Skip to main content

Learning from Kent Beck

Here's a great post that I'm sure others have seen and posted. Three guys had the opportunity to do some prototyping with Kent Beck, the creator of TDD and thankfully, one of them, documented it. I haven't ready Kent's implementation patterns book

The entire post is very long and detailed but I wanted to post some key takeaways as they apply to pretty much any project.

Make your code readable.  "Code is primarily means of communication."



KISS. "Apply simplicity at all levels."


Flexibility "Programs should be flexible in the ways they change, they should make common changes easy or at least easier. "

Approaches to coding. When thinking about Agile, people start creating sprints of 2 weeks or less. When prototyping, an even quicker sprint came up - "what would be the demo we would like to show at the end of the day. And his next question was what test to write."

Write tests that test needed functionality, at a high or unit level. "Speculating about failure points can be just as wasteful as speculating about design."

Write Code in the Test, then Refactor. (I know, think about it. I actually started doing this when I was first learning TDD and thought - "is this really what I'm supposed to do?") " Instead of thinking about how it should be organized (what classes to create, where to put them, whether to use a factory class or a factory method), why not initially write the code directly in the test method? You can always factor out the code later."

Focus on one thing at the given time. " If you notice along the way something else that needs to be done – giving a method a better name, removing a dead code, fixing an unrelated bug – don’t do it, put it on a task list and do it later. "

Symmetry in Code. "Symmetry in code is where the same idea is expressed the same way everywhere it appears in the code."


The entire post is a great read.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...

Friend vs Therapist vs LLM: Shades of Grey

The conversations with AI series brings up a single point and then compares it between different LLM engines. These types of conversations were one of the many contributing factors to my writing of " Towards Consciousness " that explores the benefits and issues of creating a conscious AI. In this scenario, I was interested in seeing how an LLM might differ from a friend or therapist on issues that may have nuanced responses or contexts. In doing so, I came up with an interesting discussion on shades of grey. My Premise: Is it a bit strange to be using an LLM as a sober second thought? Every time I walk down this path of “why use an LLM to do certain things”, I come back to the alternatives that people like to say. “Why not bring it up with a friend?” A friend typically has your back or will say whatever to support their own agenda. “A therapist?” That’s someone who is “trained” to be impartial. But a computer? A computer is impartial based on two logical outcomes. If you say ...