There are a number of common misconceptions in software development surrounding the idea of concurrency. This has been coming for decades, and some of the issues have just been reinforced one more time in an otherwise interesting post in LinkedIn’s engineering blog that recommends their development framework.
Such issues may be observed throughout the post, but can be elucidated via this short paragraph: Continue reading
Circular buffers are based on an algorithm well known by any developer who’s got past the “Hello world!” days. They offer a number of key characteristics with wide applicability such as constant and efficient memory use, efficient FIFO semantics, etc.
One feature which is not always desired, though, it the fact that circular buffers traditionally will either overwrite the last element, or raise an overflow error, since they are generally implemented as a buffer of constant size. This is an unwanted property when one is attempting to consume items from the buffer and it is not an option to blindly drop items, for instance.
This post presents an efficient (and potentially novel) algorithm for implementing circular buffers which preserves most of the key aspects of the traditional version, while also supporting dynamic expansion when the buffer would otherwise have its oldest entry overwritten. It’s not clear if the described approach is novel or not (most of my novel ideas seem to have been written down 40 years ago), so I’ll publish it below and let you decide.
When I started programming in Python long ago, one of the features which really hooked me up was the quality interactive interpreter offered with the language implementation. It was (and still is) a fantastic way to experiment with syntax, semantics, modules, and whatnot. So much so that many first-class Python practitioners will happily tell you that the interactive interpreter is used not only as a programming sandbox, but many times as the their personal calculator too. This kind of interactive interpreter is also known as a REPL, standing for Read Eval Print Loop, and many languages have pretty advanced choices in that area by now.
After much rejoice with Python’s REPL, though, and as a normal human being, I’ve started wishing for more. The problem has a few different levels, which are easy to understand.
I was just rambling randomly yesterday, in the usual microblogging platforms, about how result checking seems to be ignored or done badly. The precise wording was:
It’s really amazing how little attention error handling receives in most software development. Even *tutorials* often ignore it.
It indeed does amaze me. It sometimes feels like we write code for theoretical perfect worlds.. “If the processor executes exactly in this order, and the weather is calm, this program will work.”. There are countless examples of bad assumptions.. someday I will come with some statistics of the form “Every N seconds someone forgets to check the result of write().”.
For some time now I’ve been wanting to research more deeply about the internals of Android. Until now, though, this was just a sentiment. Then, a couple of weeks ago I’ve finally managed to replace my iPhone for an Android phone, and that was the final motivator for me to actually get into learning more about the inner workings of the Linux-based OS.
Now, I just had to pick an actual task for digging into. The Dalvik VM is certainly one of the most innovative and advertised technical details about the OS, so something around it would be a nice start.. some kind of bytecode fiddling perhaps, but what? Luckily, even without trying too hard, I eventually stumbled upon an interesting case for researching upon.
The “victim” of this research is the application gbaSafe version 1.1.0a, which claims to protect user passwords using unbreakable algorithms (how’s that for a hint of a Snake oil case?).
Some interesting changes have been happening in my professional life, so I wanted to share it here to update friends and also for me to keep track of things over time (at some point I will be older and will certainly laugh at what I called “interesting changes” in the ol’days). Given the goal, I apologize but this may come across as more egocentric than usual, so please feel free to jump over to your next blog post at any time.
In my previous post I made an open statement which I’d like to clarify a bit further:
(…) when the rules don’t work for people, the rules should be changed, not the people.
This leaves a lot of room for personal interpretation of what was actually meant, and TIm Hoffman pointed that out nicely with the following questioning in a comment:
I wonder when the rule is important enough to change the people though. For instance [, if your] development process is oriented to TDD and people don’t write the tests or do the job poorly will you change them then?
This is indeed a nice scenario to explore the idea. If it happens at some point that a team claims to be using TDD, but if in practice no developer actually writes tests first, the rules are clearly not working. If everyone in the team hates doing TDD, enforcing it most probably won’t show its intended benefits, and that was the heart of my comment. You can’t simply keep the rule as is if no one follows it, unless you don’t really care about the outcome of the rule.
One interesting point, though, is that when you have a high level of influence over the environment in which people are, it may be possible to tweak the rules or the processes to adapt to reality, and tweaking the processes may change the way that people feel about the rules as a consequence (arguably, changing people as a side effect).
As a more concrete example, if I found myself in the described scenario, I’d try to understand why TDD is not working, and would try to discuss with the team to see how we should change the process so that it starts to work for us somehow. Maybe what would be needed is more discussion to show the value of TDD, and perhaps some pair programming with people that do TDD very well so that the joy of doing it becomes more visible.
In either case, I wouldn’t be simply asking people “Everyone has to do TDD from now on!“, I’d be tweaking the process so that it feels better and more natural to people. Then, if nothing similar works either, well, let’s change the rule. I’d try to use more conventional unit testing or some other system which people do follow more naturally and that presents similar benefits.
For a long time I’ve been an advocate of Python’s notion of controlling access to private and protected members (attributes, methods, etc) with conventions, by simply naming them like “_name”, with an initial underline. Even though Python does support the “__name” (with double underscore) for “private” members (this actually mangles the name rather than hiding it), you’ll notice that even this is rarely used in practice, and the largely agreed mantra is that convention should be enough and thus one underscore suffices. This always resonated quite well with me, since I generally prefer to handle situations by agreement rather than enforcement. Well, I’m now changing my opinion.that this works well for this purpose, at least in certain situations.
This methodology may work quite well in situations where the code scope is within a very controlled environment, with one or more teams which follow strictly a single development guideline, and have the power to refactor the affected code base somewhat easily when the original decisions are too limiting.
Having worked on a few major projects now, and some of them being libraries which are used by several teams within the same company or outside, I now perceive that people very often take shortcuts over these decisions for getting their job done quickly. It’s way easier to simply read the code and get to the private guts of a library than to try to get agreement over the right way to do something, or sending a patch with a suggested change which was carefully architected.
Many people by now are probably thinking: “Well, that’s their problem, isn’t it? If their code base breaks on the next upgrade they’ll get burned and won’t be able to upgrade cleanly.”, and I can honestly understand this feeling, since I shared it. But, for a number of reasons, I now understand that this isn’t just their problem, it’s very much my problem too.
Most importantly, on any serious software, these problems will usually come back to the implementors, and many times the problem will have a much larger magnitude by then than they had at the time a change could have been done “the right way” on the implementation, because code dependent on the private bits will have settled.
Most people are optimist by nature and believe that the implementation won’t change, but, of course, one of the reasons why private information is made private in the first place is exactly because the implementor believes that having the freedom to change these details in the future is important, and not rarely there’s already a plan of evolution in place for these private pieces, which may include revamping the implementation entirely for scalability or for other goals.
In the best case, the careless people will get burned on the upgrade and will ask for support or simply won’t upgrade silently, and both cases hurt implementors, because providing support for broken software takes time and energy, and amazingly can even hurt the software image. Lack of upgrades also means more ancient versions in the wild to give support for. Besides these, in the worst case scenario, the careless people have enough influence on the affected project to cause as much burden on it as if the private data was public in the first place.
As much as I’m a believer in handling situation by agreement rather than enforcement, I’m also a believer that when the rules don’t work for people, the rules should be changed, not the people. So my positioning now is that the language supported access constraints (public, protected, private), as available in languages like Java and C++, are a better alternative when compared to convention as used today in Python, since they provide an additional layer of encouragement for people to not break the rules carelessly, and that helps in the maintenance and reuse of software that has greater visibility.
I have collected a few cool links about Jython, and I’d like to keep them somewhere. So, here they are:
For the first time in my life, I’ve been paid to implement something in the Java language. Conectiva has been contracted to implement X500 address book support in a known Brazilian groupware tool, for the Brazilian government. This tool runs on top of the TomCat server, and I must mention that I’ve used an interesting feature of the Java language to debug it remotely: the Java Platform Debugger Architecture (JPDA) (thanks JSwat developers).