try to make it
While implementing, analysing and refactoring a solution to a problem, it is important to be able to prove your solution works as promised. Critically, it is also important to be able to proce what happens to your solution when things don't go to plan. Understanding your corner cases, the limits of your inputs and outputs will test your assumptions. It will also provide for planning for and mitigating unforseen circumstances (at least as much as possible).
In software design, software testing is used to provide this metric. By tieing the development of tests directly to the implementation of the software solution, the solution is built in parallel to the tests that prove the solution works. Aside to the benefits above, this testing also provides
In producing your implementation, it is also important to code defensively. Rather than assume that resources are available (say) you test your assumptions are true before working with them. By doing so, you produce a simple first candidate area for your software tests. If you are working with a resource and it 'goes away' you can produce a test that re-enacts this scenario. Once this test is written, you work with your code until all the problems are fixed, handled appropriately or are documented. In this simple process of defensive programming coupled with testing, the reliability of the solution should dramatically increase.
Testing can also form part of the installation process. Deployment of the solution needs proof that it is installed and operating correctly. As a suite of tests and benchmarks have already been produced, what better method of proving the deployemnt is ready for acceptance testing?