All .NET assemblies for one and one for all

Sometimes you have developed a simple utility tool that doesn’t need the directory structure of a full-blown application for resources and other configuration. However, this tool might have a couple of library dependencies. On the .NET platform this usually means that you have to distribute the .dll files for the libraries along with the executable (.exe) file of the tool.

Wouldn’t it be nice to distribute your tool only as a single .exe file, so that users don’t have to drag around a lot of files when they move the tool from one location to another?

In the C++ world you would use static linking to link library dependencies into the resulting executable. For the .NET platform Microsoft provides a command-line tool called ILMerge. It can merge multiple .NET assemblies into a single assembly:


You can either download ILMerge from Microsoft as an .msi package or install it as a NuGet package from the package manager console (accessible in Visual Studio under Tools: Library Package Manager):

PM> Install-Package ilmerge

The basic command line syntax of ILMerge is:

> ilmerge /out:filename <primary assembly> [...]

The primary assembly would be the original executable of your tool. It must be listed first, followed by the library assemblies (.dll files) to merge. Here’s an example, which represents the scenario from the diagram above:

> ilmerge /out:StandaloneApplication.exe Application.exe A.dll B.dll C.dll

Keep in mind that the resulting executable is still dependent on the existence of the .NET framework on the system, it’s not completely independent.

Graphical user interface

There’s also a graphical user interface for ILMerge available. It’s an open-source tool by a third-party developer and it’s called ILMerge-GUI, published on Microsoft’s CodePlex project hosting platform.


You simply drag and drop the assemblies to merge on the designated area, choose a name for the output assembly and click the “Merge!” button.

Requirements should not drive development

For more than a decade I develop software for engineers. The software they use is coined by vendor lock-ins, terrible interfaces and dowdy technology. In the last years I am struggling to find a better way to make tools that help them to get their jobs done. In a more pleasant and efficient way. My journey started with trying to make the internal quality of the software better through practices like clean code, TDD and the like. Maybe the software got more robust but the benefit on the user side of things was negligible.
So I turned to learning user experience design (UX). A vast land of new unknown concepts, theories and practices lays before me. So big that even practitioners in the field cannot agree what UX is.
The label isn’t important to me.

I want to make the work of engineers better.

To make the work better I have to learn more about the people and the work. The importance of domain knowledge is undisputed in the software development world. And collaboration is a pillar of modern software projects. But after reading and practicing several methods to uncover information about people and their work (read: user research) I found the traditional way of communicating inside a software project lacking.
Normally a software project starts with gathering requirements. Requirements describe what the software should do in an abstract way. For example: the software should calculate the balance of the user’s bank account. How did we found out that this is a requirement? We interviewed a stakeholder.
At first sight this might sound reasonable. Looking closer we find many problems with this approach.
First in the context of enterprise software where I work the user and the stakeholder are often different people. Even more alarming is that we talk about the wants of the solution. We have no indicator what problems does this requirement try to solve. Without knowing what we want to solve we are doomed. We are imaging an illusion.
Now even if the one who made all research and wrote the requirements knows the problems he wants the software to address the requirement is a very poor communicator. We need to spread the knowledge about the problems throughout the team. The agile approach to include roles (as a), actions (I want to) and outcomes (so that) in so called user stories is not much help.
In order to know what properties a solution must have we need to understand the user and his work. For this we need to see his context, the situation he is in. In different situations he might want to do different things. So we need to capture his motivation and of course his goals.

Jobs to be done – job stories

In the search for a better way to communicate what we find out during research I stumbled across the jobs to be done methodology. Coming originally from marketing several teams adapted this way of thinking to product development. I think Paul Adams mentioned and Alan Klement developed the idea of the job story and several others have had a great success implementing it.
What’s in a job story? A job story take the form: When (situation), I want to (motivation), so I can (expected outcome).
Now the first part captures one of the most important concepts of UX: the context.

The situation

Context is so much more than I naively imagined: it is not location and surroundings. Context or better the situation is what happened before in the environment, in the system and for the user. Developers might call it the state of these. For example: When I am about to buy a car, when I start a measurement, when I am leading the race, when my application crashed, …
The situation and what happened just before is crucial to get a sense of what the user is struggling with.

The motivation

The user wants to move from the current situation to his goal. Why? And what is important for him? What might hinder him to do so? The jobs to be done framework calls this forces. We have 4 forces:

  • push of the current situation: what is bad now
  • pull of the future: what is good then
  • habits: business as usual might hinder progress
  • anxiety: the fear of the new might bring hesitation

These forces help us to document needs of the user in the current situation. If we want to better support the user we need to care about him as a person, not just as a machine going from one state to the next. Forces help us to communicate needs. Again a property the current solutions of documenting requirements lack.

The outcome

What benefit does the user get from his actions? He has a goal. We need to know his goals in his current situation to help him get there. Beware: this is not just a feature of the system, it is an understanding the user gets, an accomplishment, a symbol of status. The benefit is the value the user gets.


Describing situations in which people struggle to get to the wanted outcomes and goals helps us relating to them. It helps us documenting findings and communicate them to other team members. When evaluating different solutions we can lean on the job stories to determine if they fit. Requirements and user stories are just too solution focused and miss important details to drive any software development effort which wants to help people doing a better job.

Timestamps make horrible identifiers

vetre / fotoliaNot long ago, I’ve struggled with a system that uses timestamps as entity identifiers. What can I say? Timestamps aren’t meant to identify anything else than a specific point in time. Don’t use them as entity identifiers, ever. If you want to know why, I invite you to read on. The blog post is written in Freytag’s dramatic structure for added effect.


We’ve designed a system that runs on multiple instances that communicate in all sorts of way. A central archive instance stores all data related to measurements. The whole network revolves around the notion of measurement. Measurement data is the most precious data and all instances will either produce or consume data based on these measurements.

Most important for human operators is an instance that lets you view all existing measurement data. Let’s call it the viewer. The viewer displays an overview list of all measurements in a given context and lets the operator choose to view ever more details of any of them. To be able to provide the overview list as fast as possible, we added a cache that holds the information.

Rising action

This measurement list cache was the source of all kinds of peculiar behaviour of the system. Most, but not all measurement data was incomplete. The list cache entries were assembled from different sources that were available at different times, so it seemed that while one part of the data got written to the cache, another part couldn’t be written for whatever reasons. The operator could load detailed data of some few measurements, but the majority just produced an error message that the data couldn’t be found (despite it being present).
The most obviously broken functionality left the following trace in the log files (paraphrased):

- storing measurement at 2016-02-28T13:25:55.189+01:00 into the list cache
- measurement stored
- loading measurement at 2016-02-28T13:25:55.189+01:00 from the list cache
- error: measurement not found in list cache

So, the system is essentially telling me that it can’t load some data it just stored. As you can imagine, this may lead to some questions about the sanity of the database product underneath.


After some investigation and fruitless integration testing, it dawned me: The problem wasn’t timing or the database. All the bugs could be explained with only one circumstance: Measurements were ultimately identified by their timestamp, the moment the measurement was made. There’s also a location, type and some other information in the identifier for each measurement, but only the timestamp changes between two measurements in the same narrow context. And the timestamp was stored in different precisions, depending on the origin of the measurement identifier. Most identifiers were create at the measurement producing system instances (let’s call them measurers) and had millisecond precision. As soon as they got stored in the production database (but not our development database), they lost the milliseconds. And some of the most important measurement data got exported to third-party systems, using a minute-based precision. So we had one measurement identifier in the system, but with three different types, each mostly incompatible to each other.

Falling action

That’s why the log excerpt above never occurred in development, but in production: The measurement is stored in the database, the used identifier gets passed around in the software, but a query on the exact same identifier in the database yields no result because the timestamps now differ in the millisecond range. And the strange effects that sometimes, everything worked just fine? That’s when the milliseconds are zero by chance. Given that most actions in the system are scheduled and performed automatically exactly on the zero mark, the zero milliseconds case happened more often than it would in an even distribution.

Our system dealt with three types of measurement identifiers: Millisecond-precise identifiers produced by the measurers, second-precise identifiers used by the measurement list cache and minute-precise identifiers used (and sometimes fed back into the system) by the data export. These identifiers were incompatible even for the same measurement most of the time, but not always. In unit tests, the timestamps were made up and didn’t reveal the problem properly (who thinks about odd milliseconds when making up a timestamp?).

My solution was to pull this incompatibility up into the type system. Instead of one measurement identifier, there are now three measurement identifiers: MillisecondPreciseIdentifier, SecondPreciseIdentifier and MinutePreciseIdentifier. An identifier of higher precision can be converted to an identifier of lower precision, but not the other way around. Everytime a measurement identifier is created, it needs to explicitely state its precision of the timestamp. This made the compiler highlight the problematic usages clearly as type conflicts and therefore dealing with the problem much easier.


Choosing a timestamp as a vital part of a (measurement) identifier was a mistake from the beginning. The greater problem was the omission of the timestamp’s precision. Timestamps perform more like floating-point numbers and less like integers, even if every timestamp can be represented by a long. As soon as I made the precision of each timestamp clear to the compiler, the bugs revealed themselves. The annoying difference between developer and production database would have been detected much sooner, because a millisecond-precise timestamp will now warn in the log files if its millisecond part is zero. As soon as this log entry is seen very often, its clear that something is wrong. The new datatypes not only serve as a clearer API contract definition tool, but also as a runtime sanity check.

If you don’t want to repeat this mistake, keep in mind that each timestamp, date or whatever time-related data type you use will inherently have a maximum precision. As soon as you mix different precisions into the same data type, you’re going to have a bad time. Explicitely state the required precision in your type system and your compiler will keep an eye on it, too.

Simple C++11 – Part III – Best friends

Now that we got the whole rigid setup of how to create a compile unit and a class setup out-of-the-way, we can finally start to write some code. What separates simple modern C++ code from the old ways is the degree of abstraction you can use to write your code. Previously, you had to think in memory and instructions. Now, powerful abstractions and language mechanisms help you to think in values and operations, and still get down to the bare metal of the machine when you need to. Here’s my personal set of “best friend” language and library features that helps me be as expressive as possible in the lower-level application code and still leverage the raw power of C++.


With all its simplicity, it is still powerful enough to handle the greater part of all memory management issues. Better yet, it maps excellently to modern hardware and even when used naively, it is often extremely efficient. And in the rare cases when it is not, the performance can usually be easily improved by using std::vector::reserve.

With C++11, you can now even toss it around, nest it and return huge vectors from functions without any performance problems. Also, initializer_lists make it easy to fill them with data.

std::vector<int> my_special_numbers() {
  return {4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42};

Such code is no longer a subtle performance problem, but actually encouraged.

There’s no doubt that whenever you need a container, std::vector should be your first candidate.


Printing a range like that is now easy. No need to even know about the existence of iterators or use counters:

for (auto&& number : my_special_values()) {
  std::cout << number << std::endl;


For the rare cases when a flat vector will just not suffice, this neat hash-map will make your life easier. C++11’s initializer syntax makes it a lot cleaner to fill these than before:

std::unordered_map<std::string, int>
my_icecream_ratings() {
  return {
    {"vanilla", 3},
    {"chocolate", 9},
    {"strawberry", 8},
    {"raspberry", 7},
    {"lemon", 3}


And now working with them becomes nice and easy too:

auto ratings = my_icecream_ratings();
ratings.insert({"caramel", 2});
std::cout << "Chocolate was a "
  << ratings["chocolate"];

You can even change the result type to an unordered_multimap or something similar and the code will still work.


In a perfect or, should I say, functional world, shared ownership would not be a thing. Pointers or even references would not exist. It just makes things a lot more complex than a clear ownership. It just appears that when requirements change, this or that object is no longer exclusively owned by that other object. Or the lifetime of an object cannot easily be scoped in the presence of multithreading. When this happens, and std::shared_ptr will make your tasks bearable. This is as close as you usually get to completely automatic lifetime management in C++.

void save_image_in_background(
  std::shared_ptr<image const> raw_image) {
  auto thread = std::thread([raw_image]{"raw.png");

I like to think of pointers as a necessary evil. Sometimes, the alternative just makes things even more confusing, and when that happens, you at least don’t want manual resource management in the way.

Of course, std::unique_ptr seems to a powerful competitor for shared_ptr’s tasks, but in my experience, you very rarely need a single-ownership pointer in application code. Why not use a moveable type instead? unique_ptr can be useful as a helper to implement library primitives, but you should rarely encounter one in application-level code.

Less is more

Note how many fancy C++11 features did not make my list. For example, lambdas are very useful – and I even used one in my shared_ptr example. But they should be used in moderation. They allow to define code out-of-place, to be executed whenever. This makes it harder to reason about them.
Likewise, things like variadic templates are great for library code, but rarely help in application level.

This ends my small series on C++ for now. I hope I have shown how concentrating on a few simple features helps you write more maintainable and less obscure C++ code, on a level of abstraction that is not lower than most comparable languages. Do you have other methods to achieve this? Or do you even want to have this? I’d like to hear!

The JavaScript ‘console’ Object

Most JavaScript developers are familiar with these basic functions of the console object: console.log(), .info(), .warn() and .error(). These functions dump a string or an object to the JavaScript console.

However, the console object has a lot more to offer. I’ll demonstrate a selection of the additional functionality, which is less known, but can be useful for development and debugging.

Tabular data

Arrays with tabular structure can be displayed with the console.table() function:

var timeseries = [
 {timestamp: new Date('2016-04-01T00:00:00Z'), value: 42, checked: true},
 {timestamp: new Date('2016-04-01T00:15:00Z'), value: 43, checked: true},
 {timestamp: new Date('2016-04-01T00:30:00Z'), value: 43, checked: true},
 {timestamp: new Date('2016-04-01T00:45:00Z'), value: 41, checked: false},
 {timestamp: new Date('2016-04-01T01:00:00Z'), value: 40, checked: false},
 {timestamp: new Date('2016-04-01T01:15:00Z'), value: 39, checked: false}


The browser will render the data in a table view:

Output of console.table()

JavaScript console table output

This function does not only work with arrays of objects, but also with arrays of arrays.


Sometimes you want to benchmark certain sections of your code. You could write your own function using new Date().getTime(), but the functions console.time() and console.timeEnd() are already there:

// code to benchmark

The string parameter is a label to identify the benchmark. The JavaScript console output will look like this:

calculation: 21.460ms

Invocation count

The function console.count() can count how often a certain point in the code is called. Different counters are identified with string labels:

for (var i = 1; i <= 100; i++) {
  if (i % 15 == 0) {
  } else if (i % 3 == 0) {
  } else if (i % 5 == 0) {

Here’s an excerpt of the output:

FizzBuzz: 6 (count-demo.js, line 3)
Fizz: 25 (count-demo.js, line 5)
Buzz: 13 (count-demo.js, line 7)
Fizz: 26 (count-demo.js, line 5)
Fizz: 27 (count-demo.js, line 5)
Buzz: 14 (count-demo.js, line 7)


The console object does not only provide basic log output functionality, but also some lesser-known, yet useful debugging helper functions. The Console API reference describes the full feature set of the console object.

Making CherryPy Application WSGI compatible

When choosing a micro web framework evolving it to fit your needs is key. As CherryPy is one of our choices I want to show you how to evolve it in terms of web server. Of course you can use the embedded CherryPy web server in development and for small sites. It is fast enough for many use cases and supports important features like SSL so you may come a long way just using it. There are several reasons to put your CherryPy behind a tried and trusted native web server like Apache or nginx:

  • Consistent production environment using different application servers (e.g. for Java and Python) using a powerful and uniform frontend
  • Many options and possibilites using Apache modules
  • Well known and understood environment for administrators
  • Separation of web-facing http server concerns and your web application
  • Improved performance and security

Making CherryPy a WSGI-compatible

The good news is that CherryPy application objects are already a WSGI-compliant application. So creating a like the following will enable integration with mod_wsgi of Apache:

def application(environ, start_response):
    cherrypy.tree.mount(MyApp(), script_name=None, config=None)
    return cherrypy.tree(environ, start_response)

Integrating with Apache’s mod_wsgi

It is quite easy to integrate a Python WSGI application with apache using mod_wsgi. If the module is present you just need to add some directives telling Apache where to mount the wsgi application defined by your script:

WSGIScriptAlias /my_app /path/to/
# May be required to allow your web app using libraries installed on the system
<Directory /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ >
    Order deny,allow
    Allow from all
    Require all granted

After you have such a setup working properly you can consult the mod_wsgi documentation on how to improve in regards to threading, script reloading etc.

Configuring the WSGI-app

Many web applications need some form of configuration. Your application should not make assumptions on its install location or some directory structure. Generally speaking, an application should never assume that it can use relative path names for accessing the filesystem. Also access to operating system environment variables is dangerous because the application may run in different contexts. But we can specify WSGI-environment variables in the web servers’ configuration. An easy and safe way is to provide the configuration directory and other values using WSGI-environment variables that we can specify in the mod_wsgi configuration:

WSGIScriptAlias /my_app /path/to/
SetEnv configuration_dir /etc/my_shiny_web_app

We can access the wsgi-environment in python like so:

def application(environ, start_response):
    configdir = environ['configuration_dir']
    cherrypy.config.update(os.path.join(configdir, 'global.conf'))

    cherrypy.tree.mount(MyApp(), config=os.path.join(configdir, 'my_app.conf'))
    return cherrypy.tree(environ, start_response)

Note: Because your web app can be mounted to other locations than “/” on the the web server your application should not hard-code absolute links and the like. They all will be dead if your app is mounted at a different location.

Modular development of complex UIs with atomic design

Creating user interfaces is traditionally an expensive development effort. Every web page, dialog or screen is hand crafted from scratch. Developers on the one hand write object oriented, modular code in the whole application, use myriads of frameworks and libraries but as soon as the UI level is reached everything breaks down. Each view is written in isolation.
Designers have a different view of the UI. They see the interface through the lens of style guides and guidelines. The look and feel throughout the interface should be consistent and should be experienced as a whole.

Atomic design

These two worlds can be combined.
Many designers and developers see the need to design and create design systems. Brad Frost is the one who coined and describes a language for structuring user interfaces: atomic design. The names take heavy cues from chemistry but the important part is the containment part.
Atoms are the low level building blocks: e.g. the widgets in native UI kits or the tags in the web world. But also things like colors or type faces are atoms.
Molecules are simple combinations of atoms. A search field which is comprised of a label, a text field and a button is a molecule.
Organisms are more complex UI components. Organisms can be created from atoms, molecules and other organisms. A complete form would be a perfect example.
Combining all these into a full page or window layout is called a template in atomic design. This template is the abstract definition, the blueprint of the complete screen or page.
Filling this template with content results in a page.
All this sounds pretty abstract and the examples found in the web are very basic so let’s dive in and identify the parts in an example UI.

Decomposing a complex UI

Here we take an example from the excellent UI concept by Lennart Ziburski: desktop neo. (If you haven’t seen this, you should take a look).


Our first decomposing task is to identify distinct parts of the user interface and give them names. These would be the organisms.


Interlude: how to name things

As with every naming endeavor it is hard to decide which name is appropriate. Dan Mall argues in favor of display patterns to be name givers. Display patterns describe the (abstract) visual aspect and can be used with multiple content patterns. Content patterns describe the types of elements and can be rendered in multiple display patterns. Since we want to name an organism which is content agnostic we should take cues from the visual appearance not the content inside it.

Decomposing further

Now we break those organisms further down. Let’s start with the card grid organism. As the name already suggests it organizes cards in a grid or tabular layout. We have different kinds of cards. First take a look at the preview card at the left.


The preview card consists of a thumbnail showing a preview of an item, an icon and a label. This is a simple interface element and is therefore a molecule created from the three mentioned atoms. A name for this molecule could be “image with caption”.

Interlude: testing states in the abstract

Our example touches an important and often neglected part of interfaces: you need to test for different content. Here the longer name is cut with an ellipsis. This is a simple case. But what if the name is missing? Or has unusual characters. Or or or. Besides that we need to indicate the current state of the interface as well. Do we have an error? Are we loading something? Interfaces have different states. Five to be exact. The good part is that we can (and should) test them on the abstract level of atoms, molecules and organisms.

A more complex organism

The cards in the right card grid are more complex examples. Every card is an organism with a title (atom) and a content part (molecule/organism).

The weather card has a simple molecule consisting of an icon and two labels.


Whereas the schedule card consists of a list organism which itself includes molecules. These molecules have two labels and one or more actions (links or buttons).


The other parts of the interface can be decomposed as well. Charlotte Jackson describes an interesting approach to decomposing your existing interfaces: print them out, cut them to pieces and name these pieces.

Making the jump

Until now we talked about the designer’s view of the interface but the developer has to translate all these definitions into code and hook them up to content. The approach from the atomic design side is largely the same for web or native but in development we have to distinguish between them.

On Rails

Let’s first take a look at the web side of things. We could use a client side component framework like react but here are like to keep it simple.
We just use Rails in our example but every other web framework will work as well. We need to organize our newly defined chemistry lab in three parts: HTML (or views), CSS and JavaScript.
For CSS and JavaScript we use the include mechanism of the asset pipeline or import if you use SASS. Each dimension gets a separate directory inside app/assets/stylesheets or app/assets/javascripts respectively.
We name our directories atoms, molecules and organisms. The same is true for views: a directory named molecules and one named organisms inside app/views/atomic_design. No need for atoms since they are basic HTML tags or helpers. Atomic design’s templates become Rails’ layouts. Via calls to render we can inject content into these abstract organisms:

<%= render layout: '/atomic_design/organisms/card', locals: {title: 'weather in Berlin'} do %>
  <%= render layout: '/atomic_design/molecules/image_with_text', locals: {image_class: 'fa_sunny'} do %>
    <span class="temperature">23 °C</span><span class="condition">Sunny</span>
  <% end %>
<% end %>


On the native side we also need a component and include mechanism. Usually every widget toolkit has a preferred way to create custom components or containers. If you develop for iOS you extend the UIView class in order to create a custom UI component. These custom views would be the molecules and organisms of our design system. To combine them you add them to other views as their subviews. The init* or properties can be used to fill these with content. The actual mechanism is similar for most native UI kits.

Design with benefits

Using atomic design to create a design system seems to be a lot of work at first. And it is.
We already mentioned two benefits: creating a common understanding and a better way to test things in isolation. Design systems help all project participants, not only designers and developers, to share a common language and understand each other. They help new members to hit the ground running. With tools like pattern lab your atomic design can also be used as documentation.
On the testing front the holy grail is to test things in isolation and in integration, atomic design and its strict separation helps immensely. Often only the sunshine or ideal state is tested and maybe a handful of error states. Thinking in isolation of molecules and organisms about the whole five states and the diverse structure of your content creates a manageable endeavor and maps a path through the jungle of our interfaces. The value which atomic design brings to the table is that your efforts to test scale with the number of molecules and organisms and not with the number of pages or screens. The isolation which a design system, and in particular atomic design, creates is comparable to the advent of unit testing in the world of software development. The separation of display patterns and content patterns reminds me of the functional paradigm with its separation of data and functions.