Tudor Girba unpacks the statement “developers spend most of their time figuring the system out.”

…reading is just the means through which information is gathered from data. It also happens to be the most manual possible way to do that, so this lends itself to an important opportunity for optimization.

Before you can do something significant about anything, you have to name it. Otherwise it’s like with Voldemort. Many winters ago, I called the effort of “figuring the system out to know what to do next” assessment. And I claimed we should optimize development around it. For a whole decade my colleagues and I explored this idea. And it led us to what we now call moldable development.

In this episode we talk about various types of writing and how we as Go developers can learn from them. Whether it is planning and preparing to write, communicating with team members, or making our code clearer for future developers to read through style guides.

Jonas Lundberg:

We all do it. Up to many times a day and yet it’s rare that I meet someone that has given it a second thought. No, it’s not secretly snacking chocolate from your top office drawer.

It’s how you write and structure your commits. Possibly while snacking chocolate.

What follows is a piece marrying atomic commits (as in small commits with one focus) with Donald Knuth’s literate programming. It ends with some research on whether or not this practice commonplace on the 100 most popular GitHub repos.

“Naming things is hard.” So say we all.

I talk often about the importance of a good name, and the relative difficulty of landing on that good name. If you find yourself particularly challenged by this process, then you definitely want to check out this naming cheat sheet.

Alabe Duarte shares his personal exposure with TDD over the years. This includes:

1. why he believes TDD is important
2. the subjectiveness of “good design”
3. when doing TDD doesn’t help

Joel Goldberg recently retired after working in the software industry for over four decades. When he left he shared with our team some of the lessons he learned over his career. With his permission, we reshare his wisdom here.

1. Beware of the Curse of Knowledge
2. Focus on the Fundamentals
3. Simplicity
4. Seek First to Understand
5. Beware of Lock-In
6. Be Honest and Acknowledge When You Don’t Fit the Role

45 years of experience boiled down to just a half dozen insights. Staggering and insightful at the same time.

I really appreciate the perspective Jeff shares in this post on what we know of as personal computing and making tools that improve our lives.

Do you remember when computers were fun to explore? Perhaps you’ve always thought computers were fun to explore, but there was a time before the Internet at the dawn of personal computing when people were excited at the potential of computers. Surely, they’ve probably exceeded most of our expectations today, but at the same time … it’s different. Did we get what we hoped for? Do we still get hope from computers now?

Brandon Smith has hit on a nice credo for code authoring, which he’s “stolen” from Michael Pollan’s advice on food: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

Code, like food, has value. I think those of us who write it can (hopefully) agree on that. Some, though, are so afraid of writing/eating too much that they avoid writing/eating what they should.

In the context of programming, I think this translates to an unhealthy fear (again, for some) of duplication. A little bit of duplication - writing something in a way that doesn’t completely maximize conciseness - isn’t the end of the world. Sometimes it’s the best path forward. Sometimes it’s okay to copy-and-modify here and there, especially when you’re still figuring out what your application will end up being.

Mikel Evins on REPL-driven programming:

Interactive development with a proper repl-driven environment is the exception. Most programming is done in other ways.

As a consequence, there are a lot of programmers out there who’ve never even heard of it, who have no idea that it exists. My intuition is that some fraction of those programmers would prefer well-supported interactive programming, and would benefit from it, if they just knew what it was.

Maybe if enough programmers are exposed to that style of programming then we’ll begin to see new tools that embrace it.

Michael Lynch lays out 13 techniques you can employ to make your code reviewer fall in love with you, all guided by the golden rule: value your reviewer’s time

Ben Kuhn:

Over time, by consistently exploring the guts of anything I’m working with that seems magical, I’ve built up a broad base of knowledge about how various technical systems work. This helps me in tons of different ways. It makes it easier to track down tricky bugs across many layers of the stack. I can learn new languages and libraries quickly by pattern-matching them to what I already know. It gives me better ideas for software designs, by imitating other systems I’ve seen, or by reusing ideas or tools I’ve heard of in a different context. Maybe most importantly, it gives me the confidence that, if I run into a tricky problem, I can learn enough to solve it, instead of feeling like I’m at the mercy of a system too complex to hope to understand.

This is an excellent piece arguing why you should invest in deeply learning things you already know instead of something new and/or shiny.

It’s not shiny or esoteric, but for me, building a detailed mental model of those (and how they compare to alternatives) might be the learning that’s contributed most to my effectiveness as an engineer.

These mundane, highly-specific things are termed “blubs” for reasons you’ll find out in the piece.

A conceptual explanation of two ways to implement a linked list and why Linus Torvalds believes one implementation has good taste:

[…] I don’t want you to understand why it doesn’t have the if statement. But I want you to understand that sometimes you can see a problem in a different way and rewrite it so that a special case goes away and becomes the normal case, and that’s good code

I haven’t considered linked list particulars for a long time (no job interviews lately, I guess 😜), but I found this explanation clear and illuminating. Maybe you will too.

As both a researcher and a programmer, switching between word processors, programming environments and file explorers was a pain. In this blog post, I show how I streamlined this process to where I never have to leave my terminal to write papers in LaTeX and Markdown, run code snippets directly from my scripts to a REPL, and save sessions and layouts so in just a few clicks.

Devon C. Estes:

It’s fairly common for folks who haven’t used mutation testing before to not immediately see the value in the practice. Mutation testing is, after all, still a fairly niche and under-used tool in the average software development team’s toolbox. So today I’m going to show a few specific types of very common problems that mutation testing is great at finding for us, and that are hard or impossible to find with other methods

He goes on to detail the “multiple execution paths on a single line” problem, the “untested side effect” problem, and the “missing pin” problem.

Chris Wellons:

Machine learning is a trendy topic, so naturally it’s often used for inappropriate purposes where a simpler, more efficient, and more reliable solution suffices. The other day I saw an illustrative and fun example of this: Neural Network Cars and Genetic Algorithms. The video demonstrates 2D cars driven by a neural network with weights determined by a generic algorithm. However, the entire scheme can be replaced by a first-degree polynomial without any loss in capability. The machine learning part is overkill.

Yet another example of a meta-trend in software: You might not need $X (where $X is a popular tool or technique that is on the upward side of the hype cycle).

From Microsoft’s TypeScript wiki on GitHub:

There are easy ways to configure TypeScript to ensure faster compilations and editing experiences. The earlier on these practices are adopted, the better. Beyond best-practices, there are some common techniques for investigating slow compilations/editing experiences, some common fixes, and some common ways of helping the TypeScript team investigate the issues as a last resort.

Securing containers is a complex task. The problem space is broad, vendors are on fire, there are tons of checklists and best practices and it’s hard to prioritize solutions. So if you had to implement a container security strategy from where would you start?

Database (de)normalization is a tricky topic. Just because you can store some of your data in Postgres’ JSON data type, that doesn’t mean you should. But how do you decide? That’s what I asked Craig Kersteins on The Changelog a few weeks back. His answer was insightful, to say the least.

Ron Perris from Snyk this checklist of React security best practices to help you and your team find and fix security issues in your React applications. I’ll show you how to automatically test your React code for security-related errors and automatically fix them.

We’re joined by George Neville-Neil, aka Kode Vicious. Writing as Kode Vicious for ACMs Queue magazine, George Neville-Neil has spent the last 15+ years sharing incisive advice and fierce insights for everyone who codes, works with code, or works with coders. These columns have been among the most popular items published in ACMs Queue magazine and it was only a matter of time for a book to emerge from his work. His book, The Kollected Kode Vicious, is a compilation of the most popular items he’s published over the years, plus a few extras you can only find in the book. We cover all the details in this episode.

Henrik Nyh has a seriously simple system for removing code that ensures he doesn’t miss anything.

This is one of those things that seems obvious when you do it, but in my experience, many people do it haphazardly.

Daniel Stenberg:

Every now and then I get questions on how to work with git in a smooth way when developing, bug-fixing or extending curl – or how I do it. After all, I work on open source full time which means I have very frequent interactions with git (and GitHub). Simply put, I work with git all day long. Ordinary days, I issue git commands several hundred times.

I have a very simple approach and way of working with git in curl. This is how it works.

At a previous employer I had a boss who I thought was pretty tough. Not to me, but our users. No matter the request his response was always the same, “No.” Eventually, we implemented around 40% of the requests, but the constant rejection of these requests stuck with me. Now that I lead a team I notice myself using the same mindset. “No” isn’t negative, and it’s not dismissive. “No” is a way of protecting the team, the project, and the users.

Knowing the architecture of an application is like passively knowing a foreign language. When you speak it - it’s awkward. Here’s how you go from passively to actively owning a code-base.

I’ve been in the industry for a while and experienced a lot of the “no-code problems” that affect us, programmers. I’m talking about impostor syndrome, comparing yourself to others, that kind of stuff.

I decided to write (and promote!) this article as a way to share my experience with beginners and help them deal with that kind of stuff.