This week, I wanted to reflect on my habit of self-comparison in relation to my ability as a software developer. I’ve recently found myself preoccupied with how much I don’t know as compared to others in the computing world, both at and above my perceived level of competence. It feels awfully paralyzing comparing my present knowledge with the unfathomable set of things that I’m not even aware that I don’t know about. It’s becoming difficult to even take a break from ruminating about how far behind I feel, because Youtube and Instagram’s content generation algorithms keep delivering me videos with sensational titles like “5 Sorting Algorithms You NEED To Know”, or “Learn THIS Framework NOW”, or “Build THESE Projects To Establish Your Software Career”. It’s exhausting! Before I’ve even started, the amount and complexity of the work that I believe lies ahead of me makes me feel hopeless. How am I supposed to learn anything or get anything done if I think that my best is so far from acceptable, and to do better sounds so exhausting as to be impossible?

Spending so much time and energy spinning my wheels over this issue has me considering a counterintuitive approach. I can’t stay here in this weird superposition of feeling like I’ve been spending all my available energy on becoming the best programmer I can be, yet also feeling like I’m not working nearly hard enough to produce results that anybody would pay me for. That’s why the title of this pattern from chapter 4 of “Apprenticeship Patterns” caught my eye. I knew before that striving to be the best would be a fruitless and frustrating endeavor, but I didn’t foresee that striving to be my best could still lead to as much paralysis and burnout.

I’ve held myself back from contributing to open-source projects or joining online programming groups partly because I’ve been afraid that even if I try really hard, my best won’t be good enough. My rate of output will sputter, and my code will be full of mistakes, then I’ll lose the respect and patience of my team, and soon I’ll be drowning with no hope of rescue. That’s what my imagination says, anyway – it’s annoyingly silent about what my life would be like if I put some confidence into the skills I’ve learned and started believing that people wanted me on their team. This pattern, “Be The Worst”, asks the apprentice to embrace their role as the worst member of a team they are considering joining. From this place as the weakest member of the team, the apprentice can soak up knowledge and experience from their more capable team members and work their way up.

This pattern is one of those in this book that I think goes back to learning to let go of your own ego and presumed sense of competence. I need to be getting more programming experience outside of school, but because I am so petrified of people thinking that I’m incompetent, I never actually get anything done. It’s kind of terrifying to imagine myself as the weakest member of a team working on an important project, because then I imagine the situation where my being on the team has become a burden on the project despite my best efforts and intentions, and now everyone is mad at me when I’m trying so hard! I should have known better than to bite off more than I can chew! Extremely unproductive and exhausting attitude, I know. Maybe I’ll be able to wade my way out of this strange emotional swamp surrounding my sense of industry someday, but maybe more likely is that I’ll end up living that situation where I’m the worst on the team and I just cannot find it within me to do any better than I already am, and I’ll have to learn that regardless of all that, I’m still valuable.

From the blog CS@Worcester – Michael's Programming Blog by mikesprogrammingblog and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

For this week’s blog post, I decided to discuss the article “A Practical Introduction to Test Driven Development” by Luca Piccinelli. I chose this article because it compliments the test driven development topic in the syllabus. This article discusses what test driven development is, the costs of using test driven development versus not using it, and gives some examples of how test driven development is done.

The author of this article is very blunt about their feelings towards test driven development. “These days you read a ton of articles about all the advantages of doing Test Driven Development (TDD). And you probably hear a lot of talks at tech conferences that tell you to “Do the tests!”, and how cool it is to do them. And you know what? Unfortunately, they are right (not necessarily about the “cool” part, but about the useful part). Tests are a MUST!” As mentioned by the other, some of the advantages that come with using test driven development are you write better software, you have more protection from breaking the whole project when new features are introduced, your software is self documented and you avoid over engineering. However, there is a glaring issue with using test driven development: the cost.

The author discusses the costs of using test driven development versus not using test driven development in good detail. The main differences in the costs are not in terms of value but in timing. “It [test driven development] costs a lot! Probably someone is thinking “but it costs even more if you don’t do the tests” — and this is right, too. But these two costs come at different times: you do TDD you have a cost now. You don’t do TDD you will have a cost in the future.” The author feels the best way to reconcile this problem is to do what comes naturally for the project’s development. “The most effective way to get something done is doing it as naturally as possible. The nature of people is to be lazy (here software developers are the best performers) and greedy, so you have to find your way of reducing the costs now. It’s easy to say, but so hard to do!” The next section I will be covering discusses how the author feels test driven development should ne implemented.

The author feels that the best way to implement test driven development practices would be to use a top down approach. “[A top down] approach is the best friend of over-engineering. You typically build the system in order to prevent changes that you think will come in the future, without knowing if they actually will. Then when some requirement changes, it typically happens in a way that doesn’t fit your structure, no matter how good it is. For me the key to drastically reducing the immediate cost of writing with TDD has been to take a top-down approach”

Article: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/practical-tdd-test-driven-development-84a32044ed0b/

From the blog CS@Worcester – P. McManus Worcester State CS Blog by patrickmcmanus1 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

For this week’s blog I decided to dive a bit deeper into writing testable code because I think it is a valuable skill. While searching for blogs that discuss this topic I found “TDD: Writing Testable Code” by Eric Elliott. In this blog, Elliott explains the importance of writing testable code barriers to writing testable code, and different tips to keep in mind to write testable code. 

The first thing he touches on is how a good quality process is essential to continuous delivery. One of the most important principles, he mentions, is the separation of concerns because “simplifies complexity and enhances the overall quality of your work”.

In the overview about testable code, he explains that achieving testable “allows for more efficient and effective identification of defects, ensuring higher quality and reliability”. The key characteristics of testable code are modularity (when code is organized into discrete units), clarity (code that is easily comprehensible), and independence (when code can be tested in isolation).One of the barriers of writing testable code that Elliott describes is tight coupling in code. The coupling in code is the instance where changing one part of the code can heavily impact or even break the functionality of another part in the code. If one part is changed there can be a chain reaction of bugs in various other parts of the code. Right coupling can be caused by parent class dependencies, shared mutable states, concrete class dependencies, event chains, state shape dependencies, control dependencies or temporal coupling. He explains that to write testable code you must reduce the forms of tight coupling mentioned because it makes testing easier and promotes a “more sustainable and scalable codebase”. This is why testable code and maintainable code are the same thing. 

Later he explains the test first vs test after approaches. The test first approach is the test driven development approach where tests are written before the code. The benefits include better developer experience and clearer requirements and design. The test after approach is where the tests are written after the implementation which leads to a probability of biased tests and reduced code coverage.

One of the last sections provided is about the separation of concerns which a  design principle for programs into distinct sections that  addresses separate concerns”. This principle is important because it allows independent testing and allows developers to isolate problems more effectively in addition to allowing the ability to make changes without unintended consequences. He describes that he likes to isolate into 3 distinct sections business and state logic (the core logic of the application), user interface, and I/O and effects (the part of the application that interacts with the database).

I think this source was well organized and easy to follow. It made the text easy to understand and provided great advice for writing testable code. I think the last section about how he likes to isolate the sections was especially helpful and I will keep it in mind for the future.

From the blog CS@Worcester – Live Laugh Code by Shamarah Ramirez and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.