English summary: this is a very simple description on how to solve the Rubik’s cube. I wrote it to my then 8 year old daughter – hence the name of the method. It is a simiplified version and a strict subset of the method used by the best cubers in the world. It is in Norwegian, but since it is a visual guide you might enjoy it anyway. Click the PDF link above.

Jon Jagger and I just released a slide deck to discuss the fundamentals of C and C++ (slideshare, pdf).

The Champion: The product champion is a person that dreams about the product, has a vision about how it can be used and can answer questions about what is important and what is less important. The product champion is required to have a deep and solid domain knowledge and will often play the role of a customer proxy in the project. This position can only be held by a person that is deeply devoted and has a true passion for the product to be created. The product champion is the main interface between the project and the customer/users. (Sometimes also known as: Product Manager, Project Owner, Customer Proxy…)

The Chief: The chief engineer is a technical expert that has a vision of the complete solution and is always ready to defend this vision. At any time, the chief engineer should be able, and willing to stand up to proudly describe the solution and explain how everything fits together. He/she should feel responsible for technological decisions that the exceptional developers do, but also make sure that the solution is supporting the business strategy. The chief engineer is the main communication channel between this project and other projects. (Sometimes also known as: System Architect, Tech Lead, Shusa, …)

The Manager: The project manager is a person that leads a team to success by managing the resources on a project in an effective and sensible way. He/she will be responsible for actively discovering and removing impediments. The project manager is the main interface between the project and corporate management. (Sometimes also known as: Scrum Master, Team Leader, …)

Of course, for very small projects these three roles can be fulfilled by one person, but for projects of some size there should be three people filling these three roles: one product champion, one chief engineer and one project manager. These three people must work together as a team, form an allround defence (aka kringvern) around the project, while being available to the developers at any time. Their task is to “protect” and “promote” the project to the outside world so that the exceptional developers can focus on doing the job.

I believe that identifying these three roles is the only thing an organization needs to impose in order to increase the chance of success. Then the team of exceptional developers together with their servants decide everything else, including which methodology and technology to use.

When discussing solid code it is important to work on “real” problems, not just toy examples and coding katas because they lack the required complexity to make discussions interesting. So, as a preparation I had developed, from scratch, an NTLM Authentication Library (pal) that can be used by a client to do NTLM authentication when retrieving a protected webpage on an IIS server. Then I picked out a few files, the encoding and decoding of NTLM messages, and tried to write it as solid as possible after useful discussions with ACCU friends and some top coders within my company. Then I “doped” the code, I injected impurities and bad stuff into the code, to produce these handouts. At the ACCU talk/workshop the audience read through the “doped” code and came up with things that could be improved while I did online coding (in Emacs of course) fixing the issues as they popped up. With loads of solid C++ coders in the room, I think we found most of the issues worth caring about, and we ended up with something that can be considered to be solid C++, something that appears to have been developed by somebody who cares about high quality code. Here are the slides that I used to summarize our findings. Feel free to use these slides for whatever you want. Perhaps you would like to run a similar talk in your development team? Contact me if you want the complete source code for the authentication library, or if you want to discuss ideas for running a similar talk yourself. I plan to publish the code on githup soon – so stay tuned.

UPDATE June 2010: The PAL library is now published on github. A much improved slide set is also available on slideshare.

This statement may seem counterintuitive and even controversial, but it is a direct consequence of the fact that programming and software development as a whole involve a continuous learning process. As you work on a project, you will understand more of the problem domain and, hopefully, find more effective ways of reaching the goal. To avoid wasted work, you must allow time to observe the effects of what you are doing, reflect on the things that you see, and change your behavior accordingly.

Professional programming is usually not like running hard for a few kilometers, where the goal can be seen at the end of a paved road. Most software projects are more like a long orienteering marathon. In the dark. With only a sketchy map as guidance. If you just set off in one direction, running as fast as you can, you might impress some, but you are not likely to succeed. You need to keep a sustainable pace, and you need to adjust the course when you learn more about where you are and where you are heading.

In addition, you always need to learn more about software development in general and programming techniques in particular. You probably need to read books, go to conferences, communicate with other professionals, experiment with new implementation techniques, and learn about powerful tools that simplify your job. As a professional programmer, you must keep yourself updated in your field of expertise — just as brain surgeons and pilots are expected to keep themselves up to date in their own fields of expertise. You need to spend evenings, weekends, and holidays educating yourself; therefore, you cannot spend your evenings, weekends, and holidays working overtime on your current project. Do you really expect brain surgeons to perform surgery 60 hours a week, or pilots to fly 60 hours a week? Of course not: preparation and education are an essential part of their profession.

Be focused on the project, contribute as much as you can by finding smart solutions, improve your skills, reflect on what you are doing, and adapt your behavior. Avoid embarrassing yourself, and our profession, by behaving like a hamster in a cage spinning the wheel. As a professional programmer, you should know that trying to be focused and “productive” 60 hours a week is not a sensible thing to do. Act like a professional: prepare, effect, observe, reflect, and change.

[This is a reprint of a chapter that I wrote for the newly released O'Reilly book 97 Things Every Programmer Should Know]

I can now often solve it in less than 60 seconds, but I am not stable enough to call myself a sub-60 cuber yet, but I am very close. Give me a few more weeks (or months) and I will get there. While playing with the cube on the bus, at work, at home, in the pub, basically everywhere, all the time, I sometimes meet other geeks that want to learn how to solve the cube fast as well. So I thought I should write up a guide about how to get started.

If you do not know how to solve the cube you need to study one of a billion guides that are available on the net. Here is a beginner solution by Leyan Lo that I recommend. Once you can solve the cube without referring to a guide, you can start to read more advanced stuff. The ultimate guide is written by Jessica Fridrich, but it is not easy to read. I found CubeFreak by Shotaro Makisumi to be the most useful site out there.

After studying these sites, as well as hundreds of other sites and watching plenty of youtube videos, I have ended up with a simplified Fridrich method with a four-look last layer. Here is what I do to solve it in less than 60 seconds:

1. Solve the extended cross ~5 sec (always a white cross)
2. Solve the first two layers (F2L) ~30 sec (keep cross on bottom)
3. Orient the last layer edges ~5 sec (1 out of 3 algorithms)
4. Orient the last layer corners ~5 sec (1 out of 7 algorithms)
5. Permute the last layer corners ~5 sec (1 out of 2 algorithms)
6. Permute the last layer edges ~5 sec (1 out of 4 algorithms)

My current focus is to improve the F2L step as I am still struggling to get under 30 seconds, but I am confident that with some more practice I will manage to get closer to 20 seconds and then I can label myself a sub-60 cuber.

For further inspiration, here is a video of a sub-120 cuber and a sub-10 cuber.

Happy cubing!

We all recognize these stereotypes: The sales team is willing to (and sometimes do) sell a product and cash in the money long before development is finished. While the engineers are reluctant to let go of their baby because there are always things that can be improved. A successful business needs engineers and salespeople that are willing to compromise and cooperate on this conflict of interest. Technical debt is a powerful metaphor that can be used to work on a compromise, especially when we are talking about software development.

Technical debt in a software project includes internal things that you choose not to do now, but will impede future development if left undone [1]. Examples of technical debt might be: We need to upgrade our compiler to a more recent version, but let us ship the product now and upgrade the compiler later. We do not properly understand how to implement this feature properly anyway, but this hack seems to make the customer happy for now. We have identified some dirty code that is slowing us down, but we choose to fix it in the next release instead. These are all examples of prudent and deliberate reasons [2] for taking on technical debt which can be compared to borrowing money for sensible housing. There are also less responsible ways of incurring technical debt though, perhaps caused by; lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy or pride. Examples might include: writing bad code, skipping analysis and design, over-engineering, résumé-driven development and so on. This kind of technical debt is more like unauthorized overdrafts and check bouncing, and is best avoided if you have a long-term vision for your product.

Like financial debt, a technical loan will incur interests, and if you are not able or willing to pay back the loan then you risk go into bankruptcy. The nice feature of software however is that paying back is usually both possible and comparatively cheap. While making effective and strategic decisions about what internal qualities to postpone you should keep track of them and write down an estimated effort needed to do it properly. This will give you an idea of how much you owe at any point in time. Then, after rushing a release out of the door, you can immediately start to pay back by doing the postponed things properly and get a flying start into the next release. Retrofitting stuff like this might appear to be more expensive than “doing it right the first time”, but since we are dealing with software it is often the right approach.

Perhaps the most powerful feature of the Technical Debt metaphor is that it communicates well between technical and non-technical people [3]. By quantifying the current technical debt in your product it should be possible to get management both interested and involved in the importance of controlling the debt burden.

References:
[1] www.c2.com
[2] martinfowler.com
[3] blogs.construx.com/blogs/stevemcc

UPDATE June 2010: At Smidig 2009 and XP2010 I presented a talk titled “Technical Debt is Good!” based on this material. Here are the slides (pdf) that I used in norwegian and english respectively.

While the statement above is obvious to many, it is easy to miss the key points. For instance, you must make sure that you facilitate the learning process by implementing effective feedback mechanisms, do frequent iterations and be willing to re-plan the project continuously. You must also implement information radiators, enable osmotic communication, and get rid of things that hinders communication (yes, I am a fan of Alistair Cockburn). But first of all, you must assume that your developers are professionals that know what to do given a vision, trust and enough information. You should certainly not treat your developers as mere resources that need to be directed and told what to do and how to do it.

I am fortunate in that I work for a company that really gets it. I invite you to take a look at these slides. The key thing that this particular project do better than most is to do fast and automatic testing on all levels which gives developers confidence when making changes. Automatic feedback from all levels was a key success factor to get the first version out of the door, and now we have a workflow that will support further development for years. I think it make sense to describe what we do as advanced feedback-driven development – AFDD.

The workshop was excellent, although quite different from what I expected. Bredemeyers workshop was all about techniques for translating your strategy into architecture. Little was said about how to translate architecture into implementation, but that was ok. I have to admit that so far in my career I have thought about software architecture as something that first of all is useful for the implementation of software. But now I realize that for a business relying on complex software, focus on architecture is indeed a key enabler for your business strategy.

All software implementations have an architecture. By studying the code base and a running system you might be able to both illustrate the architecture and explain the expected behavior of the system. For many, perhaps most, development efforts this is a sensible way of working – apply most of your energy on writing code and just take a brief look at the resulting architecture at regular intervals to see if it makes sense. Let the user requirements drive the implementation, and use your test scenarios to verify the product. Because you will never get exactly what you plan for, the resulting product will determine which business strategy you can use to make money and the architecture will restrict how to evolve your business. The products drive the business (see figure 1).

For a business with only a few products on the market this can be a very efficient way of making money. Your product might be successful and the business attracts money that can be invested in making the same product even more fancy to attract even more money. Adjust your business strategy according to the products that are available.

However, as the business grows and the product portfolio diversifies, you need to focus more on architecture. Why? Because you might want a mechanism to let a strategy run the business, not the products. The key is to focus more on architecture so that you can drive it with your business strategy, and let the architecture strongly influence the implementation so that you get products that support the strategy. It is then possible to let a strategy drive your business (see figure 2).

Beware, I am not trying to tell you that heavy focus on architecture is the only way to succeed. It is certainly possible for huge businesses to experience massive success with large and complex software systems without paying too much attention on the architecture. However, the key point is that if you want to control your business by defining strategies you need to focus on the architecture – otherwise not much will happen if you position yourself inside the strategy bubble and try to twist the knobs.