Skip to main content

Developing is the new Programming

I've been saying this increasingly in debates and discussions over in #python, where I frequent. It has to be something considered before, by more intelligable people than myself, but I don't remember hearing such a statement from anyone else.


The focus on the software world has drifted over the years from a focus on programming to a focus on developing. The difference is import and subtle. We can see this in the trend of popular software related books, the evolution of practices and languages, and changing patterns in the industry markets.

Books, Blogs, and Bantering

The landscape has changed on the kind of information pushed across the board to techie types. Where as reading the official specification of the C language was once a good software book, the best of today have no mention or dependance on any particular language. The emphasis is on books on development as can be applied broadly and generally, such as the excellent Prefactoring.

This can also be seen on the blogscene and what was made available online the most vigourously in the past. Resources are less and less often references to the boring syntaxes and APIs of programming languages and their libraries. More and more often, resources found talk about testing practices, organizational details, mindsets, and the best coffee to start your day coding.

Everything 37 Signals has to say is usually worth putting some thought into absorbing, even though they use a language I dislike for various reasons. They are the source of Ruby's recent spike in popularity, yet it is rare to see them mentioning anything about on Signal vs Noise. Instead, they opt for a kind of content that sometimes has nothing to do with development at all, yet can be applied directly to every line of code written in any language.

Is this an artifact of my personal interest and information source drifting, or a wider trend of focus across the board?

Backposted to meet my personal post-a-day deadline (but only by 34 minutes!)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…