C. Keith Ray

C. Keith Ray is developing software for Sizeography and Upstart Technology. He writes code for multiple platforms and languages, including iOS® and Macintosh®.
Go to Sizeography and Upstart Technology to join our mailing lists and see more about our products. Keith's Résumé (pdf)

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Agile Writing


(Originally posted 2003.Apr.07 Mon; links may have expired.)

A writing collaboration is taking place in the Agile Modeling mailing list. Scott Ambler posted a draft of a paper he's writing, about the rights and responsibilities of stakeholders and developers.

Scott: So, I'd appreciate any feedback that you might have. Thanks in advance.

Ron Jeffries: Here it is. It was wise to thank me in advance, because in a few minutes you may no longer feel that way.

Anne & Larry Brunelle's idea of no longer separating developers from the other stakeholders has resulted in a new paradigm. Ron's combined-rights draft has phrases like:



  • You have the right and responsibility to show and to observe progress in a running system, proven to work by repeatable tests specified by customers and programmers alike.



  • You have the right and responsibility to know what is needed, with clear declarations of priority. You have the right and responsibility to contribute as much as you can to determining needs and priorities.



  • You have the right and responsibility to ask for and receive help from everyone on the project, peers, superiors, subordinates, programmers, or customers. You have the responsibility to give help when it is asked for.


  • Keith Ray is developing new applications for iOS® and Macintosh®.. Go to Sizeography and Upstart Technology to join our mailing lists and see more about our products.

    Tuesday, October 29, 2013

    Incremental Requirements

    (Originally posted 2003.Apr.05 Sat; links may have expired.)


    The great thing about agile projects, is that you don't have to have ALL the requirements up-front, just enough to get started. Once you see the software working (minimally), you can change your mind about the requirements that are not yet implemented or have been implemented.

    Consider a non-XP project, one that is not incrementally implementing features. If the customer decides in the middle of the project to change some requirements, the project may have to throw away lots of partially-completed code.

    In the middle of an XP project, a requirement is either implemented or not -- the only time a requirement may be partially implemented is during the two-week iteration it was schedule for. Any requirements that haven't been implemented yet can be changed at zero cost. A change for requirements that have already been implemented is essentially the same as adding a new requirement -- it will cost something to be re-implement, and an equivalent amount of other non-implemented requirements should be dropped to keep the project on schedule.

    Developers are the genie in the magic lamp - delivering any features that the customer wishes - so long as the customer is willing to pay the price (time and money). With this power comes rights and responsibilities.

    In Extreme Programming, rights and responsibilities are divided between "business" and "developers". The "business" side has the business analysts, the QA testers, domain experts, users, stakeholders, and so on. All wrapped up in the single word "Customer". They are all involved in defining, specifying, and creating tests for the requirements. If you have business analysts in your team, it is the job of business analysts to help the stakeholder come up with requirements.

    The "developer" side has the programmers, DBA, and so on. They translate requirements into code, databases, web servers, and so on. User interface experts may be either side, depending on whether they do programming as well as user interface design.

    The business side is responsible for the requirements, the wishes they make of the genie, because they are responsible for running their business. To avoid this responsibility is to let the developers run your business. Unless the business is making tools for other software developers, it's unlikely that the developers have the expertise to satisfy your customers and make a profit.

    The responsibilities of the two sides are clearly divided to reduce risks: if the business guys (who are not programmers) start telling the developers how to do programming, they risk technical failure. If the programmers tell the business guys what features should be implemented, there is a risk that project will not meet business needs.

    When talking about what to ask the genie in the magic lamp, I've never seen anyone with a lack of ideas. They may not know HOW to get what they want, but they always know enough of what they want to start a conversation. Like the following:


  • "Wouldn't it be great if we could do x?"
  • "Could you make it so that y happens when I do z?"
  • "I want this..." (drawing on whiteboard).
  • "Our customers are doing this manually, and we want to sell them software that does it for them."
  • "This is what I do all day, I want it simpler and faster."
  • "Our competitor has product x with feature y, we need something like that."

  • In XP a requirement is expressed as one or more stories. I've heard that one UML Use Case, RUP style, can translate into 40 XP stories, of which 20 stories could be optional. An XP story is a promise for future conversation about the details of that requirement. You don't have to think them up all at once, you don't have to have all the details up-front, you don't have to write up a thick document. You do talk with the developers, other stakeholders, and business analysts if you have them.

    Recommended reading:

    Exploring Requirements: Quality Before Design by Gause and Weinberg

    Planning Extreme Programming by Beck and Fowler



    Keith Ray is developing new applications for iOS® and Macintosh®.. Go to Sizeography and Upstart Technology to join our mailing lists and see more about our products.

    Thursday, October 24, 2013

    Leadership is not Herding


    (Originally posted 2003.Apr.04 Fri; links may have expired.)

    I don't like hearing people refer to managing programmers as "herding cats". Probably because I am a programmer and I have cats (for a short time, living in a really nice house in a suburb in Texas, my wife and I had five cats).

    It is easy to lead cats... in fact, when I'm trying to take a picture of one, it's hard to keep him from following me around. Trying to make cats go somewhere, without leading them, can be very hard, if you don't consider what motivates them.

    So when I hear someone comparing programmer management as "herding cats", it makes me think that they're trying to make them go somewhere, not leading them.

    A particularly good book on project leadership is Powerful Project Leadership by Wayne Strider. (Order direct or via amazon). It's good enough that I just bought a second copy for lending to others. This book's first lessons in leadership are to help you become aware about yourself, others, and your shared context. In fact, the book is divided into three divisions: leading yourself, leading others, shaping your project's context.

    Check out a sample of Wayne's writing here: Leading Projects in Stressful and Chaotic Situations.



    Keith Ray is developing new applications for iOS® and Macintosh®.. Go to Sizeography and Upstart Technology to join our mailing lists and see more about our products.

    Tuesday, October 22, 2013

    Summary of today's news from Apple


    New versions of iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, Pages, Keynote, Numbers, are free with new hardware. Also new collaborative remote "cloud" editing in some (or all?) of these apps.

    "If you’ve recently purchased a Mac that did not include the latest versions of Pages, Numbers, and Keynote, you may be eligible to download these apps for free."

    New MacBookPro with Retina displays

    • 2560 x 1600 pixels 13-inch $1299 
    • 2880 x 1800 pixels 15-inch $1999
    • 2.4 GHz dual core processors up to 2.3 GHz quad core processors
    • 4 GB RAM up to 16 GB RAM

    "flash" storage (solid-state pseudo hard disk) 128 GB, 256 GB, 512 GB
    says "configurable" to 512 GB or 1 TB "flash storage" (3rd party upgrades?)

    Non-Retina ipads (large and mini) = 1024 x 768 pixels
    iPad retina (large size and mini size) = 2048 x 1536 pixels

    Original iPad mini

    • 7.9-inch display, 32-bit cpu
    • original iPad mini with wifi at $299,
    • original iPad mini with cellular-data & wifi at $429,

    iPad mini Retina

    • 7.9-inch display, 64-bit cpu, 
    • iPad mini Retina at $399 with wifi,
    • iPad mini Retina at $399 with cellular-data & wifi $529,
    • iPad mini Retina memory available: 16 GB, 32 GB, 64 GB, 128 GB
    • maxed out 128 GB cell + wifi = $829

    Original iPad 2

    • 9.7-inch display, 32-bit cpu.
    • oiginal iPad 2 with wifi $399,
    • iPad 2 with cellular-data & wifi $529 (this is maxed-out model.)
    • iPad 2 memory available: ONLY 16 GB 

    iPad Air

    • 9.7-inch display, 64-bit cpu.
    • iPad Air has Retina display weights one pound, smaller bezel, 64-bit processor, faster wifi.
    • iPad Air with wifi at $499
    • iPad Air with cellular-data & wifi at $629
    • iPad Air memory available: 16 GB, 32 GB, 64 GB, 128 GB.
    • maxed-out 128 MB cell + wifi iPad Air = $929


    Training? We don't need no stinking training!

    (Originally posted 2003.Apr.03 Thu)


    A manager told me the other day that his annual budget for training was $800. For him and the four or five people under him.

    With most classes and conferences costing over $1200, there's no way that he or anyone working for him will get ANY training this year.

    What's up with that?


    Keith Ray is developing new applications for iOS® and Macintosh®.. Go to Sizeography and Upstart Technology to join our mailing lists and see more about our products.

    Thursday, October 17, 2013

    Reuse and Modularity

    (Originally posted 2003.Apr.02 Wed; links may have expired.)


    TWELVE|71 wrote a bit about reuse and modularity. "Modularity is the idea of having a tire that can be swapped on and off without affecting the car. Reuse is the idea that we can take a tire from an old car and use it without thought on a new car."

    Off the top of my head, I think software reuse projects often fail because (1) the needs of all the client projects are not considered when making the 'reusable' module, (2) the module is not documented well enough, (3) people on the client projects are motivated to not reuse modules, perhaps because they are rewarded for hours worked or lines of code written (or some other counter-productive measure), or (4) they are under time pressure, and don't have time to rewrite their app to use a module that they seem to be able to do without.

    Take the reverse approach. Instead of creating a module and telling projects to use it, create a small "Extreme Reuse" team: one to four people who join projects to (1) help them get things done (2) look for code that could be extracted for use by other teams (3) refactor project code to create and reuse shared parts. The Extreme Reuse team needs to join several projects before extracting code from any of them, in order to know all of their needs. How can a few people join a team and be immediately helpful and productive? Pair programming.

    Bryan Dollery has described this and other aspects of how to reuse parts here.

    I don't know anyone trying a "Reuse Team"; please let me know if you are. My small team works on several projects. We have code common to these projects in some separate directories, and it is mostly unit-tested. (Yes, we're not 100% pure XP.) We make minor changes to this common code, and avoid breaking the clients by continuing to pass the unit tests, and by building and testing the client projects.

    Keith Ray is developing new applications for iOS® and Macintosh®.. Go to Sizeography and Upstart Technology to join our mailing lists and see more about our products.

    Tuesday, October 15, 2013

    Speaking of Objects as cooperating, independent, agents...

    (Originally posted 2003.Apr.01 Tue; links may have expired.)


    Chris Uppal, on the Dolphin Smalltalk newsgroup, writes about his "Great Leap Forward from Java to Dolphin Smalltalk." He describes the big difference...

    If you are like me, then you are currently thinking of a big difference between Smalltalk and Java being that Java stores code in files, whereas Smalltalk keeps it in the image. That's sort of true, and I'll get back to it, but, for a minute, just forget about code, it's not important (really!). What matters is objects. 
    The image is the place where the objects live. Technically, the image is a garbage-collected heap that can be saved to file, and later restored, thus saving and resuming the state of a computation. Technically that's true, but it isn't at all a helpful way to think about it. A more organic metaphor works much better. I think of the image as a deep, murky, pond where objects move around in the depths like fish. It's an important part of the metaphor that the objects are independent of me. Even if I designed and wrote the classes, once an object has been created it has an independent existence. I can talk to it, I can ask it to perform operations, but it is separate from me. In a sense it is "my" object, but it is only "mine" in the same way that a pet, or a rose bush, or a table, could be "mine".
    The image is where the objects live. Not the code, the objects. We'll get back to the code in due course, but not yet. The Smalltalk environment is just a place where you can talk to objects; no more, no less. Oh, sure its got class browsers, debuggers, editors, etc, but that's all tinsel. What matters is that it is a place where you can interact with the objects.
    I'll get back to the "tinsel" later too, but for now, I want to talk about the one part of the environment that isn't just a productivity aid: the workspaces. Workspaces are the medium through which you talk to objects. You can describe workspaces as "containing snippets of code" which you execute, but IMO that's exactly the wrong way to think of it. A better picture (slightly tongue-in-cheek) is as a kind of singles bar, where you can meet objects, talk to them, check them out, get to know them. Each workspace has a number of objects that are (temporarily) living there; they are the values of the variables in the workspace. In most cases they'll die when you close the workspace, but until you do they'll survive and you can talk to them. I keep some workspaces hanging around for days if they contain objects that are important for what I'm doing. The way you "talk" is by sending messages written in the Smalltalk programming language, but that's almost incidental. The important thing is that you are communicating with them using an interactive text-based medium, like using an IRC [chat] channel. [...]
    Another way of interacting with objects is to use the Inspector(s). They give you a much more nuts-and-bolts, low-level, view of the object -- a more intimate view, if you like. I, personally, don't think that the Smalltalk world has yet woken up to what inspectors could be, but the current implementations (like "flipper" in Dolphin) do at least allow you to see inside the objects.
    I wish C++ had inspectors... but C++ throws away a lot of information when you compile the code. In the crappy debuggers that C++ programmers have to live with, we often can't view the run-time contents of an object properly and easily. The VC++ debugger for example, should be able to know that the object pointed to by a base-class pointer is actually an instance of a derived class, but it doesn't display the member variables that belong to the derived class -- just the member variables of the base class.


    An image will contain many objects, some long lived (living, perhaps, for decades), most very short lived indeed. Some will be simple or trivial, like Strings and Points. Others will have complicated internal structures, and/or complicated behaviour. But they are all objects, and they all live in the image, and you talk to them in workspaces.


    A Squeak Smalltalk image contains objects that have been "alive" since 1984 or earlier, because Squeak was derived from a Xerox/Apple implementation of Smalltalk-80. The objects in the image "sleep" when saved to disk, and awaken when restored from disk. This means that some objects in Squeak have been alive longer than some programmers have been.



    Classes are one particularly interesting kind of object. Remember I'm still not talking about code (that comes later), I'm talking about the objects called classes. Just like any other objects, you can invite them to join you in a workspace:
    [I modified the code slightly here...]


    aclass := String.  
    and then you can use the magical Smalltalk object-oriented IRC to talk to them:
    aclass name. "--> #String" aclass allSubclasses size. "--> 3"
    and so on. So classes are objects, and they live in the image.

    [...]
    Code is how we tell objects how to behave. It's text in the Smalltalk programming language. We're programmers so we care about code; when we wrote the tools for looking at objects, we naturally designed the tools so that we could also see the associated source code. For instance our special tool for looking at classes (the class hierarchy browser) allows us to see the source of the methods, to change the source and recompile, etc. That's natural for us as programmers. If we weren't programmers then we'd want different tools, and we'd be interested in talking to different objects. Such systems, built for non-programmers, are called "applications", but they are still just Smalltalk -- tools for talking to objects that live in an image. (A big difference is that the "image" of an application is typically not persistent, unlike the image of the IDE).
    Back to code. Granted that the most important thing is the objects and how they behave, we still do care about the code. We want to organise it, back it up, put it under source code control, etc. A class is an object that lives in the image, but the source code for that class is something else. For all sorts of reasons, we want to keep that outside the image. The way that Dolphin organises source-code is via Packages. A package is a collection of the source code for classes and methods (and a few other things too, which don't matter here) that is kept outside the image in one or more files. You can load the package into the image, which will create an actual Package object, and class objects corresponding to the source-code. Or you can "uninstall" the package, which really means killing the Package object and the Class objects.
    So a package is just a way of collecting related source-code together. [...] The package mechanism is relatively simple; it could be improved, but I find it adequate for my needs. Package files are text files, you can edit them with vi, or notepad, or whatever. Occasionally I do that if I want to make particularly sweeping changes to the source. Of course, if you do that then you have to install the changed version into the image before it'll do anything useful.
    Notice how very different this way of thinking is from the way that even the best Java IDEs encourage you to think. When I started out in Smalltalk I was thinking of the IDE as if it was a Java IDE. I though of it as a tool that allowed me to write code, and had features to allow me to browse and test the code. After a year or so I realised that I'd turned the picture upside down completely, and in the process had revised my conception of what Object-Oriented programming is all about. As a Java (or C++) programmer I had pretty much thought my .java (and .cpp) files were the classes, and I thought that creating classes was what programming was about. I now think of the objects as being the important thing, and the classes as very secondary, hardly more than an implementation detail.
    feel that that has made me a better programmer. Of course it's not possible to know for sure, but if it has, then it all comes down to Smalltalk's workspaces...

    The original message can be found here


    Thursday, October 10, 2013

    Chaos, Order, and Software Development

    (Originally posted 2003.Mar.31 Mon; links may have expired.)

    Kevin Kelly published Out Of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World in 1994.

    Jim Highsmith (James A. Highsmith III), wrote Adaptive Software Development: A Collaborative Approach to Managing Complex Systems in published in 2000, before he read Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change by Kent Beck, published in 1999.

    The book on Scrum was published in 2001, and Highsmith's Agile Software Development Ecosystems was published in 2002.

    What do these books have in common? Order (or the semblance of purpose) emerging from independent agents in situation that one might expected to be purely chaotic.

    Kevin Kelly's book covers the most ground, of course, from bee hives and ant colonies, boot-strapping ecosystems, competing/cooperating agents within our brains, distributed control within robots, evolution and genetics, genetic algorithms, and so on. The theme is that order can arise "by itself" (it emerges, rather being designed up-front.)

    The agile software authors are saying that a good software product can arise with a minimum of planning up-front. However, creating this order is not 'random', it arises from the constant thinking and re-thinking of the people involved through the life of the project.

    Some people have objected to a lack of up-front planning or designing, making the analogy to a "hill-climbing" algorithm that gets stuck on a local maxima (getting stuck on a small hill, when the goal is a larger hill, a valley away). The difference of course, is that the hill-climbing algorithm is stupid, whereas many people are smart. People can see the big picture, and can do a little planning of refactoring to get from the current design to the desired design, even though the refactorings may temporarily go through a poor design along the way (but with all tests still passing!)

    In a recent web-search, I came upon a paper written by a member of a group researching independent software agents. The paper was about how Extreme Programming is helping them write software successfully, allowing new programmers to become productive members of the team quickly, and how the process allows them to increase software re-use. That paper is here: Using Extreme Programming for Knowledge Transfer. Using XP to continue research like those described by Kevin Kelly... I don't have my copy of XPExplained or Adaptive Software Development handy, but I would expect Kelly's book, or books he references, to be referenced in the bibliography of Kent's and Highsmith's books. I enjoy feedback loops like that.

    Tuesday, October 8, 2013

    Daily Standup Meetings


    (Originally posted 2003.Mar.29 Sat; links may have expired.)

    Laurent Bossavit writes: I regularly hear from people who have experimented with daily meetings such as Scrum ("Daily Scrum") or XP "Stand-up meeting") recommend. With no exceptions, everyone says that such meetings are incredibly effective in getting issues solved quickly, gathering momentum within the team, etc. My experience is about the same, although I prefer brief, informal "huddles" to formal meetings.

    With a three person team, I tried daily standup meetings, but didn't find them that useful, since we were co-located anyway. An attempt at doing combined standup meetings with two unrelated teams was even less useful. It seems that having a common goal and related work makes daily meetings productive. That's probably why weekly "status meetings" of unrelated teams reporting to one manager are very unproductive. Like Laurent, I prefer brief huddles whenever information needs to be shared.

    Thursday, October 3, 2013

    Do the Hard Thing

    (Originally posted 2003.Mar.28 Fri; links may have expired.)


    Watching the TV show Boston Public, Principal Harper was a telling a student something like "when you have a choice, pick the hard choice. Nine times out of ten, it will be the right one." That rings true.

    In developing software, writing tests is hard, so XP does it all the time. Design is hard to get right, so XP does it all the time. Communicating requirements is hard, so XP does it all the time (by talking to the person playing the role of Customer.) By doing these things all the time, we make them easy.

    In corporations, telling someone the truth can be hard; standing up against peer and management pressure to avoid reality can be hard. Doing the right thing, tactfully, is hard, but more rewarding than living in the hell caused by ignoring reality.

    Tuesday, October 1, 2013

    Please Ignore the Elephant in Your Living Room

    (Originally posted 2003.Mar.27 Thu; links may have expired.)

    The subject of legacy code appears on the Test Driven Development mailing list periodically. My advice is to use test driven development for writing new code or bug fixes, and leave the rest of the legacy code alone, writing tests for old code only when you need the support for refactoring.


    David Brady, on that mailing list, writes: "being behind schedule with 250,000 lines of monolithic, untested, difficult-to-test code is the PERFECT time to start learning how to test. You just have to ease into it one step at a time and be prepared for a long journey." My emphasis on the "one step at a time."