Archive

Archive for January, 2007

Design patterns: signs of languages' weaknesses?

January 31st, 2007 8 comments

A nice post by Mark Dominus about design patterns. I include the post here in case the link is modified. You should also read the response by Ralph Johnson and Mark’s follow-up. Read more…

Flexible Software Development (aka FlexDev)

January 30th, 2007 Comments off

Lidor Wyssocky wrote a post about the way process should be grown out of project needs and he calls that Flexible Software Development (or FlexDev). He basically argues that people should not be bought into any kind of development processes (e.g. RUP, XP, Scrum) or practices (e.g. TDD, pair programming), instead they should just work out a process of their own during the development life-cycle, depending on the project needs. This can be summarized by the following statement of Lidor Read more…

Book Review #1: Behind Closed Doors

January 23rd, 2007 Comments off

Behind closed doors – Secrets of great management, by Johanna Rothman and Esther Derby, walks the readers through a story of a mid-level manager, Sam, who turns a group of “disconnected” people into a single jelled team who works together to achieve the organization goals. Read more…

Test first or not test first, that is NOT the question

January 23rd, 2007 12 comments

TDD (Test Driven Development) is becoming more and more popular because it helps Read more…

Categories: OOAD, software engineering Tags: ,

Checked Exception

January 21st, 2007 2 comments

Whether checked exception is good or bad is such a big debate which is currently still not agreed upon. Do a google with the keywords “checked exception”, you’ll see a bunch of stuffs to read. I’ll do a quick summary on the key things which are usually used as arguments by the folks on the net Read more…

Technology Standardization

January 16th, 2007 Comments off

Two excellent articles discussing about the failure of CORBA due to the inadequate standardization process of the OMG, and the fact that WS-* standardization process does not completely learn much from that failure: The Rise and Fall of CORBA and WS-NonexistentStandards. I am not an expert in CORBA or WS to say whether the authors are totally reasonable, but at least I think their points should be considered highly by any standardization party. And although I have no mercy for CORBA, I would be regret if WS will die the same death someday. WS is supposed to be simple, so be it.

Two interesting posts on agile

January 12th, 2007 Comments off

Fed up with the agile hypes and want to hear from both sides of agile development? Have a look at Steve Yegge’s rants. You can also follow up with an excellent post by Jonathan Kohl about agile which I totally agree about. The best process has no name, no “must have” or “must remove” practices, is documented carefully in no book, consists of whatever works and makes sense in the specific context of the project. Methodologists and researchers may and should describe or propose principles and practices but not the processes themselves, which must be the work of the development teams.

The Senior X-Language Developer

January 12th, 2007 4 comments

Lately, I’ve seen some job posts in the local newspapers which seek for senior .NET developers and senior Java developer who have at least 4 years of experience in .NET/Java, and feel a little bit dissatisfied with them. Read more…

Tech CVs lie!!!

January 11th, 2007 6 comments

Imran wrote that people often cheat in their CVs by enumerating things that they don’t really know about. He also suggests basic sets of knowledge, each for a specific skill/tech (e.g. Java, design patterns etc.), that a person needs to possess before claiming the skill/tech in the CV. I generally agree with his observation about the fact that many developers exagerate about their competences in their CVs. Read more…

Categories: Management Tags: ,

.NET 3.0

January 10th, 2007 1 comment

MS has decided to incorporate WinFX’s technologies (WPF, WCF, WF, WCS) into the current .NET Framework 2.0 so that they altogether make up .NET Framework 3.0. In other words, the compilers (C#, VB.NET etc.) and the CRL are still 2.0, and there’s no LINQ yet (which will be shipped as part of VS.NET Orcas and .NET 3.5). Whether to like this naming scheme or not is a matter of personal taste. Personally, I like the fact that .NET Framework 3.0 is used as an “umbrella” for WinFX because it makes a lot of sense for technologies like WPF and WCF to be part of the framework, instead of being part of a separate download, given that those technologies will likely to be very popular tools for .NET developers (just like WinForms and ASP.NET currently are).

On the other hand, although this plan generates the mismatch between the framework version and the language/compiler version, I don’t see it a big problem because this will eventually happen, if not now because changes to the language need not to be dependent on changes to the supporting platform (e.g. class libraries)

See more at: http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx and http://blogs.msdn.com/kaevans/archive/2006/06/11/626299.aspx

Categories: .NET, Technologies Tags: