The pattern “Craft over Art” is the idea of choosing the craft of programming and making thing functional. Rather than choosing art of programming and making the program look beautiful but not so functional for the customer. Even though you may find an opportunity taking your customer problem and making something nice that will impress your coworkers, it is best that you put the customer needs before your own selfish wants or needs. When it comes to dealing with customer your goal should always be choosing creating a functional valuable product, rather than something else that only advance your own self interest. When dealing with customers it is more important to choose the craft of software development rather than feeding that desire to creating something beautiful, yet not truly functional or deliverable in the real world. This pattern is not telling you that things can’t be beautiful it more saying that whatever you build for your customer must be functional and useful, therefore you must be willing to sacrifice beauty over utility. “The more useful a piece of software, the more important it is that the software be high quality. But quality takes time. You will have to work toward a suitable level of quality by repeatedly making trade-offs between beauty and utility.”
My Reaction
This pattern helps you understand the impotence of building “Craft over Art” because it reminds you that creating something useless yet beautiful is not craftsmanship. I agree with this idea because crating a useful software program far more important than a beautiful non-functional one. I found this pattern to be interesting but also useful and thought-provoking. This pattern has definitely changed the way I think about my profession and the way I think, the reason being is that I should always be willing to sacrifice beauty before sacrificing usefulness.
Thank you for your time. This has been YessyMer in the World Of Computer Science, until next time.
According to my next Apprenticeship Pattern blog I chose “Draw Your Own Map,” as one of the most interesting patterns and which fits perfectly in my logic. When you decide to enter the Software Development world, you may think that it’s a hard and tough game, or sometimes you believe that your career will always … Continue reading Draw Your Own Map→
I haven’t written a blog post for MINIX3 in some time (sorry Professor), and I figured that it would probably be wise to wrap up what I managed to complete this semester after I managed to get past all the stress I was feeling.
About halfway through the semester I started meeting weekly with my professor in order to discuss ways to approach my project. He knew I was pretty darn stressed about it, but was also pleased with how much I had learned about MINIX3 and Operating Systems in general. When we started meeting, I hadn’t done any actual programming in the scheduler, and I was still fuzzy on how the whole scheduler worked as one unit. I had also not realized this at the time, but the scheduling algorithm in the official MINIX3 Book was an older version. It doesn’t reflect the design found in this report, which describes the current scheduling algorithm (found in versions 3.3.0 and newer, I believe). This was adding to the confusion in how to approach the system, because I was getting my information on the implementation of the scheduler from both sources.
I’ve talked about this a bit in my previous blogs, but I figured I’d recap in this one now that I have a better understanding of the system. In the official MINIX3 book, the scheduler is still built into the Kernel. This meant that any scheduling changes that were to be implemented involved editing kernel code, which could end up being pretty complex in the event of errors, etc. What the scheduling report outlines is the move of the scheduler into the user mode level of MINIX’s layered design system. There still is a small default scheduler that had to be implemented, but the main scheduling policy is implemented within the user mode scheduler.
Let’s talk scheduling policies. Both the kernel-level and the user-level schedulers implement a Round Robin scheduling algorithm by default. As outlined in the report, the easiest policies to implement with the user mode scheduler are round robin, priority, staircase, and some other queue-based policies. Whilst I was googling information about implementing priority-based algorithms, I found this wonderful project done by a GitHub user named Akshita Mittel. It includes a few test files and the changes necessary to make to some of MINIX3’s files in order to implement different algorithms. It is very similar to the project I had intended on doing, so whilst I did not copy it directly (licensing and copyright issues and whatnot), I did use it as a resource for implementing my own project.
Since I wanted to deviate my project slightly from the resources I found online, instead of just implementing more than one scheduling policy, I elected to compare the default scheduling policy with a priority scheduling algorithm, and vary the number of queues by +- 25%. This left me with 3 variations of the default Round Robin policy — one with 12 queues, one with the standard 16 queues, and one with 20 queues. It also left me with 3 variants of a scheduler using a priority algorithm, again with 12, 16, and 20 queues. My goal was to run the same test across each of these 6 variations and see if there was some notable runtime difference.
Before I go into the test, I figured I’d explain the difference between Round Robin and Priority style scheduling. Round Robin policies assign each process within the priority queues a time slice, called quantum. As processes run out of quantum, they’re moved to a higher (the higher the number, the lower the priority) priority queue. In MINIX3, after a certain number of ticks, the queues are rebalanced. This means that all processes who have had their priority changed get that priority reset. The difference between round robin and priority scheduling algorithms is fairly simple — round robin policies aim to be fair, which is why they implement queue feedback. Priority policies are designed without fairness in mind. You might want some processes to always have the highest priority. Therefore, it simply disables process feedback from happening. Processes don’t move around between queues. A diagram of the structure of the priority queues are shown below.
Based on an image from Operating Systems: Design and Implementation by Andrew S. Tanenbaum
The test I used was based on Akshita’s that I found on GitHub. The test program would log system time, do some work with a process, then log the system time again, and find the difference between the start and end times. I found the average running time for 100 tests for each of the variations. The results are displayed below.
As you can see, there wasn’t much consistency across the tests. I’m sure that, before I even ran the tests, I could have reasonably come to the conclusion that there wouldn’t have been much of a difference in run times given my particular approach. The test I ran was mostly CPU bound as opposed to I/O bound, which very well could have made a difference. I think CPU bound tests could have made a bigger impact if I had implemented a different policy than priority. On top of designing a better test for what I was doing in particular, I think that theoretically the number of queues within a round robin scheduler wouldn’t make much of a difference unless the processes existed within them for a very long period of time. Also, I think that the number of queues within a priority scheduler wouldn’t make a significant difference either, since processes tend to live where are they spawned. Aside from the crowding of the queues, I don’t see it having a large impact on the overall runtime. Therefore, I think that the results I got make sense.
I’m not upset that my small “research project” didn’t yield great results. The point of this independent study was for me to better understand operating systems, as I felt as though I was seriously lacking in that area. While I know there’s still a tremendous amount of knowledge to be gained in OS’s, I’m happy with the work I did this semester and feel far more confident when discussing OS concepts in general. It was a very stressful project at first, but now that I’ve wrapped it up, I think it was absolutely worth it. Hands-on operating system practice is a great way to go about learning the subject. In fact, this independent study has sparked quite a bit of interest in systems programming for me, and I’m looking forward to continue learning about it in the future!
(Side-note, this is my last school-related blogpost. At first, I felt extremely uncomfortable writing these things. Now, I think it’s something I’d like to do once a week, or at least regularly. I appreciate my professor requiring us to start these blogs — writing is something I never really saw myself doing enjoying, and after doing it for a couple of semesters now, I get it. Who would’ve guessed that recording what you learn is both both enjoyable and rewarding. Thanks, Professor Wurst!)
Today we will once again be continuing our journey into software apprenticeship patterns. From last week, we will continue on to the next pattern, Expose Your Ignorance.
This pattern is all about once you have gotten yourself onto a team where you can learn more from your fellow teammates, presumably in a job. The problem is that well… you are ignorant. You need to deliver and you have a lack of knowledge in whatever language or technology you need to be able to deliver.
The offered solution is fairly simple, ask questions and don’t be afraid to show that you are ignorant in a particular subject. You should recognize that it is human to want to appear competent and not appearing competent is not a bad thing. It is all part of the learning process. As a software craftsman, you need to know many different subjects and technologies. The pattern suggests that people who are uncomfortable with the learning process of appearing ignorant become experts instead. They seek out expertise in one particular field and never venture too far from it. Experts are important but the journey of a software craftsman is much longer and requires a broader scope of knowledge. You become an expert in one or several subjects along the way but that is not the ultimate goal. For a software craftsman, one of the most important skills is the ability to learn. To solve this problem the pattern suggests writing down a small list of thing you don’t really understand about your work and posting it in public view.
This pattern I find interesting. What I found most interesting was the distinction made between the software craftsman and the expert. The pattern admits that a software craftsman will likely become an expert in a few subjects but that is not the ultimate goal. The goal is not explained in the pattern (I’m sure it is explained at the beginning but I have forgotten it at time of writing) but the difference between the expert and the craftsman is that the expertise is not the goal. A craftsman goes further than becoming an expert and goes on to craft with the expertise of many under his belt where the expert gains expertise and then rests on his laurels. I do also appreciate the part where it states that by admitting ignorance it will increase your reputation greater than “fake it until you make it” will.
That’s it, for now, my fellow readers. Until next time!
This week we shall continue looking at Apprenticeship Patterns. I decided to skip over the Unleash Your Enthusiasm pattern and instead decided to talk about the Concrete Skills pattern this week instead.
The Concrete Skills pattern seeks to solve the problem of joining a team of craftsmen to further your learning opportunities. This could also be the all-important problem of getting a job. The problem keeps on going as you are too much of a risk as you may not be able to directly contribute anything to the team. You may not be able to even indirectly contribute.
The solution proposed is fairly self-explanatory. It’s right in the name of the pattern! Acquire concrete skills that allow you to demonstrate ability with relevant tools and technology. The pattern does suggest acquiring some skills that are geared more towards getting past HR and managers. I do like the proposed idea of “buzzword bingo” that the pattern mentions briefly. The rest of the concrete skills that you learn should be directed at showing your team that you are actually useful and that someone doesn’t need to look over your shoulder constantly to ensure you don’t mess up or break something. It goes on to make a good point. When faced with a hiring manager, they will ultimately be looking for someone who can actually contribute in some way on the first day. Having concrete skills is, as the pattern puts it, a way to meet them halfway. Then as you progress, you will have to rely on these concrete skills less and less. To learn what concrete skills to build, the pattern suggests looking at resumes of people whose skill you respect in the business. Identify some skills from the resume and work on them and of course, keep reviewing your own resume.
This is what drew me to talk about this pattern. It is directly relatable to me as I am in the job hunt as I am graduating soon. I found this entire pattern to be generally good advice for anyone in the software development field seeking a job. It also corroborates what a lot of people have given me advice for job hunting.
That’s all for this week. I wonder what pattern I will get to read about next?
For my last apprenticeship pattern blog post, I felt that the pattern Sweep the Floor was appropriate given where I currently am at in my career, given that I hope to be starting in the very near future. This pattern refers to the scenario in which you’re a new apprentice on a project or a new member of a team and you’re not sure what your place is in the team, so you want to contribute and earn the team’s trust. The solution to this is to volunteer for simple, necessary tasks that no one else wants to do and to make sure to do a great job with them. Of course, you want to make sure that you don’t end up only doing menial tasks that no one else wants to do and that you’re given more challenging assignments after proving yourself “worthy”.
As I said earlier, this pattern is probably one of the most applicable to me at the moment, because once I start I can see myself in almost the exact same scenario as described in the pattern. I always figured that most junior level roles start with you being assigned simple tasks like one-liner bug fixes to help you get acquainted with the code base, but I hadn’t considered that it would be a good idea to take on tasks like literally sweeping the floor in order to build confidence as a member of the team. Of course, I don’t entirely agree with consistently taking on tasks that aren’t relevant to what you want to work towards, but there’s merit in doing menial labor when you happen upon it. As long as you make sure to let it be known that you want to be challenged and not just be comfortable standing still working as the team’s gopher.
Overall, I would say that it’s very likely that I’ll end up using this pattern in the very near future, so hopefully I remember to avoid the negative consequences of applying it. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if this pattern would be useful for me anytime I happen to enter a new team, not just my first one.
For the last sprint of the semester, I spent most of my time working on my part for our groups final presentation. There was one minor bug fix that I made involving an incorrect mapping for one of the product endpoints found from a user reported issue, but otherwise the rest of my time was spent on the presentation. This bug in particular could have easily been avoided if the project contained tests for each of the endpoints maybe by using a mock database. If, for example, we had a test that tested what would be an expected successful response, then the test would have failed for the given endpoint because it gave a 404 not found response instead.
For the presentation, since my task was separate from the main project for the food pantry, my section felt like it was a short, stand-alone presentation contained in a longer one. Looking back on what I did for the project, I definitely feel like it wasn’t too complicated and if I needed to do something similar now it wouldn’t take me nearly as long.
That being said, I think there are several major things that I should take away from this project. First of all, although the resources that I followed through were helpful in its creation, I wish that I had started from the ground up to understand how everything actually worked. It’s very easy to get something to do what you want from making minor changes to resources you’ve already found, but being able to actually understand how everything is working together and also being able to explain it well are much harder and take time. Another big takeaway is to make sure to have good tests and to make sure everything is still working properly by running through those tests after making any changes. The fact that the bug with the typo in one of the get mappings exists is proof that I hadn’t properly tested the code to make sure that everything was still working as intended when I pushed my code and created a pull request. I was very fortunate to have run into this issue at the end of the project because if I hadn’t then I might have gone on to make the same mistake in the future.
If anyone happens to work on the project in the future, the first thing they should definitely do is implement the automated semantic versioning that I neglected to do myself. It’ll save them a lot of headache if they make any changes because they won’t have to remember to update the version in multiple locations. Without a doubt, when I saw that issue, it was clear that it was poorly designed. There’s no reason for the current version of the project to be hard coded in multiple locations. Actually, when I pushed the changes for the endpoint bug fix, I ended up forgetting to update the version number and the pull request had already been merged, so definitely fix that first.
Last week we took a look at the beginner pattern, Your First Language. This week we will continue along the path to the next pattern, The White Belt.
As I have said, The White Belt is the next apprentice pattern after, Your First Language. This pattern is all about what to do after you have learned your first language and can strut your stuff with it. The problem The White Belt pattern is here to solve is when learning a second language becomes tiresome and tedious. Learning one language is great but, expanding your library is a must to become a software craftsman. What can happen, however, is slowdowns and stalling in learning. The solution to this is to adopt the mindset of a white belt. To quote the book, “Wearing the white belt is based on the realization that while the black belt knows the way, the white belt has no choice but to learn the way.” In other words, while you go about learning a new language, treat it as if it was brand new to you, even if you are learning something with familiar attributes. An excellent example is you have learned Java and now you are learning JavaScript. Both are fairly similar to each other and have overlapping ideas and methodology. Using the white belt philosophy, treat learning JavaScript as if it had no relation to Java. While this may seem counterintuitive (it still does to me), the pattern claims that it will accelerate your learning. It will also allow you to discover new possibilities, as well as your mind, is open and without preconceived notions.
I understand where this pattern is coming from. I do get that an open mind can, and most likely will, lead to new possibilities. I agree with that. I suppose that my issue is that forgetting to accelerate learning is still something I find a bit backward. Looking at it, I must admit that I have not tried this method. Typically I find that making associations to things you do know is a good memory tactic and can speed up learning. It is entirely possible that the White Belt pattern will work for me. The only thing for it is to try it. I can legitimately say it doesn’t work without trying it for myself now can I?
Looks like I have some unlearning to do in my future.
Today I will be discussing an individual Apprenticeship Pattern from the book, Apprenticeship Patterns: Guidance for the Aspiring Software Craftsman. The pattern I would like to discuss today is naturally the first one, Your First Language, because where else is there to start but at the beginning?
The pattern starts by defining itself as a pattern for those who have surface knowledge of a couple of languages. It suggests that this particular pattern is for those who need to learn a language to solve a problem at work for example, or need to know a language for a job interview. It then launches into the solution, through execution of the pattern. To put it plainly the pattern is to pick a language and learn it. Having a problem to solve helps the process by giving you a goal to work towards and a drive to keep learning. It is also advised to take things slow and in small steps. It is also suggested to find a community and learn from its members as some methods or teachings may only be spread by word of mouth. It ends by reminding the reader to not get stuck with one language and to spread out into other languages.
I will admit, with this being the first pattern in the book I expected it to be for total beginners but it is aimed at just about everyone. What I find interesting about this pattern is that it seems to cater well to those who have never really picked up coding before or someone who, like myself, have had years of high school and college education in coding. I will admit that the amount I know about all the languages I have learned about is somewhat shallow. Some go deeper but many are probably not that far off from just surface knowledge. I might just try following this pattern after graduation. At first, I would have only recommended this pattern for only beginners who haven’t had formal schooling but after reconsidering, I think even those like myself who have had formal schooling can benefit from this pattern.
That’s all I have to draw from this first pattern and I hope to get more from future patterns. Until next time readers!
This is the last blog post for Individual Apprenticeship Patterns, I want to end with “Record What You Learn”. Most of what we were talking about was learning and how to apply it to the real world. I thought this is important because I am also doing this in daily basic. I keep making same mistake, and I learn to avoid it slowly. There are issue I just need to more practice to avoid, but there are mistakes I could have learnt. The book suggests that some platform to write down. Ade uses two instances of the same wiki, one for his private thoughts and the other for stuff he wants to share with the world. That is the good idea, some from my mistakes I didn’t want lets other to know about it. But after this book I wouldn’t mind others to check on my mistakes. They could help me to fix it or at least I will learn from it.
By said that, I also want to connect this to the next pattern “Share What You Learn”. Like I mention above, we could become a journeyman, the ability to communicate effectively and bring other people up to speed quickly. We learn what need to be share and what shouldn’t. It does not matter what you take note for yourself. Before share to others, you need to think if that will have negative effect to them or even to the team. This could damage the relationship of the group. They also suggest that shared as blogpost about the lesson which is soft of what we are already been doing. In blogpost we also could share our solution and have conversation with other.
This is my final thought of the book. I think this book is good on the guideline on the ethics side of the industry. I also have honest advice from experience people. They gave short good example/advice that easy to ready. I am will read the rest of the patterns and keep this book with me.
