Yet Another Take On Software Developer Archetypes

-

If you search for Software Developer Archetypes you'll find a large number of perspectives on this ranging from serious and helpful to lighthearted to frankly...kinda mean. I'm going to give a lighthearted example of core Archetypes I find when dealing with software developers.

The Squirrel

These developers are happy to jump between frameworks, languages, design patterns willy nilly and will be running 1000 miles per hour toward a "Haskell event processing framework to render static HTML files" and after 3 weeks/months, suddenly pivot, turn 135 degrees, and implement the remaining 10% (which will only take a couple days) in Ruby on Rails. By the end of a project, there are so many frameworks, dead ends, and partially done solutions that no matter what the original design was...their immediate solution for all problems is to "rewrite it in...something else".

The Sloth

These are almost diametrically opposed to squirrels, they often know "one thing" (though not always), but the defining feature is that it takes 3 weeks to implement "Hello World" in a language explicitly designed to produce "Hello World" apps. You can immediately spot these folks because the "remaining estimate" tends to either stay at "two weeks" (or some other random time amount), or you have to pad their estimates by the factorial of their original one.

The One Trick Pony

These developers are a middle ground in velocity and direction change between the first two, but are characterized by always having a "go to solution". If they're a "java developer"...coding something in Groovy will "blow their mind" and they'll insist this new arcane "dynamic mumbo jumbo" is completely useless. They are often religious defenders of "their way of doing things" and often have "any thing you can do in 'A' I can do (maybe better, maybe not) in 'B'".

The Duck Billed Platapus

While interesting creatures, these developers are easily spotted when you look at their code and you spend most of the time scratching your head thinking "WTF?". They are often adept at stringing together inappropriate design patterns and tools to produce solutions that just don't make sense from any reasonable perspective. At the end of the day, their code may "work", but it is a nonsensical assortment of odd parts glued together seemingly ad-hoc.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Please use ANSI-92 SQL Join Syntax

-
Image
Way back in 1992, a standard was published for SQL. In it, the syntax for specifying joins in SQL Database was finally standardized. This was a good thing because (for folks who've been doing this a while), trying to decode the vagaries of how various Databases handled outer joins could drive you bonkers yielding different results depending on the parse order of things in the from and where clauses. Unfortunately, some DBMS vendors took a while to adopt this standard (Oracle didn't support it until 2001), but at this point if you're using a major RDBMS and NOT using it, you're probably mired in a tradition or habit that bears changing. As an example of what I'm describing, here are some examples of what I mean. Old School (no standard syntax + implementation and evaluation of predicates varied by vendor [and query]): select * from customer, order where customer.customer = order.customerid ANSI way (agreed to standard, predicate evaluation has some rules ...
Read more

The difference between Scalability, Performance, Efficiency, and Concurrency explained

-
I thought I'd give some explanation of the difference between scalability, performance, Efficiency, and concurrency. To make things more accessible (and because I'm watching a cooking show on TV) I'm going to use a baking metaphor to help explain the differences. In our case, the system in question is baking cookies for consumers. Scalability, is how well something responds to adding more resources. If we can double our capacity by doubling the number of resources, we've got linear scalability. In our baking example, if we add more ingredients, we can scale to a larger number of cookies. To contrast with our other metrics, this doesn't actually increase the performance of creating a single cookie (they still take 10 minutes to bake), and the efficiency is the same (we just have more capacity). We also cannot bake more cookies in a fixed time period, but over a larger time period we can produce more cookies. Performance is how fast something can get done, u...
Read more

the myth of asynchronous JDBC

-
Image
I keep seeing people (especially in the scala/typesafe world) posting about async jdbc libraries. STOP IT! Under the current APIs, async JDBC belongs in a realm with Unicorns, Tiger Squirrels, and 8' spiders. While you might be able to move the blocking operations and queue requests and keep your "main" worker threads from blocking, jdbc is synchronous. At some point, somewhere, there's going to be a thread blocking waiting for a response. It's frustrating to see so many folks hyping this and muddying the waters. Unless you write your own client for a dbms and have a dbms that can multiplex calls over a single connection (or using some other strategy to enable this capability) db access is going to block. It's not impossible to make the calls completely async, but nobody's built it yet. Yes, I know ajdbc is taking a stab at this capability, but even IT uses a thread pool for the blocking calls (be default). Someday we'll have async databa...
Read more