Tag: Software

FAQ: Starting Your Career in Software Development Pt2

Applying for Software Development Jobs

How do I stand out on an application?

I think this is largely going to depend on where you’re applying. Something to consider is that especially with large tech companies, they’re getting thousands and thousands of resumes all the time. It can be really competitive to be able to even land an interview so sometimes if the caliber of other applicants is high, it can make it difficult to stand out.

That’s okay. We don’t have control over others, but we do have control over ourselves! We can try a few different things to stand out and help you get started on your software development journey professionally. The following are things I personally would suggest and may not reflect the exact views of my employers (past, present, or future) and may not reflect those exact views of recruiters/screeners at other companies. There’s my disclaimer!

  • Understand what the minimum requirements are and exceed them when you can. It’ll be hard initially, especially when job positions ask for a minimum amount of time as a professional. If you checked out this post and you had several internships, you’re actually already on your way to listing out necessary work experience! If you couldn’t land internships, or this is your first internship you might not have that luxury (and that’s okay!). Do the job description list other skills or experiences that are required? Can you get examples of that on your resume? Remember, if there’s many other candidates, it’s easy for screeners to filter out applications that don’t seem to meet the minimum requirements (even if you’re totally awesome!) just because there’s so much volume for them to get through.
  • Side projects are your best friend. Think about it though. If 1000 people apply for a job and all have similar work and school experience, how would you stand out? Well, if you’ve been working on some cool stuff outside of work and demonstrating that you have a genuine interest in different areas of software development, that could be huge! Are you going to be working with SQL in your new role? Maybe mention that cool tinder-for-restaurants app you made. Oh, that also demonstrates you know some cross-platform development tools. Awesome! What about that fun web app you made? AND you can put a link to it for them to try out? That could be a huge win if it’s a smaller org that has time to dig a bit deeper on applicants.

    For me, side projects are one of the most important pieces to consider. I get it though. Not everyone has time or the interest to work on stuff outside of their 9-5. And I’m not suggesting this is a requirement or the only way to land a job. I just think this is one of the best and easiest ways to stand out because it shows passion for creating, learning, and interest in your field on top of your work experience (that may or may not look like a majority of other applicants).
  • Your school grades matter… Until they don’t. I don’t want to give people the wrong advice here, so I’ll try to be clear. Especially during internships and at companies that get a lot of applications, grades are likely going to be a factor. It’s just another super easy way for a company to set the bar high and filter out a large amount of applicant volume. I don’t necessarily feel it’s the best way to filter candidates, but I also don’t blame companies for doing this if there’s overwhelming volume. If two people have identical applications but one received a 5% higher average in all of their courses, if you only have time to interview one you’ll likely pick the one with the higher average. Again, I’m not suggesting this implies the other candidate is not worthy or this will always net a company the best employees, I’m just saying that they need to filter down candidates and it’s an easy way to do it.

    With that said, my personal opinion is that I don’t care about grades. Not much, anyway. For interns, I’d probably expect someone to do well in their programming courses, but if your calculus and physics marks were super low I really don’t care. Not unless I’m hiring you to do physics and calculus. But generally (and I hope this comment ages well!) I’m not. I’m hiring you to be a productive member of an awesome software development team.

    Once it comes time for full-time employment I don’t really care about grades at all. I want to know about interesting experiences that are relatable to what you’re applying for. This will give me fuel for engaging interview questions as well, which is our next question!

What types of interview questions should I expect?

I’ll just throw out another reminder here that this is fully my own opinion and not necessarily the opinion of my past, current or future employers. When I’m interviewing people for software development positions, there’s certainly a minimum expectation I have with respect to programming abilities. It might not be what is popularized on the Internet though.

First off, I need evidence that you have actually programmed before. Ideally this is done in a pre-screen (online, over the phone, etc…) before I’m sitting down with you for a lengthy hour (or more) long interview. I have sat in interviews with people that have claimed multiple years of professional programming experience but could not answer FizzBuzz. What’s not make-or-break for me is your knowledge in a specific programming language. Sure, if you’re an expert in the language(s) we’re using heavily in our stack that’s great for ramp up time. However, I feel that great programmers can learn other languages and be effective with them, and I’m seeking great programmers.

Next, I want to see you problem solve. I’m not impressed by you being able to answer an algorithm-based question immediately or jumping right to coding up a heavily optimized solution perfectly the first time around. Why? I’ve known people to memorize these sorts of things. Sure, the pool of questions to pick from feels infinitely large but it certainly does happen where someone lucks out on an interview and they see a question they know an optimized answer for. My interview directly out of university was actually exactly like this, where I was asked one single question and I knew the optimized answer for it in detail (which I disclosed to the interviewers). But as an interviewer, I have no interest in picking candidates based on their memorization abilities. I want you to explain your thought process. I like adjusting the question on the fly with different constraints and have you explain why you might change your design or approach. Why? Because in the real world of software development this kind of thing happens all the time. What doesn’t happen all the time are really contrived theoretical algorithm questions popping up regularly. And just to wrap up thoughts on this point, there are absolutely real situations where applying knowledge and understanding from these algorithm questions is critical, but I don’t feel memorized solutions to these help in the real world.

If you plan on working in big tech companies, especially ones with services running in the cloud, you’ll probably be asked system design questions. I won’t write much here because my thoughts on this are essentially the same as the previous paragraph. Don’t memorize. Understand, explain trade-offs, be able to work through different constraints in your systems! There are plenty of sites online that offer examples to go through, and great examples on YouTube, so I’d just take the time to go learn and understand (not memorize).

Finally, I love seeing how people work together on teams. This is something I’m trying to understand throughout the entire interview process. I want to make sure you’re collaborative and that you’ll work well with others. In the real world of software development, you’re almost always working with others. Being the most amazing programmer but not being collaborative doesn’t work well in any environment that I’ve worked in over the last 10+ years.

How do I stand out in an interview?

If you’ve nailed down the stuff in the previous points, you’re probably doing great. But beyond that, I want to see and hear about your cool work experiences. I want to hear how you problem solved and developed creative solutions. Tell me your favorite project. Explain how you learned from one of your failed projects and what you’d do differently going forward. Tell me more details about how you work well with others, even when there were difficulties between team members. Tell me about unique challenges you worked through with your team and how you contributed to the success.

I love seeing people get pumped up about their hobby projects they work on outside of work. It helps to demonstrate that you’re constantly learning, challenging yourself, and that you’re passionate about software. As I said towards the start of this post, I understand that not everyone has time for this kind of thing so it’s not a make-or-break item on an interview. But we’re talking about standing out, and for me, this is something that becomes memorable.

Should I reach out to (hiring) managers directly?

This can largely depend on the organization and how they approach hiring. So my suggestion here is hopefully a good-enough general approach to answer this.

First off, I think you should start by going through the normal HR/recruiting channels that a company has to offer. Get into the system. Get your application/resume in and get queued up so that the right processes can get underway. If you’re already interested in the job, I think this is your first starting point. When people reach out to me and ask about hiring, this is exactly where my mind goes.

Next, if you’re reaching out to managers, I think there’s some do’s and don’ts to consider.

  • DON’T assume that every manager on LinkedIn is currently hiring or directly involved in the hiring process. The conversation generally won’t go too much further if you’re asking person for a job and they’re not in a position to be hiring. Chances are they’ll recommend you do what I suggested above and go through normal recruitment channels.
  • DO reach out with a specific posted position if you think it’s relevant or know it’s specific to their team. Structure your conversation around expressing interest in this role and ask your clarifying questions about it.
  • DON’T ask for referrals if you’ve never worked with the person. I personally don’t know why people expect this to be successful. If I’m recommending someone, it’s my name going along with that referral. Instead of asking for a referral, consider asking if they’re aware of other roles or information about where you can find additional posted roles.
  • DO be personable and respectful. Express interest in the area this manager is hiring for (after you’ve confirmed your assumptions, right?) and ask about the best way to get visibility for applying. If they suggest the best way is truly going through the HR/recruitment pipeline, being more pressing beyond this likely won’t be beneficial. Some managers do more hiring directly and other times this is largely through these other channels.
  • DON’T reach out with expectations that by doing so you will guarantee that you’ll be considered for a role or that the manager has an obligation to set you up for this. This goes back to being respectful. Generally people will try to help if they can, but it’s unfair to set expectations that they’ll drop what they’re doing to help you get a position.

This series of FAQ posts was actually inspired by an individual reaching out with some very specific questions that I could answer. Many of these were asked by others over time, but this individual was polite, patient, and concise in what he wanted information on. There were no demands of me or expectations I’d secure him a job. I think his approach was spot on.


xUnit Tests Not Running With .NET Standard

Having worked with C# for quite some time now writing desktop applications, I’ve begun making the transition over to .NET standard. In my professional working experience, it was a much slower transition because of product requirements and time, but in my own personal development there’s no reason why I couldn’t get started with it. And call me crazy, but I enjoy writing coded tests for the things I make. My favourite testing framework for my C# development is xUnit, and naturally as I started writing some new code with .NET Standard I wanted to make sure I could get my tests to run.

Here’s an example of some C# code I wrote for my unit tests of a simple LRU cache class I was playing around with:

    [ExcludeFromCodeCoverage]
    public sealed class LruCachetests
    {
        [Fact]
        public void Constructor_CapacityTooSmall_ThrowsArgumentException()
        {
            Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>(() => new LruCache<int, int>(0));
        }

        [Fact]
        public void ContainsKey_EntryExists_True()
        {
            var cache = new LruCache<int, int>(1);
            cache.Add(0, 1);
            var actual = cache.ContainsKey(0);
            Assert.True(
                actual,
                $"Unexpected result for '{nameof(LruCache<int, int>.ContainsKey)}'.");
        }
    }

Pretty simple stuff. I know that for xUnit in Visual Studio, I need to get a nuget package for the test runner to work right in the IDE. Simple enough, I just need to add the “xunit.runner.visualstudio” package alongside the xunit package I had already included into my test project.

Nuget package management for project in visual studio showing required xUnit packages.
Required xUnit nuget packages

Ready to rock! So I go run all my tests in the solution but I’m met with this little surprise:

[3/24/2020 3:59:10.570 PM] ========== Discovery aborted: 0 tests found (0:00:00.0622045) ==========
[3/24/2020 3:59:20.510 PM] ---------- Discovery started ----------
Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestPlatform.ObjectModel.TestPlatformException: Unable to find C:[redacted]binDebugnetstandard2.0testhost.dll. Please publish your test project and retry.
   at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestPlatform.CrossPlatEngine.Hosting.DotnetTestHostManager.GetTestHostPath(String runtimeConfigDevPath, String depsFilePath, String sourceDirectory)
   at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestPlatform.CrossPlatEngine.Hosting.DotnetTestHostManager.GetTestHostProcessStartInfo(IEnumerable`1 sources, IDictionary`2 environmentVariables, TestRunnerConnectionInfo connectionInfo)
   at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestPlatform.CrossPlatEngine.Client.ProxyOperationManager.SetupChannel(IEnumerable`1 sources, String runSettings)
   at Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestPlatform.CrossPlatEngine.Client.ProxyDiscoveryManager.DiscoverTests(DiscoveryCriteria discoveryCriteria, ITestDiscoveryEventsHandler2 eventHandler)
[3/24/2020 3:59:20.570 PM] ========== Discovery aborted: 0 tests found (0:00:00.0600179) ==========
Executing all tests in project: [redacted].Tests
[3/24/2020 3:59:20.635 PM] ---------- Run started ----------
[3/24/2020 3:59:20.639 PM] ========== Run finished: 0 tests run (0:00:00.0039314) ==========

Please publish your test project and retry? Huh?

As any software engineer does, I set out to Google for answers. I came across this Stack Overflow post: https://stackoverflow.com/q/54770830/2704424

And fortunately someone had responded with a link to the xUnit documentation: Why doesn’t xUnit.net support netstandard?

The answer was right at the top!

netstandard is an API, not a platform. Due to the way builds and dependency resolution work today, xUnit.net test projects must target a platform (desktop CLR, .NET Core, etc.) and run with a platform-specific runner application.

https://xunit.net/docs/why-no-netstandard

My solution was that I changed my test project to build for one of the latest .NET Frameworks… and voila! I chose .NET 4.8 as the latest available at the time of writing.

My next attempt at running all of my tests looked like this:

Executing all tests in project: [Redacted].Tests
[3/24/2020 3:59:20.635 PM] ---------- Run started ----------
[3/24/2020 3:59:20.639 PM] ========== Run finished: 0 tests run (0:00:00.0039314) ==========
[3/24/2020 4:08:14.898 PM] ---------- Discovery started ----------
[xUnit.net 00:00:00.00] xUnit.net VSTest Adapter v2.4.1 (32-bit Desktop .NET 4.0.30319.42000)
[xUnit.net 00:00:00.40]   Discovering: [Redacted].Tests
[xUnit.net 00:00:00.47]   Discovered:  [Redacted].Tests
[xUnit.net 00:00:00.00] xUnit.net VSTest Adapter v2.4.1 (32-bit Universal Windows)
[3/24/2020 4:08:16.289 PM] ========== Discovery finished: 2 tests found (0:00:01.3819229) ==========
Executing all tests in project: [Redacted].Tests
[3/24/2020 4:08:17.833 PM] ---------- Run started ----------
[xUnit.net 00:00:00.00] xUnit.net VSTest Adapter v2.4.1 (32-bit Desktop .NET 4.0.30319.42000)
[xUnit.net 00:00:00.41]   Starting:    [Redacted].Tests
[xUnit.net 00:00:00.66]   Finished:    [Redacted].Tests
[3/24/2020 4:08:19.337 PM] ========== Run finished: 2 tests run (0:00:01.4923808) ==========

And I was back on my path to success! Hopefully if you run into this same issue you can resolve it in the same fashion. Happy testing!


RPG Development Progress Pulse – Entry 1

Progress Pulse

Progress Pulse – Entry 1

For the first entry in the progress pulse series I’ll touch on some things from the past week or so. There’s been a lot of smaller things being churned in the code base, some of them interesting, and others less interesting so I want to highlight a few. As a side note, it’s really cool to see that the layout and architecture is allowing for features to be added pretty easily, so I’ll dive a bit deeper on that. Overall, I’m pretty happy with how things are going.

Unity3D – Don’t Fight It!

I heard from a colleague before that Unity3D does some things you might not like, but don’t try to fight it, just go with it. To me, that’s a challenge. If I’m going to be spending time coding in something I want it to be with an API that I enjoy. I don’t want to spend time fighting it. An example of this is how I played with the stitching pattern to make my Autofac life easier with Unity3D behaviours.

However, I met my match recently. At work, we were doing an internal hackathon where we could work on projects of our choosing over a 24 hour period, and they didn’t have to be related to work at all. It’s a great way to collaborate with your peers and learn new things. I worked on Macerus and ProjectXyz. I was reaching a point where I had enough small seemingly corner-case bugs switching scenes and resetting things that I decided it was dragging my productivity down. It wasn’t exciting work, but I had to do something about it.

After debugging some console logs (I still have to figure out how to get visual studio properly attached for debugging… Maybe I’ll write an article on that when I figure it out?) I noticed I had a scenario that could only happen if one of my objects was running some work at the same time… as itself? Which shouldn’t happen. Basically, I had caught a scenario where my asynchronous code was running two instances of worker threads and it was a scenario in my game that should never occur.

I tried putting in task cancellation and waiting into my unity game. I managed to hang the main thread on scene switching and application close. No dice. I spent a few hours trying to play around with a paradigm here where I could make my ProjectXyz game engine object run asynchronously within Unity and not be a huge headache.

I needed to stop fighting it though. There was an easier solution.

I could make a synchronous and asynchronous API to my game engine. If you have a game where you want the engine on a thread, call it Async(). Unity3D already has its own game engine loop. Why re-invent it? So in Unity3D, I can simply just call the synchronous version of the game engine’s API. With this little switch, suddenly I fixed about 3 or 4 bugs. I had to stop fighting the synchronous pattern with my asynchronous code.

The lesson? Sometimes you can just come up with a simple solution that’s an alternative instead of hammering away trying to fix a problem you created yourself.

DevOps – Build & Copy Dependencies

This one for me has been one of my biggest nightmares so far.

The structure of my current game setup is as follows:

  • ProjectXyz.sln: The solution that contains all of my back-end shared game framework code. This is the really generic stuff I’m trying to build up so that I can build other games with generic pieces if I wanted to.
  • Macerus.sln: The game-specific business logic for my RPG built using ProjectXyz as a dependency. Strictly business logic though.
  • Macerus Unity: The project that Unity3D creates. This contains presentation layer code built on Macerus.sln outputs and ProjectXyz.sln outputs.

I currently don’t have my builds set up to create nuget packages. This would probably be an awesome route to go, but I also think it might result in a ton of churn right now too as the different pieces are constantly seeing churn. It’s probably something I’ll revisit as things harden, but for now it seems like too much effort given the trade off.

So what have I been doing?

  • I build ProjectXyz.sln.
    • The outputs go into this solution’s bin folder
  • I build Macerus.sln
    • There’s a prebuild step that copies ProjectXyz dependencies over
    • The outputs go into this solutions bin folder
  • I use a custom in-editor menu to copy dependencies into my Unity project
    • This resets my current “dependencies” asset folder
    • The build outputs form the other solutions are copied over
  • I can run the project with new code!

This is a little tedious, sure. But it hasn’t been awful. The problem? Visual studio can only seem to clean what it has knowledge about.

I’ve been refactoring and renaming assemblies to better fit the structure I want. A side note worth mentioning is that MUCH of my code is pluggable… The framework is very light and most things are injected via Autofac from enumerating plugin modules. One of the side effects is that downstream dependencies of ProjectXyz.sln (i.e. Macerus.sln) have build outputs that include some of the old DLLs prior to the rename. And now… Visual Studio doesn’t seem to want to clean then up on build. So what happens?

Unity3D starts automatically referencing these orphaned dlls and the auto-plugin loading is having some crazy behaviour. I’ve been seeing APIs show up that haven’t existed for weeks because some stale DLL is now showing up after an update to the dependencies. This kind of thing was chewing up HOURS of my debugging time. Not going to fly.

I decided to expand my menu a bit more. I now call MSBuild.exe on my dependency solutions prior to copying over dependencies. This removes two completely manual steps from the process I also purged my local bin directories. Now when I encounter this problem of orphaned DLLs, my single click to update all my content can let me churn iterations faster, and shorten my debugging time. Unfortunately still not an ultimate solution to the orphaned dependencies lingering around, but it’s better.

The lesson learned here was that sometimes you don’t need THE solution to your problem, but if you can make temporarily fixing it or troubleshooting it easier then it might be good enough to move forward for now.


RPG Development Progress Pulse

Progress Pulse Series

I figured this would be a fun thing to start to do just to get small updates out and talk about what I’ve been working on for ProjectXyz and my RPG I’m building in Unity3D. This will hopefully be some small updates on the order of semi to bi-weekly about what kinds of things are going on when I’m programming for these projects. This could include:

  • How and why I decided to refactor something
  • A new design practice I’m trying
  • Reflecting on why a design decision has(n’t) been working out
  • A new feature that’s interesting
  • etc…

Some of these will be technical and others much less. A bit of progress pulse allows me an outlet to talk about interesting things I’m doing and maybe sheds some light on some areas (game development or just general programming) that you might be interested.

Where Can I Find Entries In This Series?

I’ll try to organize these Progress Pulse entries into a specific category on my blog. Ideally that way you can navigate them pretty easily. You can click the link below and you should get all the entries in this series!

Click Here For Entire Progress Pulse Series


ProjectXyz: Why I Started A Team For My Hobby Project

ProjectXyz - Why I Started a Team

Who Needs A Team?!

I’ve been building RPG backends for as long as I’ve been able to code. I think my first one that I made for my grade 11 class is the only RPG that I “finished”… It was text-based and all you could do was fight AI via clicking attack, buy better weapons, level up, and repeat. It was also 10000 lines of VB6 code and so brutal that I couldn’t add anything to it without copying hundreds of lines of code.

Since then, I’ve had the itch. I keep rewriting this thing. I keep taking “Text RPG” (super cool and catchy, I know) and rewriting it. I had my first visual representation of this game called Macerus (here’s another rewrite for unity), which is actually how I landed my first co-op job. But every time I’d get so far, I’d decide I needed to rewrite it because I had messed up the architecture in some way and refactoring would be too much work.

My latest attempt is called ProjecyXyz, because I can’t come up with names. And funny enough, I just Googled it while writing this article and there’s actually a company with the same name… So maybe I’ll have to get more creative. ProjectXyz is supposed to be a very generic RPG game framework that allows new systems, mechanics, and game content to be dropped in, in addition to being independent of a front end for rendering.

It’s also something I’ve been making on my own. Because I’ve been making RPG backends on my own for years now. So who needs to have a team, right?

Too Much Pride For A Team

I think initially I wanted to do this all on my own because of pride. I also don’t think it was something I was conscious about except for the fact I looked at this project as my baby and something I could control the development of. I wasn’t consciously telling myself “I have to do this on my own so that I’m better than other people” or anything silly like that.

But why would I go ask others for help? They don’t code like me. They don’t have the same investment into this idea as me. They aren’t as passionate. They might have their own ideas for how to do things too! How could I have someone like that working on MY project?

Those are all pretty naive reasons for considering to work alone though. Sure, this is my pet project and I’m going to likely feel more attached to it than anyone else. That’s probably expected. It doesn’t mean that I can’t find people that are super interested in working on something like this. They could be totally passionate about learning different aspects of creating an RPG backend.

As for having their own ideas… That’s probably one of the BIGGEST reasons in FAVOUR of having a team! It’s easy to get scared about having other people put their ideas into something you feel like is “yours”. It might have taken a few years of working in the industry (currently just passed 6 years of working at Magnet Forensics), but it’s actually very common for other people to be contributing ideas into code bases you’re working on. It happens every day. Sometimes you have design meetings or code reviews or general architectural discussions and your idea ISN’T the one that’s picked. That’s cool! As long as everyone is striving for extensible and testable code, we can make changes if we need to going forward. You don’t need to make every decision and sometimes it’s much better that way. Other people are smart too ūüėČ

Passion is Key for a Team

While the “team” I started isn’t an official team, it’s the first time I’ve been very open to having people directly contribute to my pet project. I think one of the most obvious reasons I became comfortable with this is because I found someone that was very passionate about exploring this space.

My colleague and I were talking about some of the concepts in ProjectXyz and where I wanted to go with it. Immediately he expressed interest in map generation and how that’s always been something he wanted to explore. How can maps be procedurally generated? Can we take this concept and generate maps on the fly? What are memory and runtime constraints? How do we represent this information in code? What about persistent storage?

I could immediately tell he was very curious about how a system like this might work. After several conversations with him about how he was starting to hack up some ideas and doing research on different algorithms, I knew he was passionate about it. We discussed working on some of these things together and contributing to the project code that I have, and we’ve been going back and forth for a few weeks now sharing ideas and his progress that he’s making for map generation. I’ve been hands off only really acting as a sounding board for him.

I think having someone passionate like this is critical for a small team. There’s going to be many barriers when working on a challenging project, and it’s easy to get bogged down and lose motivation when you’re stuck. Having additional people that are passionate about seeing progress in your project means you have some support for pushing through those hard times when you might lose motivation. If my colleague comes to me and says “I’ve been stuck on this issue and maps wont generate how I want…”, then I’m more than happy to sit down with him and talk through his algorithm and maybe where there’s an issue. I’m invested in seeing his piece come to fruition. Similarly, if I’m working on something like dynamic item generation for the game and I get stuck, I know he’s there to do the exact same thing. We both want to see this thing working how we intend.

So passion is important for a team. But is it sufficient? Is it the only requirement for adding a team member?

A Team is Built on Trust

Trust! Trust is a huge part of establishing a team because you need to be able to rely on each other. As mentioned, my colleague is passionate about working on this and has an interest in map generation. But what if I had never seen any of his code before? What if I didn’t know if he’s had practice with writing extensible code, testable code, following good design practices, etc… What if?

To be honest, I probably would be pretty nervous about him contributing code. It might be a huge barrier for me. I’d want to review his code and make sure it wasn’t “polluting” my pet project. I’ve re-written this code enough times that I really don’t want to have to think about rewriting it again! If I was nervous about someone contributing code I was going to need to re-write from scratch just to have an extensible design, it might not even be worth it having them contribute in the first place. It might actually create MORE work in the long run. It sounds selfish, but if the goal of adding someone to the team is to provide a net positive effect, then having to re-write code that isn’t up to par might be a deal breaker.

But that’s not the case here. I have multiple years of experience working with this colleague closely on various projects. We align to coding practices but still have our own twist on things. We value the same things in “good” code (extensible and testable). We use many of the same design patterns in similar situations. I’ve seen enough of his code to know that most of the time my comments about it are “oh, have you considered” and not “… you need to rewrite this”.

I can trust that what he wants to contribute will be aligned to my vision. I also can trust that new ideas he introduces are probably awesome new perspective that I hadn’t thought of. I also trust that if we disagree on something, we’re open to discussing it and coming to a resolution. So trust in this case certainly removes the barrier to entry to adding additional people to my hobby project.

Should You Form a Team?

While this was a pretty general article, I just wanted to get you thinking about opening up your hobby project(s) to other people to contribute. This is something I wish I would have considered more seriously early on. Maybe I wouldn’t be re-writing my project for the millionth time!

Some general points:

  • You’re not a “worse” programmer for getting other people contributing. Good programmers need to be able to work with others!
  • Other people can have good ideas too! Sometimes, they’re even better than your own ideas ūüėČ
  • Other people may have more knowledge or interest in areas that need to get work done that you just don’t want to do! Perfect!
  • You’ll want to try and find people passionate about working in the area your project focuses
  • You’ll want to find people that you feel like you can trust so that you’re comfortable with them working on “your baby”
  • Getting help doesn’t mean your code must be “open source”. You can still share private repositories together (i.e. consider BitBucket!)

So what do you think? Is your hobby project kind of stale because you’ve hit enough roadblocks and it’s time to get some more firepower to tackle it?

Share your thoughts below about your experiences with forming teams for your hobby projects!


Unity3D and .NET 4.x Framework

Unity

Unity3D Default .NET Framework

I recently wrote that I wanted to start writing more Unity3D articles because I’m starting to pick up more Unity3D hobby work. It felt like a good opportunity to share some of my learnings so that anyone searching across the web might stumble upon this and get answers to the same problems I had.

Unity3D as of 2018.1.1f1 (which is the version I’m currently using), still defaults to using .NET 3.5 as the framework version. Nothing wrong with that either. I’m sure there are reasons that they have for staying at that version, probably because of Mono and cross platform reasons if I were to guess, so I’m not complaining. For reference, this setting in Unity3D is referred to as “Scripting Runtime Version”. So if you’re googling more about this later, that’s what Unity calls it. For the libraries I was building to use as a game framework, I was using .NET 4.6 and discovered I was going to have a challenge getting them working in Unity3D.

If you want to see what your setting is currently set at, you need to check out the “Player” settings. This was kind of buried in the UI for me so I didn’t know it was a thing that could be adjusted. In Unity3D¬†2018.1.1f1, click Edit->Project Settings->Player. Here’s what it looks like:

Unity3D - Player Settings

In Unity, click Edit->Project Settings->Player

From there, you’re going to get “PlayerSettings” in your Inspector tab. You’ll need to expand the “Other Settings” to see your scripting runtime version:

Unity3D - Other Settings

“Other Settings” accordion control in PlayerSettings Inspector tab

Once you expand that, here’s the setting you’re interested in:

Unity3D - Scripting Runtime Version

Scripting Runtime Version – The selected .NET version Unity will use

Switching Unity3D to .NET 4.x

Now that you know where the setting is… it’s pretty easy ūüôā

Unity3D - Scripting Runtime Version

Use the dropdown to pick which .NET framework version you’d like to use.

You can read more about this setting over at the official Unity3D documentation pages:

https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/ScriptingRuntimeUpgrade.html

This outlines what things are affected in different platforms and scenarios so YOU SHOULD READ IT to understand what will change.

Hope that makes things a bit easier for you to get up and running with .NET 4.x assemblies in Unity3D!


API: Top-Down? Bottom-Up? Somewhere in the Middle?

A Quick Brain-Dump on API Desgin

I’ll keep this one pretty brief as I haven’t totally nailed down my thoughts on this. I still thought it was worth a quick little post:

When you’re creating a brand new API to expose some functionality of a system, should you design it with a strong focus on how the internals work? Should you ignore how internals work and make it as easy to consume as possible? Or is there an obvious balance?

I find myself trying to answer this question without ever explicitly asking it. Any time I’m looking to extend or connect systems, this is likely to come up.

Most Recently…

Most recently I started trying to look at creating an API over AMQP to connect my game back-end to a Unity 3D front-end. I had been developing the back-end for a little while now, so I had a pretty good idea for how things needed to work from that perspective. The front-end? Not so much really. I knew some basic actions that I was considering, so I tried coding up an early API for them.

A lot of my focus was around how I was going to implement the code on the back-end to make this API work. It resulted in some of the API calls looking a little bit gross. But the idea was that if I settled on an API that would make the back-end easy to implement, I could get it up and running faster.

After a little while, I feel like my API isn’t getting any cleaner from a consumer perspective, and funny enough, it’s not actually as easy to implement as I was hoping on the back-end. Which had me reflect on a work example…

Once Upon a Time at Work…

Well, it was only a couple of months ago, really. I was working with a colleague on integrating a new system into an existing code base. We decided we wanted to approach the API problem from a consumer perspective. We said “let’s make this as easy to call and use as possible so that people ACTUALLY want to use it”.

We set out with this mission, and created a pretty simplistic API. The challenge? There was a lot of heavy lifting and a bit of voodoo going on behind the scenes. But you know what? We hid the magic in one spot of the code (instead of having ugly stuff scattered all over the code base) and it ended up being a very usable API.

So…

So does this consumer-first, top-down approach to API design always work? I’m not sure. Some similarities/differences in the scenarios:

  • In my current situation, I have a back-end implemented and very minimal code implemented on the caller side. In the work example, we had nothing implemented on the back-end, and a ton of code implemented where the caller side would be.
  • In both examples, at least one of the caller side or back-end side was reasonably well understood. For my game, the back-end was pretty well understood. For work, the caller side was pretty well understood and we had experience with what we’d call a “failed’ back-end implementation (that we were actually setting out to redesign).
  • The work example was a relatively small subset for an API, but the game example was about to be a very specific implementation that I’d need to adapt into a pattern for all messaging in my AMQP system

So there’s a few things to consider there. I think I’m at the point in my game where I’d like to revisit how I’m forming this API and try it from a client-first perspective. Now that I know some of the catches, maybe I’ll shed some new light!

How do you approach API design?


What Makes Good Code? – Should Every Class Have An Interface? Pt 1

What Makes Good Code? - Should Every Class Have An Interface?

What’s An Interface?

I mentioned in the first post of this series that I’ll likely be referring to C# in most of these posts. I think the concept of an interface in C# extends to other languages–sometimes by a different name–so the discussion here may still be applicable. Some examples in C++, Java,¬†and Python to get you going for comparisons.

From MSDN:

An interface contains definitions for a group of related functionalities that a class or a struct can implement.
By using interfaces, you can, for example, include behavior from multiple sources in a class. That capability is important in C# because the language doesn’t support multiple inheritance of classes. In addition, you must use an interface if you want to simulate inheritance for structs, because they can’t actually inherit from another struct or class.

It’s also important to note that an interface¬†decouples the definition of something from its implementation. Decoupled code is, in general, something that programmers are always after. If we refer back to the¬†points I defined for what makes good code (again, in my opinion), we can see how interfaces should help with that.

  • Extensibility: Referring to interfaces in code instead of concrete classes allows a developer to swap out the implementation easier (i.e. extend support for different data providers in your data layer). They provide a specification to be met should a developer want to extend the code base with new concrete implementations.
  • Maintainability:¬†Interfaces make refactoring an easier job (when the interface signature doesn’t have to change). A developer can get the flexibility of modifying the implementation that already exists or creating a new one provided that it meets the interface.
  • Testability: Referring to interfaces in code instead of concrete classes allows mocking frameworks to leverage mocked objects so that true unit tests are easier to write.
  • Readability: I’m neutral on this. I don’t think interfaces are overly helpful for making code more readable, but I don’t think they inherently make code harder to read.

I’m only trying to focus on¬†some of the pro’s here, and we’ll use this sub-series to explore if these hold true across the board. So… should¬†every class have a backing¬†interface?

An Example

Let’s walk through a little example. In this example, we’ll look at an object that “does stuff”, but it requires something that can do a string lookup to “do stuff” with. We’ll look at how using an interface can make this type of code extensible!

First, here is our interface that we’ll use for looking up strings:

[csharp]
public interface IStringLookup
{
string GetString(string name);
}
[/csharp]

And here is our first implementation of something that can lookup strings for us. It’ll just lookup an XML node and pull a value from it. (How it actually does this stuff isn’t really important for the example, which is why I’m glossing over it):

[csharp]
public sealed class XmlStringLookup : IStringLookup
{
private readonly XmlDocument _xmlDocument;

public XmlStringLookup(XmlDocument xmlDocument)
{
_xmlDocument = xmlDocument;
}

public string GetString(string name)
{
return _xmlDocument
.GetElementsByTagName(name)
.Cast<XmlElement>()
.First()
.Value;
}
}

[/csharp]

This will be used to plug into the rest of the code:

[csharp]
private static int Main(string[] args)
{
    var obj = CreateObj();
    var stringLookup = CreateStringLookup();
    
    obj.DoStuff(stringLookup);

    return 0;
}

private static IMyObject CreateObj()
{
    return new MyObject();
}

private static IStringLookup CreateStringLookup()
{
    return new XmlStringLookup(new XmlDocument());
}

public interface IMyObject
{
    void DoStuff(IStringLookup stringLookup);
}

public class MyObject : IMyObject
{
    public void DoStuff(IStringLookup stringLookup)
    {
        var theFancyString = stringLookup.GetString("FancyString");
        
        // TODO: do stuff with this string
    }
}

[/csharp]

In the code snippet above, you’ll see our Main() method creating an instance of “MyObject” which is the thing that’s going to “DoStuff” with our XML string lookup. The important thing to note is that the DoStuff method takes in the interface IStringLookup that our XML class implements.

Now, XML string lookups are great, but let’s show why interfaces make this code extensible. Let’s swap out an XML lookup for an overly simplified CSV string lookup! Here’s the implementation:

[csharp]
public sealed class CsvStringLookup : IStringLookup
{
    private readonly StreamReader _reader;

    public CsvStringLookup(StreamReader reader)
    {
        _reader = reader;
    }

    public string GetString(string name)
    {
        string line;
        while ((line = _reader.ReadLine()) != null)
        {
¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†var¬†split¬†=¬†line.Split(‘,’);
            if (split[0] != name)
            {
                continue;
            }

            return split[1];
        }

        throw new InvalidOperationException("Not found.");
    }
}
[/csharp]

Now to leverage this class, we only need to modify ONE line of code from the original posting! Just modify CreateStringLookup() to be:

[csharp]
private static IStringLookup CreateStringLookup()
{
    return new CsvStringLookup(new StreamReader(File.OpenRead(@"pathtosomefile.txt")));
}
[/csharp]

And voila! We’ve been able to extend our code to use a COMPLETELY different implementation of a string lookup with relatively no code change. You could make the argument that if you needed to modify the implementation for a buggy class that as long as you were adhering to the interface, you wouldn’t need to modify much surrounding code (just like this example). This would be a point towards improved maintainability in code.

“But wait!” you shout, “I could have done the EXACT same thing with an abstract class instead of the IStringLookup interface you big dummy! Interfaces are garbage!”

And you wouldn’t be wrong about the abstract class part! It’s totally true that IStringLookup could instead have been an abstract class like StringLookupBase (or something…) and¬†the benefits would still apply! That’s a really interesting point, so let’s keep that in mind as we continue on through out this whole series. The little lesson here? It’s not the interface that gives us this bonus, it’s the API boundary and level of abstraction we introduced (something that does string lookups). Both an interface and abstract class happen to help us a lot here.

Continue to Part 2


What Makes Good Code? – Patterns and Practices Series

What Makes Good Code?

It’s been a while since I’ve had a programming oriented post, and I figured this would be a great topic to write about. It’s been a topic I’ve been thinking about more and more over the last year and I’ve been experimenting with certain patterns and practices to see if certain things actually make code “better”. A lot of the information presented in this series will be completely based on my opinion, but I’ll try to back up my opinion with as many concrete examples as I can. If you have a differing opinion, I’d love to hear it in the comments.

I’d also like to call out that much of what I’ll be discussing is in the context of object oriented programming. To be¬†specific, there may be mostly C# examples used. If this isn’t something you’re actively doing, then don’t worry! It would be great to hear if you see parallels in the work you’re doing.

What Is “Good”?

So let’s start by defining what “good” or “better” means (and I’ll leave this high level and we can dive in afterwards)…

  • Extensible: Re-writing of code is minimized when adding more functionality. It feels straight forward to extend the code. Developers won’t do “the wrong thing” when trying to extend the code.
  • Maintainable: Many of the same qualities¬†that go with extensible. Fixing bugs or making tweaks¬†involves touching¬†few places in the code base.
  • Testable: It’s¬†straight forward to write coded tests that can exercise functionality of the code under test.
  • Readable**: ¬†Developers should be able to read code and understand what it’s doing.¬†The flow of execution¬†within and between different modules of code shouldn’t cause anyone a headache,

All of these describe qualities of the code. I could argue that you could write very maintainable, extensible, and testable code and it would be awful if it didn’t actually solve the customers’ needs. I’d like to try and leave this aspect out of the discussion, and focus on the actual patterns/practices that we can implement in code. I’d love to write something separate about writing code that actually solves a problem versus code that may potentially solve some possible problem at some potential point in the future (and yes, all of the uncertainty in that sentence was on purpose).

Why Should We Care?

It’s kind of a funny question, I guess, but I think it’s a fair one to ask. Why should we care what good code is? If we agree on the definition of good code, so what? Maybe those criteria for good code are obvious to some people. Maybe they weren’t so obvious to some people, but they still don’t really care. So why the fuss about what good code is?

If you’ve read other posts on DevLeader or you know me personally, you may know that I started work at a digital forensics startup a few years back in Waterloo Ontario. What you may not know is that that startup has grown significantly, and based on the accolades we’ve received as an entire organization, we’re actually one of the fastest growing software companies in North America in terms of revenue. I’m not trying to do the horn tooting without a reason though… I think one of the reasons we’ve been able to have such great success on the development side of things is because we’re always trying to improve.

We didn’t always write “good” code, and we certainly don’t always write “good” code right now. However, we’re always trying to figure out how we can get better. So¬†why might¬†WE care as developers at our office? I think it comes down to trade-offs.

In the real world of software development, you’re often faced with trade-offs. You can get a product out faster if you don’t test it. Or you can get a product out and test it, but maybe you had to take a lot of shortcuts in the code. Or maybe you can get all the features in the product and tested, but you can’t hit the deadline. There’s countless more combinations of trade-offs that we make in real software development every day.¬†I think that by understanding what “good” code means allows a team to recognize just what kinds of corners they’re cutting sometimes. When teams talk about introducing “tech debt”, there’s a better grasp around what type of debt you’re introducing. If you need to get some extra features and bug fixes in but they’re getting added with some tech debt, what could that end up meaning?

Even if you don’t agree with what my criteria are for good code, I think it’s important that you establish this within your team. If everyone can agree on what good code is, it makes constructive conversations about different implementations much easier. Just because¬†some new code is different doesn’t instantaneously make it scary and/or wrong… Maybe it’s a new way that emphasizes one of the criteria for good code a bit more than another implementation might emphasize. Perhaps it doesn’t… You can at least refer back to a reference point for what “good” is.

It’s also important to recognize that the criteria for “good” may change over time. Revisiting the definition periodically might allow you to recognize when your team is¬†redefining what “good” means to them.

Enough Rambling! Where’s This Going?

Right. Okay. I want to write some follow up posts that will focus on a few of the following items:

  • Does every class need an interface?
  • Does every class need a factory that can create it?
  • Unit tests versus functional tests
  • Is there a benefit to only passing interfaces to objects around?
  • Is there a way to enforce that interfaces HAVE to be passed around?
  • Is the single responsibility principle even helpful?
  • Mutability and immutability
  • Is it always good to follow patterns and practices in all scenarios?

And after I feel that I’ve covered enough on these topics, I’d like to circle back and revisit what “good” code is. It’ll be cool to see if the definition changes at all!

**Readability¬†was an after thought and I’m not sure how… I started writing the first example post for this series and QUICKLY realized I had omitted this.


Yeah, We’re an “Agile” Shop

Everybody Has Gone “Agile”

If you’re a software developer that’s done interviews in the past few years, then you already know that every software development shop has gone agile. Gone are the days of waterfall software development! Developers have learned that waterfall software development is the root of all evil, and the only way to be successful is to be agile. You need to be able to adapt quickly and do standups. You need to put story point estimates on your user stories. You need retrospectives… And agility! And… more buzz words! Yes! Synergy! In the cloud! You need it!

Okay, so why the sarcasm? Every single software development team is touting that they’re following the principles of agile software development, but almost no team truly is. Is it a problem if they aren’t actually following agile principles? Absolutely not, if they’re working effectively to deliver quality software. That’s not for me to say at all. I think the problem is that people are getting confused about “being agile”, but there’s nothing necessarily wrong with how they’re operating if it works for them.

Maybe We’re Not So “Agile”

I work at Magnet Forensics, and for a long time now, I’ve been saying “yeah, we’re an agile shop”. But you know what? I don’t think we are. I also don’t think that’s a problem. I think our software development process is best defined by “continuous improvement”. That’s right. I think we’re a “Continuous Improvement” shop. Our team has identified the things we think work well for us in how we develop software, and we experiment to improve on things that we think aren’t working well. I’m actually happy that we operate that way instead of operating by a set of guidelines that may or may not work for us.

So, why aren’t we¬†agile? When I look at the Agile Manifesto, I feel like there’s a few things we actually don’t do, and we don’t even worry about them. We don’t necessarily have business people working with developers daily through things, for example. Our delivery cycles are much longer than a couple of weeks most of the time. Sometimes people on our teams don’t communicate best face-to-face. I mean, just because we’re not focusing on those things isn’t¬†necessarily proof that we aren’t agile, but I truly don’t think we’re trying to embody all of the components that make up¬†agile.

As I stated previously, I do think that we try to focus on continuous improvement above all else, and I’m absolutely content with that. I think that if over time we continued our retrospectives and our team ended up operating closer to a traditional waterfall process then it would be the better thing for our team. Why? Because we make incremental changes for our team in an attempt to keep improving. Switching to waterfall is¬†a bit of a contrived example, but I definitely stand by it. Another example might be that maybe working with business people daily isn’t actually effective for our team. I don’t know, to be honest, because we’re currently tweaking other parts of our development process to improve them. Maybe we’ll get around to worrying about that at some other point.

I do know that the way we operate, we’re always trying to improve. Whether or not we get better sprint to sprint is for the retrospective to surface for us, but if we took a step back, at least we can try a different path when we try to take our next step forward.

So, We Don’t Need To Be Agile?

I think my only point of writing this post was to get this across: If you’re not actually an agile software development shop, then don’t call yourself that. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with not living and breathing agile. Maybe you’re a software shop that’s transitioning into Agile. Maybe you’re moving away from Agile. Maybe you have no¬†parts of your software development process that are agile. Who’s to say that because you’re not 100% agile your setup is bad?

I can’t advocate that agile software development is the absolute best thing for all software development teams. I personally like to think that it’s a great way to develop software, but… I don’t know your team. I don’t know your codebase. I don’t know your products, services, or clients. How the heck could I tell you the best way to go make your software?

Again, there’s nothing wrong with not being 100% agile, but we should try to be honest with ourselves. Find what works for your team. Find out how you can effectively deliver quality software.


  • Copyright © 1996-2010 Dev Leader. All rights reserved.
    Jarrah theme by Templates Next | Powered by WordPress