“How long will it take to master aikido?” a prospective student asks. “How long do you expect to live?” is the only respectable response.

—George Leonard, Mastery

While reading chapter 3 of Apprenticeship Patterns, I stumbled upon the preceding quote. It resonated with me because I often get so caught up in aiming for perfection that progress becomes halted. Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly.  I have heard it said that perfection is the enemy of progress.  

This chapter focuses on the long road we all must travel to master our craft. The author talks about how we have all grown to desire immediate gratification, whether that be in notoriety, wealth, or the development of our skill. If we desire to become true craftsmen we must focus our attention on delayed gratification. Our skills will take time to develop, and the journey will be a test in endurance and patience. The problem presented in the text is of being stuck in a “golden lock” where our aim for further crafting our skill is at odds with our desire for a higher paying job. By taking the path less traveled “Robert frost” we can make all the difference in our development as craftsmen.

We must be patient and compassionate with ourselves along our journey. It is easy to get discouraged when we see how little we know in comparison to veteran developers or even peers. So long as we strive to continuously hone our craft, we can become the masters that future generations of craftsmen look up to. The long road means we do not grow into incredible craftsmen overnight. It takes long hours and is a slow process.  

When we take our time to mindfully develop code, asking questions about why and how code behaves the way it does, or why we approach problems a certain way, we deepen our understanding of not only the development process but our strategies for everyday living. We learn better problem-solving skills, we become more inquisitive into ways to efficiently meet the needs of ourselves, our families, and our communities. This is something I have struggled with as a CS major, trying to balance out good grades with deeper comprehension. Many students fall into the trap of just learning the information required to pass the class with a good grade, putting ourselves at a disadvantage. Our lives have only a finite amount of time, and sometimes we need to decide whether we should slow down and take time to comprehend the deeper truths of software development, even though it may take away from time available for studying the class materials.

If we desire to become true craftsmen rather than just working a 9-5 grind we need to recognize that the path we chose is neither easy nor short. Our field is growing exponentially with the constantly changing technological advances we are experiencing and will continue to experience. This path is not as straight and narrow as other fields, due to the continuous changing of technology. However, if we slow down and dig deeper asking the questions that lead to deeper understanding, we will see the commonalities that all software share, making it easy to adapt to the changing of software development. Traveling “The Long Road” can allow us to bring meaning and pride to our work rather than being another nameless cog in the machine for a corporation.

The tortoise always wins the race.

From the blog cs@worcester – Coding_Kitchen by jsimolaris and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

The explicit context of this pattern is that you’re a developer on payroll and you have been tasked with successfully delivering an artifact of software to your employer but unfortunately you have not previously developed software with some requisite technology for the project ahead of you. The solution prescribed in this Apprenticeship Pattern is a bold one that leans on previous rapport with your superiors; it insists on radical honesty where one admits that they do not presently know all of the information necessary to deliver on the project and to appeal to their previously established competency and ability to learn new technologies.

What I find most elegant about this approach is not only the ability to tailor current expectations using honesty but also the renewability inherent in this approach:

“In this way, your reputation will be built upon your learning ability rather than what you already know.”

The implication there is that if you stick the landing on delivering the necessary code, you will have created an evergreen approach to setting expectations and earned yourself the reputation of being not somebody who is valued for their finite pool of knowledge but rather their ability to tap into an infinite pool of knowledge. The authors cite Carol Dweck’s work, particularly how the need to appear competent is a mindset (no pun intended) that has proliferated throughout industrialized societies and is hard to break through. They insist that, while this embarrassment may be hard to overcome at first, your peers will have to notice your rapid progress and moreover they may find that by you forcing the issue they may have new realizations about their intelligence; after all people like to solve problems and feel intelligent.

I enjoyed the juxtaposition the authors make between those who become experts as a result of the perhaps not being as inquisitive or less confrontational with their inadequacies and so-called craftsmanship-seekers who become experts just by virtue of interest. While the first group may not be as ambitious or aggressive in their pursuit of knowledge there is no need to disparage this group and I appreciate that the authors did not decide to punch down where many other snobbier tech experts certainly would have.

From the blog CS@Worcester – Cameron Boyle's Computer Science Blog by cboylecsblog and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

The Law of Demeter was proposed by Ian Holland in 1987. During the development of a system called Demeter using oriented object programming, Holland and his colleagues realized that the code that fulfilled a series of rules was less coupled. Although it is called The Law of Demeter, it is not really a law, but more of a guideline to help reduce coupling between components. When applying LoD to object orientated design, there is a set of four rules that formalizes the “Tell Don’t Ask” principle;

You may call methods of objects that are:
1. Passed as arguments
2. Created locally
3. Instance variables
4. Globals

A great example of this is:

    class User {
        Account account;
        ...
        double discountedPlanPrice(String discountCode) {
            Coupon coupon = Coupon.create(discountCode);
            return coupon.discount(account.getPlan().getPrice());
        }
   }
   class Account {
       Plan plan;
       ...
   }

Here account.getPlan( ).getPrice( ) violated the LoD. The most obvious fix is to delegate/tell:

    class User {
        Account account;
        ...
        double discountedPlanPrice(String discountCode) {
            // delegate
            return account.discountedPlanPrice(discountCode);
         }
     }
     class Account {
         Plan plan;
         ...
         double discountedPlanPrice(String discountCode) {
             Coupon coupon = Coupon.create(discountCode);
             return coupon.discount(plan.getPrice());
         }
      }

Each function should have a limited amount of knowledge as opposed to knowing about the whole object map so our neighboring objects need to know what we have done in order to depend on them to propagate that message to the correct location. Following this rule is hard, which is why it is called the “Suggestion of Demeter” by many because it is so easy to violate. Following this rule, though, is extremely beneficial because any function that “tells” instead of “asks” is decoupled from the rest of the code around it.

The blog I retrieved this information from was https://hackernoon.com/object-oriented-tricks-2-law-of-demeter-4ecc9becad85. The information was extremely easy to follow and understand. The coding examples given to show the difference between following the LoD and not following it were simple and clear. I also found the explanation of LoD given to be simple and to the point. Going forward with coding, although understanding that following LoD can be hard, I plan to utilize this guideline in order to enhance and simplify all of my future codes.

By following the LoD in future coding endeavors, my code will be easier to test, I can reuse classes more easily, the amount of coupling and dependencies between classes will be reduced, my code will more flexible when I make changes to it and it will be more maintainable.

Information gathered for this blog:
https://medium.com/better-programming/demeters-law-don-t-talk-to-strangers-87bb4af11694
https://hackernoon.com/object-oriented-tricks-2-law-of-demeter-4ecc9becad85
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Demeter

From the blog cs@worcester – Coding_Kitchen by jsimolaris and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.