Take your programming course with a grain of salt, please

February 13, 2012

Lately, we had a talk with one of our former interns who now happens to study informatics at university. He presented some code he had written for his programming course and we did a team code review. The review itself was a lot of fun and sparked quite a few discussions. At one point, we assessed the different implementation styles of a method, changing the rather complex single return code into an early return method. Our former intern (now student) listened to the solution and stated: “I am not allowed to do that.”

There was a sudden silence, as everyone tried to comprehend what that means.

The student explained: “my course instructor prefers the single return approach over the early return style”. Well, that’s one thing, we can handle different opinions. “And”, he continued, “he announced there will be a painful deduction of points if we don’t comply to this style.” When the course tried to discuss this point, the explanation given was: “the single return style is superior because the other style is frowned upon.”

We couldn’t believe it. But, as it turns out, there are many rules like the one above in this programming course. And nearly every rule is highly debatable if not plain wrong (in our perception).

There is no problem with the presentation of certain rules in a beginner’s programming course. Novices need clear and precise rules to learn, according to the Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition. The concept just doesn’t work for students that aren’t on the Novices level anymore. These students are explicitely forbidden to create more advanced solutions. They are discouraged to look into different programming styles because it will only harm their grades.

We can think of a possible explanation for this scenario: The assignments have to be evaluated by the course instructors. It takes a lot of hard work (and time) to evaluate hundreds of totally different solutions for the same problem. If the solutions are mostly similar in style and concepts, the evaluation is a lot easier and can be done without full understanding of the code.

This is a rather poor explanation. It says “don’t be too advanced in your field of study or you will be too troublesome to attend to”. This is essentially an anesthetization by decree. But the real problem arises when you realize that there won’t be any continuative programming courses. They will never teach you all the more advanced concepts or rectify the silly rules that should get you along as a beginner. After you’ve successfully mastered this course, the studying focusses on the more academic topics of our field. The next possibility to develop your programming skills in a professional setting is your first software development job.

We don’t have a practical solution to this problem. One obvious solution would be to have more instructors evaluate less assignment solutions in the same time, enabling them to dive deeper in the code and give better personalized feedback. This scenario lacks at least enough capable instructors. The reality shows that Novices level students (in the sense of the Dreyfus Model) are often taught by Advanced Beginner level instructors (called a “tutor”).

But we have a word of encouragement for all you students out there, feeling dumbed down by your instructors: It’s not your fault! Take your programming course rules with a (big) grain of salt and talk to other developers. If you don’t know anybody already in the industry, try to make contact with some fellow open source developer on the web. It’s really just the advice “Find a Mentor” from the book Apprenticeship Patterns (highly recommended for aspiring software developers) applied in real life.

Because if you don’t actively unlearn all these arbitrary rules or at least put them into perspective, you’ll start your professional developer career with the burden of some really antic code quirks.

Good luck and tell us your story, if you want.


Software Craftsman Project Priority Survey

March 16, 2009

apprenticeship-patters-coverThere is an upcoming and very promising book title written by Dave Hoover and Adewale Oshineye called “Apprenticeship Patterns: Guidance For The Aspiring Software Craftsman”.  It will cover all the basic rules you’ll need to become a Software Craftsman. This is a rather new term to describe professional software developers, eventually leading to the Software Craftsmanship Manifesto. The Manifesto itself reads like an addition to the Agile Manifesto:

As aspiring Software Craftsmen we are raising the bar of professional software development by practicing it and helping others learn the craft. Through this work we have come to value:

  • Not only working software, but also well-crafted software
  • Not only responding to change, but also steadily adding value
  • Not only individuals and interactions, but also a community of professionals
  • Not only customer collaboration,but also productive partnerships

That is, in pursuit of the items on the left we have found the items on the right to be indispensable.

© 2009, the undersigned. this statement may be freely copied in any form, but only in its entirety through this notice.

A very good question

When i read the blog of “Apprenticeship Patterns“, i noticed a very good question about project priorities:

Rank the following 3 project attributes in order of importance and explain why.

  • Test Coverage
  • Timely Delivery
  • Code Quality

This question really got me hooked, because there is no single valid answer, only personal statements about values.

An informal survey

I’m in the lucky position of meeting a lot of senior developers and a great number of software engineering students. So I instantly decided to perform a survey on this question and watch out for emerging answer patterns.

I gave each project attribute an unique letter, C for “Test Coverage”, D for “Timely Delivery” and Q for “Code Quality”. There are six possible answers, here are their rates in the survey (when 58 persons gave their answers):stats-all1

  • CDQ: 7 percent
  • CQD: 9 percent
  • DCQ: 5 percent
  • DQC: 7 percent
  • QCD: 41 percent
  • QDC: 31 percent

The vast majority of developers stated Code Quality as their highest goal. This isn’t very surprising to me, as most developers take pride in writing high quality code.

Comparing the answers

But what about the answers of only senior developers? Lets have a look at the numbers without student answers:stats-senior1

  • CDQ: 7 percent
  • CQD: 14 percent
  • DCQ: 7 percent
  • DQC: 14 percent
  • QCD: 21 percent
  • QDC: 36 percent

The big pattern still applies: Code Quality first. It’s amazing to see the other attributes gaining importance, though. To me, that’s a sign that code-centric thinking is one pattern of apprenticeship.

What’s not in the numbers

When i held the survey, the relevant group of people was gathered together, so a discussion of the results arose every time.  But the discussions followed different patterns:

  • The teams (of senior developers) gave very distinct answers while working on the same project. The answers were driven by personal conviction rather than project necessities.
  • The courses (of students) gave more similar answers while having a wide variety of backgrounds. The answers were mostly explained with current project necessities (like security-critical systems as reason for Test Coverage being most important).

When I have to compare the two groups, I tend to say that younger developers are more driven by extrinsic demands while more experienced developers act on their own internal values.

Our duty as Software Craftsman

In conclusion, I see a duty for experienced developers: to share their experience. Leading a discussion about “Team Values” at your current project is the least you can do. Helping others to develop their own set of internal values, even if it isn’t yours, seems crucial to me.

The upcoming “Apprenticeship Patterns” book and the brand new “97 Things Every Software Architect Should Know” are perfect starting points for this.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 92 other followers