https://github.blog/news-insights/octoverse/what-986-million-code-pushes-say-about-the-developer-workflow-in-2025/

For this blog, I chose to read Github’s 2025 Octoverse article, “What 986 Million Code Pushses Say About The Developer Workflow in 2025.” The article analyses nearly a billion commits from developers around the world and highlights how software development teams are adapting their workflows as the entire CS landscape continues to change and evolve. I selected this article because it felt directly related to what we’ve talked about in CS-348, particularly how processes like CI/CD shape development practices and how Agile could potentially relate to some of the points Cassidy Williams, the author, brings up about teamwork.

One of the central ideas is that “iteration is the default state.” Instead of shipping big releases occasionally, developers should instead push small parts constantly. The article explains how smaller and more frequent commits have become normal. Developers fix a bug, build a small feature, or tweak a config, and then push. These smaller, lightweight commits lead to smaller, more focused pull requests with a single purpose. The article also emphasizes that constant shipping reduces risk because smaller changes are easier to debug and rollback.

The article also argues that communication patterns need to catch up with development and workflow changes. Some of the fundamental change that Williams believes need to happen in order for communication to keep up with development include: Standups being shorter or asynchronous entirely, they state that pull requests being blocked is no longer acceptable, and hiring needs to shift towards people who ship the fastest. In William’s look-ahead at the end of the article, they mention how “AI fatigue” is real but, that in the end, the best tools will win out.

Reading this made me think pretty critically about my own habits. I have always waited to commit until I felt a feature was worth committing, until it felt “big enough.” This article helped me realize that the size of a commit is entirely arbitrary and has nothing to do with the importance of a commit. More frequent commits are better for safety and for collaboration. I also realized that I have heavily underused feature flags and often think of tests and an entirely separate act that development when in reality they should be tightly connected and done pretty much constantly. Looking forward, I want to adopt the practices mentioned in this article, lightweight commits, strong integration and deployment, and clear communication can hopefully help to bridge the gap between communication and development.

From the blog CS@Worcester – My Coding Blog by Jared Delaney and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

In building software, it’s easy to focus on writing code, making features, and getting things working. But real, maintainable systems require more, they require thoughtful architecture. In the article “Five Architectural Principles” posted in the Criteo Engineering blog on Medium, Peter Milne lays out five foundational principles that, in his experience, guide sustainable and scalable software systems. The article is short but it outlines an architectural mindset that feels especially relevant.

Milne begins by outlining five principles he believes lead to more maintainable systems, grounding each one in how teams can better structure software over time. He doesn’t claim that implementation is unimportant, but he does consistently direct attention towards fundamental architectural choices. That emphasis made me reflect on how many of my past projects became unmanageable messes simply because I was focused on writing code rather than the structure supporting it.

One of the principles that Milne discuss is the important of designing components around well-defined responsibilities. He explains that keeping components focused on a single purpose helps reduce unnecessary complexity as systems evolve. His explanation made the idea more concrete for me, especially because it aligns with some of what we’ve learned in class about separation of concerns and the value of components that can change independently.

Milne also emphasizes the importance of clear contacts, the rules or interfaces that describe how parts of a system should interface. He presents contracts as a way to maintain stability, even when internal implementation details change. His explanation made me think about much smoother some of my past group projects would have been if interfaces had been clearly defined from the beginning.

Milne also makes it clear that architectural decisions should be intentional rather than accidental. He doesn’t prescribe strict formulas, but he encourages thoughtful design so that systems can evolve without becoming overly complicated. That perspective resonated pretty heavily with me because it connected to an overarching theme that’s been prevalent throughout 343: the choices we make early on influence how well a system can adapt in the future.

Reading this helped me rethink the way I want to approach future projects. Instead of immediately writing code, I want to start by defining boundaries, identifying responsibilities, and agreeing on interfaces. Architecture is meant to support the system, not struggle to keep up with it. Even though Milne’s article is fairly brief and pretty corporate, it made me realize the value of the invisible structure supporting the visible behavior of software.

https://medium.com/criteo-engineering/five-architectural-principles-d32dc2bfefae

From the blog CS@Worcester – My Coding Blog by Jared Delaney and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

For this blog I chose to explore the article “REST API Design: Architectural Foundations and Modern Practices” by Nikola Lazarov. Since CS-343 focuses on software construction, modularity, and clean interfacing, I wanted to learn more about how REST APIs fit into architecture beyond the basic GET/PUT/POST/PATCH commands. Lararov’s article stood out because it connects the roots of REST with other practical API design conventions we’ve learned in 343.

Lazarov begins by grounding the discussion in the original REST constraints defined by Roy Fielding. These include ideas such as statelessness, a uniform interface, resource-based design, and layered system architecture. The article then explains how these constraints influenced real world API design today. He connects these constraints directly to the goals of scalability, simplicity, and clear separation of concerns. For example, the statelessness requirements means that each request must contain all the information the server needs, which helps a system scale because servers don’t need client-specific context. His explanation in the article helped me understand that REST is a set of architectural decisions that influence how the entire system behaves and it isn’t nearly as independent as I thought.

The article also discusses how to apply REST principles in API design. Lazarov highlights the importance of resource-oriented URLs and matching HTTP methods, GET for retrieving, POST for creating, PUT for updating, and DELETE for … deleting. He also greatly emphasizes using meaningful HTTP status codes to communicate consistently. These design choices might seem small, but that’s kind of the entire point, these choices contribute to APIs that are predictable and easier for clients and developers to understand. Rather than presenting REST as a rigid formula, Lazarov explains how these principles guide the structure of modern APIs, helping developers create interfaces that are both intuitive and aligned with broader architectural goals.

I selected this article because I believe that it directly ties into topics we’ve explored in 343. REST APIs are essentially interfaces between components of service, so understanding why they are designed the way they are is directly relevant. I also wanted a source that explains the “why” behind REST’s patterns instead of just the “how.”

What I learned most from this article is how intentional REST API design is and what it should look like. I had previously thought of endpoints of pretty arbitrary choices, but Lazarov’s explanation helped me understand that each part of an API should reflect the underlying REST principles.

From the blog CS@Worcester – My Coding Blog by Jared Delaney and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Link: The Grug Brained Developer

For my self-directed professional development blog, I chose to read The Grug Brained Developer by Carson Gross, who founded the Hypermedia Research Group at Montana State. On the website, a free, digital version of his book, Gross manages to distill complex software wisdom into simple, almost primitive advice. Written like a caveman developer, it explores core ideas and fundamentals of coding and communication in a way that’s both funny and accurate.

The article’s central theme is simplicity. Grug constantly emphasizes avoiding unnecessary complexity in both design and process. He warns against over-engineering, over-abstracting, and blindly following trends—ideas that directly connect to what we’ve discussed in CS-348 about software process management principles like iterative improvement, communication, and agile adaptability. In short, Grug argues that most of software development isn’t about doing more, but about doing less and doing it better.

I selected this resource because it presents timeless software management lessons through a format that’s approachable and memorable. Rather than reading another dry technical essay on process maturity or workflow optimization, this post made me think deeply about how simplicity affects process management. In a course where we analyze methodologies like Scrum and Kanban, it’s easy to lose sight of the human side of software development—how teams actually think, communicate, and make decisions. The Grug Brain post brings that perspective back.

What stood out to me most was the section where Grug says, “If no can understand code, no one can fix. Then bug live forever.” This humorous line perfectly encapsulates why clear process and communication are essential to good software engineering. It aligns with our course’s emphasis on maintainability and collaboration. A well-defined process isn’t just bureaucracy—it’s what ensures that projects remain sustainable when team members change or systems evolve.

I also learned how simplicity ties into continuous improvement. In agile environments, each sprint is a chance to refine not just code, but the process itself. Grug’s idea that “small simple thing better than big clever thing” echoes this perfectly: effective software process management focuses on clarity, iteration, and team alignment over cleverness or premature optimization.

Reflecting on this, I realized that I often over complicate my own projects—whether by designing too many abstractions or worrying too much about tools instead of workflow. Going forward, I plan to apply Grug’s philosophy by prioritizing clarity in both my code and my project management habits. That means writing simpler documentation, refining processes only when necessary, and valuing human understanding above technical elegance.

In summary, The Grug Brained Developer provides a surprisingly profound take on process management: simplicity and communication are the real foundations of sustainable software development. I’ll carry this mindset into my future work, reminding myself that even in a world of complex methodologies, sometimes the best process is the simplest one.

From the blog CS@Worcester – My Coding Blog by Jared Delaney and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.