I recently just finished reading Growing Object-Oriented Software, Guided by Tests (or GOOS for short) by Nat Pryce and Steve Freeman. I highly recommend every developer pick up a copy and give it a read. It is full of great advice for building a well-tested, high quality application. I wanted to pick out two particular gems I found towards the end of the book that I felt are really powerful.
[W]e like to have names for the relationships between objects as well as objects themselves. As the legends say, if we have something's true name, we can control it.
They are talking specifically about preferring to mock interfaces rather than concrete implementations, but this concept bubbles up generally throughout the book. They use interfaces extensively, even noting that their use is above average, to tease out concepts and relationships in the code. Many in the community feel that interfaces are just needless over-engineering and over-specifying of an object. Here, though, the authors turn that idea on it's head. Interfaces don't specify objects, they define relationships. By giving a name and a form to a relationship, we can control it, vary it, talk about it, and show it. It is something real in the system, not an implicit concept buried inside of our code.
To design is to communicate clearly by whatever means you can control or master.
Here is a quote the authors chose to emphasize the subject of the chapter, but the quote itself is very prescient. It frames design as a form of communication. We don't design in a vacuum. Our designs should tell the next person that reads it about our software. We can judge the quality of our design by how effectively it communicates our intent and our knowledge. Good design is not just full of patterns or abstractions, but is measured at the ability to convey ideas.
This quote, of course, goes far beyond just software design. We can look at the designed things of the world around us in the context of communicating with us. We can judge their design by how well they tell us what we need to know.
Minification and compression of assets (JS and CSS) is a common practice across the Web today. It improves performance by reducing the amount of data that has to be transferred over the network, without changing the behavior of those assets. Because those assets are text, the size reductions can be dramatic, especially when we use both techniques together. Using these techniques, though, is not necessarily transparent. Generally, minified assets are referred to with a .min.* extension to indicate they are different (thus, minified jquery.js becomes jquery.min.js ). Because this convention is in the file name, it must also pass down into our references: <script src="jquery.min.js"></script> . To switch between the minified and un-minified versions, we have to actually change the code in the HTML. Source maps are a different, potentially more robust solution, but require support both in the browser and in build to generate those files. Compressed assets are e
Recently I received a SunnyPeak Google Cardboard Viewer as a gift. The technology is pretty cool, allowing for any Android device to act as an inexpensive VR headset. There are a number of apps that provide interesting 3-D environments to explore. The challenge I ran into was that Google Cardboard does not work correctly on my Samsung Galaxy SIII. Instead of taking up the whole screen, the images take up only a part of the screen . A simple fix would be to change the settings in the Cardboard app, but Google made life way more "convenient" by allowing the settings to be changed only through scanning a QR code. After some Googling around, I came across a post where someone else was having the same problem. In the comments, someone had the answer . In short, the comment gives a link to a page to generate a settings QR code, and the settings to put in. After following the instructions, the app configured itself correctly and it worked great! If you are having the same probl
As software developers, we see errors every day. They manifest as exceptions or segfaults or error codes, telling us that our code has gotten into a state we didn't expect. Their appearance often portends bugs. Though we groan at an unexpected stack trace, we should see an error as a form of automated feedback . Feedback can be fast or slow. We can put the discovery of errors onto a timeline. Errors appear at many points over the lifetime of the code, starting at the moment it is compiled. The further to the right that an error appears, the longer it takes for the feedback to appear. Compile time Compile time is the earliest we can receive feedback about an error. The compiler automatically does a number of checks to make sure the code makes some semblance of sense. The most powerful tool for compile-time feedback is the type-checker. The type-checker makes sure that only values of the expected type are passed around to the places that expect them. This guards
Comments
Post a Comment