From c7352e6809febe6e551f3582d24b8a0bf7ee8025 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jochen Stier <44268882+ElJocho@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:46:12 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] typo: mesage to message --- chapters/communication.bd | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/chapters/communication.bd b/chapters/communication.bd index 7e04a37..bf5354c 100644 --- a/chapters/communication.bd +++ b/chapters/communication.bd @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Because software engineering often times distributes work across multiple people The solution is effective communication. As [some events|https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/upshot/techs-damaging-myth-of-the-loner-genius-nerd.html] in industry have shown, communication requires empathy and teamwork. When communication is poor, teams become disconnected and produce software defects. Therefore, achieving effective communication practices is paramount. -It turns out, however, that communication plays such a powerful role in software projects that it even shapes how projects unfold. Perhaps the most notable theory about the effect of communication is Conway's Law. This theory argues that any designed system--software included--will reflect the communication structures involved in producing it. For example, think back to any course project where you divided the work into chunks and tried to combine them together into a final report at the end. The report and its structure probably mirrored the fact that several distinct people worked on each section of the report, rather than sounding like a single coherent voice. The same things happen in software: if the team writing error messages for a website isn't talking to the team presenting them, you're probably going to get a lot of error messages that aren't so clear, may not fit on screen, and may not be phrased using the terminology of the rest of the site. On the other hand, if those two teams meet regularly to design the error mesages together, communicating their shared knowledge, they might produce a seamless, coherent experience. Not only does software follow this law when a project is created, they also follow this law as projects evolve over time. +It turns out, however, that communication plays such a powerful role in software projects that it even shapes how projects unfold. Perhaps the most notable theory about the effect of communication is Conway's Law. This theory argues that any designed system--software included--will reflect the communication structures involved in producing it. For example, think back to any course project where you divided the work into chunks and tried to combine them together into a final report at the end. The report and its structure probably mirrored the fact that several distinct people worked on each section of the report, rather than sounding like a single coherent voice. The same things happen in software: if the team writing error messages for a website isn't talking to the team presenting them, you're probably going to get a lot of error messages that aren't so clear, may not fit on screen, and may not be phrased using the terminology of the rest of the site. On the other hand, if those two teams meet regularly to design the error messages together, communicating their shared knowledge, they might produce a seamless, coherent experience. Not only does software follow this law when a project is created, they also follow this law as projects evolve over time. Because communication is so central, software engineers are constantly seeking information to further their work, going to their coworkers' desks, emailing them, chatting via messaging platforms, and even using social media. Some of the information that developers are seeking is easier to find than others. For example, in the study I just cited, it was pretty trivial to find information about who wrote a line of code or whether a build was done, but when the information they needed resided in someone else's head (e.g., _why_ a particular line of code was written), it was slow or often impossible to retrieve it. Sometimes it's not even possible to find out who has the information. Researchers have investigated tools for trying to quantify expertise by automatically analyzing the code that developers have written, building platforms to help developers search for other developers who might know what they need to know. @@ -14,4 +14,4 @@ When communication is effective, it still takes time. One of the key strategies Because all of this knowledge is so critical to progress, when developers leave an organization and haven't archived their knowledge somewhere, it can be quite disruptive to progress. Organizations often have single points of failure, in which a single developer may be critical to a team's ability to maintain and enhance a software product. When newcomers join a team and lack the right knowledge, they introduce defects. Some companies try to mitigate this by rotating developers between projects, "cross-training" them to ensure that the necessary knowledge to maintain a project is distributed across multiple engineers. -What does all of this mean for you as an individual developer? To put it simply, don't underestimate the importance of talking. Know who you need to talk to, talk to them frequently, and to the extent that you can, write down what you know both to lessen the demand for talking and mitigate the risk of you not being available, but also to make your knowledge more precise and accessible in the future. It often takes decades for engineers to excel at communication. The very fact that you know why communication is important gives you an critical head start. \ No newline at end of file +What does all of this mean for you as an individual developer? To put it simply, don't underestimate the importance of talking. Know who you need to talk to, talk to them frequently, and to the extent that you can, write down what you know both to lessen the demand for talking and mitigate the risk of you not being available, but also to make your knowledge more precise and accessible in the future. It often takes decades for engineers to excel at communication. The very fact that you know why communication is important gives you an critical head start. From fa27942800e2d6b3839577d526b343eeb93a46d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jochen Stier <44268882+ElJocho@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:47:58 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] fix: more natural reading flow --- chapters/organizations.bd | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/chapters/organizations.bd b/chapters/organizations.bd index eb4e501..fd04a0c 100644 --- a/chapters/organizations.bd +++ b/chapters/organizations.bd @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ There are other roles you might be thinking of that I haven't mentioned: Every decision made in a software team is under uncertainty, and so another important concept in organizations is *risk*. It's rarely possible to predict the future, and so organizations must take risks. Much of an organization's function is to mitigate the consequences of risks. Data scientists and researchers mitigate risk by increasing confidence in an organization's understanding of the market and its consumers. Engineers manage risk by trying to avoid defects. Of course, as many popular outlets on software engineering have begun to discover, when software fails, it usually "did exactly what it was told to do. The reason it failed is that it was told to do the wrong thing. -Open source communities are organizations too. The core activities of design, engineering, and support still exist in these, but how much a community is engaged in marketing and sales depends entirely on the purpose of the community. Big, established open source projects like [Mozilla|https://mozilla.org] have revenue, buildings, and a CEO, and while they don't sell anything, they do market. Others like Linux rely heavily on contributions both from volunteers, but also paid employees from companies that depend on Linux, like IBM, Google, and others. In these settings, there are still all of the challenges that come with software engineering, but fewer of the constraints that come from a for-profit or non-profit motive. In fact, recent work empirically uncovered 9 reasons why modern open source projects fail: 1) lost to competition, 2) made obsolete by technology advances, 3) lack of time to volunteer, 4) lack of interest by contributors, 5) outdated technologies, 6) poor maintainability, 7) interpersonal conflicts amongst developers, 8) legal challenges, 9) and acquisition. Another study showed that funding open source projects often requires substantial donations from large corporations; most projects don't ask for donations, and those that do receive very little, unless well-established, and most of those funds go to paying for basic expenses such as engineering salaries. Those aren't too different from traditional software organizations, aside from the added challenges of sustaining a volunteer workforce. +Open source communities are organizations too. The core activities of design, engineering, and support still exist in these, but how much a community is engaged in marketing and sales depends entirely on the purpose of the community. Big, established open source projects like [Mozilla|https://mozilla.org] have revenue, buildings, and a CEO, and while they don't sell anything, they do market. Others like Linux rely heavily on contributions both from volunteers, but also paid employees from companies that depend on Linux, like IBM, Google, and others. In these settings, there are still all of the challenges that come with software engineering, but fewer of the constraints that come from a for-profit or non-profit motive. In fact, recent work empirically uncovered 9 reasons why modern open source projects fail: 1) lost to competition, 2) made obsolete by technology advances, 3) lack of time to volunteer, 4) lack of interest by contributors, 5) outdated technologies, 6) poor maintainability, 7) interpersonal conflicts amongst developers, 8) legal challenges, and 9) acquisition. Another study showed that funding open source projects often requires substantial donations from large corporations; most projects don't ask for donations, and those that do receive very little, unless well-established, and most of those funds go to paying for basic expenses such as engineering salaries. Those aren't too different from traditional software organizations, aside from the added challenges of sustaining a volunteer workforce. All of the above has some important implications for what it means to be a software engineer: @@ -37,4 +37,4 @@ All of the above has some important implications for what it means to be a softw * Engineers have to work with _a lot_ of people working with different roles. Learning what those roles are and what shapes their success is important to being a good collaborator. * While engineers might have many great ideas for product, if they really want to shape what they're building, they should be in a product role, not an engineering role. -All that said, without engineers, products wouldn't exist. They ensure that every detail about a product reflects the best knowledge of the people in their organization, and so attention to detail is paramount. In future chapters, we'll discuss all of the ways that software engineers manage this detail, mitigating the burden on their memories with tools and processes. \ No newline at end of file +All that said, without engineers, products wouldn't exist. They ensure that every detail about a product reflects the best knowledge of the people in their organization, and so attention to detail is paramount. In future chapters, we'll discuss all of the ways that software engineers manage this detail, mitigating the burden on their memories with tools and processes.