John Esposito

Great list. Also consider The C Programming Language and probably Elements of Programming, although I haven't read all of the latter (even though it's short).

Love it. But a thought on persuasion:

Amortize cost of speed decrease over projected application lifetime, discounted by uncertainty of application lifetime length and future runtime environment. Compare with cost of coupling tightness increase introduced by eager optimization, discounted by uncertainty of code inflexibility cost over time. Add extra weight to represent fraternal concern for future programmer trying to understand your code, on top of cash wasted on that programmer's struggling-through-your-hyper-optimized-code hours. SO many uncertainties about the future -- but at least right now I know I can make my code cleaner. People normally discount future utility with apparently ridiculous weighting on uncertainty, but often generational breaks ("what will this do to my grandchildren's world") override. Maybe the social argument -- the responsibility to future coding generations -- will sometimes be more persuasive than appeal to code cleanliness through itself? since it is fairly certain that other people will have trouble writing your eager-optimized code, while the relative cost of your brittle code versus your eagerly-performance-optimized code over time is much less certain.

Anyway I felt much worse when contacted by a poor puzzled programmer two years after I abandoned a codebase than when I wasted my own time trying to figure out what my undocumented epicycles were trying to do in the same blocks (of course it was a horrid optimization specific to the local network config).

:'(

Feeling guilty for every kill -9 from here until forever...

Sure, that's what Sam pointed out in the article -- probably lazy won't help, but of course if it does (e.g. frequently opened db connection) then adjust accordingly.

As I understand James' image in relation to the article: the article proposes a rule of thumb that instantiates the general point Knuth is making -- and ∀-rules and thumb-rules both introduce constraints that reduce decision space and thereby stress etc.. 'Less thought required' isn't as good as 'without any extra thought required', but it's getting there...

So to flesh out the thumb: what are some other 'exceptional cases in which lazy initialization really does make sense'?

Ha, good idea, thanks! Mild embarassment in one's own eyes can indeed be a great motivator to better code...

Ha. Would say "no duh" except that I can't count the times I've smacked myself in the head for leaving database connections open.

There should be a "Checklist for Bad Things You Knew About Ten Years Ago But Still Do Anyway".

That's a good point re. mixing tools -- I could say that "in fact people do sometimes choose between JIRA and GitHub for issue tracking because GitHub Issues isn't too shabby so if you're using GitHub maybe you should just stick with the built-in feature and not worry about another tool?" but that lumps things together in a general conversation (the article) that only happen to be lumped together in a particular situation (my choice point).(On the other hand, my Unix side wonders whether the size of many tools' feature-sets and the resulting feature overlaps among tools -- the things that make these heterogeneous option sets available in the first place -- aren't just mistakes inherited from factory-centric organizational design principles.)

Thanks for the feedback. Title changed.

That's true (also @Csaba), but you might have to choose between option (a) which includes TFS and not Git (even though TFS does support Git -- say for solution-integration reasons, like "we're going to use TFS only with TFVC") and option (b) which includes Git and whatever other ALM stuff. So I think the title seems a little apples-to-oranges but sometimes in actual moments of choice -- because in-prod technology selections are not atomic -- you do have to choose between apples, on the one hand, and oranges, on the other.

For something a little different, what do you think of SICP or Bryant and O'Hallaron? SICP helped me bridge abstract compsci coursework with actually writing code, and Bryan and O'Hallaron (which I admit I haven't read fully) helped me decide how much to trust compiler guesses and runtime abstraction (for me this meant .NET).

I've only read about half of your list and now have loads of great-looking reading material -- thanks for this post. :)

Nice, thanks -- and wow, what a cool wiki page!

VMWare's deep-dive into how they virtualized x86 is also a beautiful read.

How important is the abstract compsci stuff, though? -- the part that kind of is a little magical, that makes it possible for putting-things-in-little-boxes-and-shifting-them-around to generate valid inferences, traverse graphs, calculate values of functions with arbitrary limits, pixelize projective geometry, do a massive linear regression in milliseconds?

Ha! Great article. Sort of the converse of Fred Brook's No Silver Bullet piece. Sadly I haven't done enough assembly to feel the magic of the JVM go away. But I see what Uncle Bob is getting at, and far too often I do hit 'wait a minute, that was incredibly simple..dammit' moments..that aren't revelations but just annoyances at my earlier (and damaging) magic-feeling.

Ultimately this kind of info would be more useful in a structured catalogue, but rubygems.org doesn't provide use-case recommendations. Are there any structured directories of gems that let you, for example, list all ORM gems?

Hey, thanks -- that BLOBbing really sucks and this looks pretty easy.

This seems extremely basic..maybe easier just to link to Oracle's Java Tutorials?

Interesting! Have C++ and/or C# changed strings over time to such a significant degree?

Impressive, thoughtful article -- thanks for the post.

As a matter of empirical fact, I guess, any code change de facto increases the chance of random bug popup. There's been some empirical work on the correlation of refactorings with bug reports, and overall it looks like refactorings and bug reports correlate positively. But maybe most of those generic refactorings were stupid or at least 'not best'. Figuring out which refactorings are 'best' is exactly what will help us get past the generic and into the actionable.

More granular empirical work on the cost/benefit of refactoring seems to have ballooned a bit over the past two years. I've only skimmed a few of these, but you might find some of these articles interesting.

@Jaime, good point re. boilerplate vs. patterns. I think we also sometimes apply the concept of a pattern too broadly even when we don't just insert some boilerplate implementation. For example, you might still use produce too many objects using a pointless Factory even if you don't implement a Factory with boilerplate code.

@Matthias, I don't know the solution to the problem you observe. I've 'thought ahead too far' way too often, resulting in bloated and (surprisingly often) brittle code. In most cases this has probably been smart-aleckiness -- going beyond behavioral specs, thinking how the users might (but have no real plans to) use the software. Is it enough to just say 'stick to requirements' and that's it? I'm tempted to say no, because the developer often knows better than anyone else what the program is capable of. Then the choice is just between strategic management (requirements) vs. entrepreneurial (what this could possibly do) decision-making. And sometimes, especially when it comes to technology, entrepreneurial thinking really does work better.

But to the practical issue -- how do you decide whether a given piece of code is going to be reused often?

@Raging makes another good point -- I don't really have a taxonomy of pattern misuse in mind. But I'd like to build one. :) At least, I feel like it would sometimes help me avoid bloat, and maybe others too. Maybe we could even build a nicely articulated ontology, or a richer (more structured) pattern language...

@Serguei has also touched on another interesting idea. Certainly it's wrong to think of patterns as the 'correct' way. That's just student & CYA thinking -- just trying not to look like you've done something the wrong way. It has no place in any kind of craftsmanship, or business for that matter. But perhaps patterns' educational role suggests a third benefit, in addition to modularity and DRY. Because patterns structure code in commonly-accepted ways, use of patterns can help others understand your work. More articulated, 'thin' patterns might do this even more effectively -- say, especially if we develop naming conventions that clearly communicate their place in the hierarchy (as specializations of broader design patterns). Or maybe I'm on the wrong track..?

@Jaime, good point re. boilerplate vs. patterns. I think we also sometimes apply the concept of a pattern too broadly even when we don't just insert some boilerplate implementation. For example, you might still use produce too many objects using a pointless Factory even if you don't implement a Factory with boilerplate code.

@Matthias, I don't know the solution to the problem you observe. I've 'thought ahead too far' way too often, resulting in bloated and (surprisingly often) brittle code. In most cases this has probably been smart-aleckiness -- going beyond behavioral specs, thinking how the users might (but have no real plans to) use the software. Is it enough to just say 'stick to requirements' and that's it? I'm tempted to say no, because the developer often knows better than anyone else what the program is capable of. Then the choice is just between strategic management (requirements) vs. entrepreneurial (what this could possibly do) decision-making. And sometimes, especially when it comes to technology, entrepreneurial thinking really does work better.

But to the practical issue -- how do you decide whether a given piece of code is going to be reused often?

@Raging makes another good point -- I don't really have a taxonomy of pattern misuse in mind. But I'd like to build one. :) At least, I feel like it would sometimes help me avoid bloat, and maybe others too. Maybe we could even build a nicely articulated ontology, or a richer (more structured) pattern language...

@Serguei has also touched on another interesting idea. Certainly it's wrong to think of patterns as the 'correct' way. That's just student & CYA thinking -- just trying not to look like you've done something the wrong way. It has no place in any kind of craftsmanship, or business for that matter. But perhaps patterns' educational role suggests a third benefit, in addition to modularity and DRY. Because patterns structure code in commonly-accepted ways, use of patterns can help others understand your work. More articulated, 'thin' patterns might do this even more effectively -- say, especially if we develop naming conventions that clearly communicate their place in the hierarchy (as specializations of broader design patterns). Or maybe I'm on the wrong track..?

@Jaime, good point re. boilerplate vs. patterns. I think we also sometimes apply the concept of a pattern too broadly even when we don't just insert some boilerplate implementation. For example, you might still use produce too many objects using a pointless Factory even if you don't implement a Factory with boilerplate code.

@Matthias, I don't know the solution to the problem you observe. I've 'thought ahead too far' way too often, resulting in bloated and (surprisingly often) brittle code. In most cases this has probably been smart-aleckiness -- going beyond behavioral specs, thinking how the users might (but have no real plans to) use the software. Is it enough to just say 'stick to requirements' and that's it? I'm tempted to say no, because the developer often knows better than anyone else what the program is capable of. Then the choice is just between strategic management (requirements) vs. entrepreneurial (what this could possibly do) decision-making. And sometimes, especially when it comes to technology, entrepreneurial thinking really does work better.

But to the practical issue -- how do you decide whether a given piece of code is going to be reused often?

@Raging makes another good point -- I don't really have a taxonomy of pattern misuse in mind. But I'd like to build one. :) At least, I feel like it would sometimes help me avoid bloat, and maybe others too. Maybe we could even build a nicely articulated ontology, or a richer (more structured) pattern language...

@Serguei has also touched on another interesting idea. Certainly it's wrong to think of patterns as the 'correct' way. That's just student & CYA thinking -- just trying not to look like you've done something the wrong way. It has no place in any kind of craftsmanship, or business for that matter. But perhaps patterns' educational role suggests a third benefit, in addition to modularity and DRY. Because patterns structure code in commonly-accepted ways, use of patterns can help others understand your work. More articulated, 'thin' patterns might do this even more effectively -- say, especially if we develop naming conventions that clearly communicate their place in the hierarchy (as specializations of broader design patterns). Or maybe I'm on the wrong track..?

@Jaime, good point re. boilerplate vs. patterns. I think we also sometimes apply the concept of a pattern too broadly even when we don't just insert some boilerplate implementation. For example, you might still use produce too many objects using a pointless Factory even if you don't implement a Factory with boilerplate code.

@Matthias, I don't know the solution to the problem you observe. I've 'thought ahead too far' way too often, resulting in bloated and (surprisingly often) brittle code. In most cases this has probably been smart-aleckiness -- going beyond behavioral specs, thinking how the users might (but have no real plans to) use the software. Is it enough to just say 'stick to requirements' and that's it? I'm tempted to say no, because the developer often knows better than anyone else what the program is capable of. Then the choice is just between strategic management (requirements) vs. entrepreneurial (what this could possibly do) decision-making. And sometimes, especially when it comes to technology, entrepreneurial thinking really does work better.

But to the practical issue -- how do you decide whether a given piece of code is going to be reused often?

@Raging makes another good point -- I don't really have a taxonomy of pattern misuse in mind. But I'd like to build one. :) At least, I feel like it would sometimes help me avoid bloat, and maybe others too. Maybe we could even build a nicely articulated ontology, or a richer (more structured) pattern language...

@Serguei has also touched on another interesting idea. Certainly it's wrong to think of patterns as the 'correct' way. That's just student & CYA thinking -- just trying not to look like you've done something the wrong way. It has no place in any kind of craftsmanship, or business for that matter. But perhaps patterns' educational role suggests a third benefit, in addition to modularity and DRY. Because patterns structure code in commonly-accepted ways, use of patterns can help others understand your work. More articulated, 'thin' patterns might do this even more effectively -- say, especially if we develop naming conventions that clearly communicate their place in the hierarchy (as specializations of broader design patterns). Or maybe I'm on the wrong track..?

Sweet game! I'm a sucker for laser glows. Didn't see anyone else in there when I tried it -- but, does the endless galaxy make it harder for individual users to find one another (esp. without landmarks because you're in space)?

What you're saying about the problems with HTML5 game development sound spot-on -- a lot like what EA and Zynga people were saying at the HTML5 game conference a couple of months ago.

Given HTML5's messiness, what made you want to learn it and build a game in HTML5 (besides awesome curiosity)? is it just the interoperability promise?

Sweet game! I'm a sucker for laser glows. Didn't see anyone else in there when I tried it -- but, does the endless galaxy make it harder for individual users to find one another (esp. without landmarks because you're in space)?

What you're saying about the problems with HTML5 game development sound spot-on -- a lot like what EA and Zynga people were saying at the HTML5 game conference a couple of months ago.

Given HTML5's messiness, what made you want to learn it and build a game in HTML5 (besides awesome curiosity)? is it just the interoperability promise?

Sweet game! I'm a sucker for laser glows. Didn't see anyone else in there when I tried it -- but, does the endless galaxy make it harder for individual users to find one another (esp. without landmarks because you're in space)?

What you're saying about the problems with HTML5 game development sound spot-on -- a lot like what EA and Zynga people were saying at the HTML5 game conference a couple of months ago.

Given HTML5's messiness, what made you want to learn it and build a game in HTML5 (besides awesome curiosity)? is it just the interoperability promise?

Sweet game! I'm a sucker for laser glows. Didn't see anyone else in there when I tried it -- but, does the endless galaxy make it harder for individual users to find one another (esp. without landmarks because you're in space)?

What you're saying about the problems with HTML5 game development sound spot-on -- a lot like what EA and Zynga people were saying at the HTML5 game conference a couple of months ago.

Given HTML5's messiness, what made you want to learn it and build a game in HTML5 (besides awesome curiosity)? is it just the interoperability promise?

Sweet game! I'm a sucker for laser glows. Didn't see anyone else in there when I tried it -- but, does the endless galaxy make it harder for individual users to find one another (esp. without landmarks because you're in space)?

What you're saying about the problems with HTML5 game development sound spot-on -- a lot like what EA and Zynga people were saying at the HTML5 game conference a couple of months ago.

Given HTML5's messiness, what made you want to learn it and build a game in HTML5 (besides awesome curiosity)? is it just the interoperability promise?

Sweet game! I'm a sucker for laser glows. Didn't see anyone else in there when I tried it -- but, does the endless galaxy make it harder for individual users to find one another (esp. without landmarks because you're in space)?

What you're saying about the problems with HTML5 game development sound spot-on -- a lot like what EA and Zynga people were saying at the HTML5 game conference a couple of months ago.

Given HTML5's messiness, what made you want to learn it and build a game in HTML5 (besides awesome curiosity)? is it just the interoperability promise?

Sweet game! I'm a sucker for laser glows. Didn't see anyone else in there when I tried it -- but, does the endless galaxy make it harder for individual users to find one another (esp. without landmarks because you're in space)?

What you're saying about the problems with HTML5 game development sound spot-on -- a lot like what EA and Zynga people were saying at the HTML5 game conference a couple of months ago.

Given HTML5's messiness, what made you want to learn it and build a game in HTML5 (besides awesome curiosity)? is it just the interoperability promise?

Sweet game! I'm a sucker for laser glows. Didn't see anyone else in there when I tried it -- but, does the endless galaxy make it harder for individual users to find one another (esp. without landmarks because you're in space)?

What you're saying about the problems with HTML5 game development sound spot-on -- a lot like what EA and Zynga people were saying at the HTML5 game conference a couple of months ago.

Given HTML5's messiness, what made you want to learn it and build a game in HTML5 (besides awesome curiosity)? is it just the interoperability promise?

Creating a table with a facebook_id field and an email_address field sounds like it would give you the lookup you need..but maybe I'm not understanding your question. Are you currently using user email addresses to identify users, once they go through the checkout process (since you said that users don't actually login..I'm guessing you ask for email during checkout)?

The Wikipedia page on OpenID is pretty good, I think.

Creating a table with a facebook_id field and an email_address field sounds like it would give you the lookup you need..but maybe I'm not understanding your question. Are you currently using user email addresses to identify users, once they go through the checkout process (since you said that users don't actually login..I'm guessing you ask for email during checkout)?

The Wikipedia page on OpenID is pretty good, I think.

Creating a table with a facebook_id field and an email_address field sounds like it would give you the lookup you need..but maybe I'm not understanding your question. Are you currently using user email addresses to identify users, once they go through the checkout process (since you said that users don't actually login..I'm guessing you ask for email during checkout)?

The Wikipedia page on OpenID is pretty good, I think.

Creating a table with a facebook_id field and an email_address field sounds like it would give you the lookup you need..but maybe I'm not understanding your question. Are you currently using user email addresses to identify users, once they go through the checkout process (since you said that users don't actually login..I'm guessing you ask for email during checkout)?

The Wikipedia page on OpenID is pretty good, I think.

You can get the latest IE10 developer preview here, although you'll also need the Windows 8 Developer Preview for that.

MSFT's full IE10 guide for developers is here.

For specific feature support, Try caniuse.com's IE9 vs. IE10 comparison here -- then play with what features and browsers you want to compare.

For a more discursive analysis: Sencha wrote a nice Win8/IE10 first look article here (emphasis on HTML5).

Interesting. Why do you think large corps and gov depts account for most of the remaining IE6 installs?

I'm not doubting, just wondering how we would know (or conjecture).

Interesting. Why do you think large corps and gov depts account for most of the remaining IE6 installs?

I'm not doubting, just wondering how we would know (or conjecture).

Interesting. Why do you think large corps and gov depts account for most of the remaining IE6 installs?

I'm not doubting, just wondering how we would know (or conjecture).

Interesting. Why do you think large corps and gov depts account for most of the remaining IE6 installs?

I'm not doubting, just wondering how we would know (or conjecture).