Column: Software


From rubber ducks to developers: best practices for collaborating on code


A good habit for developers to get


into is to have their code looked at by a second pair of eyes at regular intervals, commonly referred to as a “code review”, which many already use in practice. However, traditional code reviews can be limited in their usefulness, as they can only provide their insight once time has already been invested in writing the code.


“Rubber duck debugging” Perhaps at first an oddity, Andrew Hunt and David Tomas’s famous method of rubber duck debugging helps developers solve coding problems by explaining them, line by line, to a rubber duck. As a result, developers must not only think about how the problem could be understood by someone without any programming knowledge, but also benefit from the opportunity to simply verbalise the problem that’s been, so far, floating solely in their minds. Whilst proven useful, rubber duck


debugging also has drawbacks: speaking with inanimate objects is one, and, second, it mostly overcomes one’s psychological barriers rather than being a method of code reviewing by sharing with another person.


By Derek Lee Boire, VMware Tanzu Labs


H


ave you ever been stuck on a crossword clue for days, only to have it solved within seconds by someone else picking up the paper? If so, you’re


not the only one. Otherwise known as ‘target fixation’,


working solo on in-depth projects can oſten result in overlooking the most glaring blind spots. For programmers, being aware of and making efforts to avoid target fixation is especially important, since coding is exactly the kind of in- depth, high-concentration work that leads to tunnel vision.


Tried and tested: pair programming Two developers, two keyboards and one screen – these are the ingredients of pair programming. With a pair of developers working simultaneously on the same feature, not only do issues such as target fixation disappear, but the quality of code increases significantly as two heads work better together. Teams actively employing the


practice of pair programming, combined with rotating developers between pairs regularly, understand the benefits of having that domain knowledge shared throughout the team. This enables teams to move quickly when building new features and maintain a predictable velocity. In pair programming, diversity is a


key catalyst for innovation, thanks to the developers’ different experiences, knowledge and expertise.


Being aware of and making efforts to avoid target fixation is especially important, since coding is exactly the kind of in- depth, high- concentration work that leads to tunnel vision


Not going solo A fresh pair of eyes for feedback can be an excellent way to see your code from a new perspective, and a different team within the organisation can help, especially if they work with different technologies or programming languages. Each team shares a part of their code


that they feel is innovative as well as a part they feel could be improved. As opposed to a traditional code review, which is focused on critiquing a piece of code, these sessions are aimed at sharing advice, as well as building mutual trust and openness between colleagues to encourage a greater degree of knowledge sharing. Communication is a fundamental tenet of software development. Human beings work best when we can trade and share ideas openly. To move forward, it’s crucial that we


democratise knowledge and demonstrate kindness to help each other along the steep developer learning curve. Whether it’s a partner, a group


of colleagues, or even a rubber duck, looking at problems from the perspective of another is key. So, don’t get bogged down in your own head – great software can only be written outside this foggy area.


www.electronicsworld.co.uk December/January 2021 11


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68