mike.mainguy

OK, I confess, I use OSX almost exclusively and have for a number of years now. I DO have a number of Ubuntu machines, VMs, and servers in stable, but my goto device is a macbook pro (actually two of them, one for work, one for fun). I love the hardware, but the OS and specifically it's lack of a software package management tool has just a level of suckyness that irritates me. Now, don't get me wrong, OSX suckyness is nothing compared to windows, but it seems to be frozen in 2004 and is not moving forward at a pace I think is acceptable considering the huge advances Ubuntu has made in a very short time frame. In the same vein, the UI for OSX is awesomely polished and user friendly, but there are some major pain points I can't seem to get past. My Points Ubuntu, being a Debian variant has an awesome software package management system. More importantly, just about anything you could ever want is ALREADY THERE in some shape or form. OSX has homebrew and macports......

The Background Coming from a diverse background and having dealt with a number of distributed systems, I routinely find myself in a situation where I need to explain why foreign keys managed by an acid compliant RDBMS (no matter how expensive or awesome), lead to a scaleability problem that can be extremely cost prohibitive to solve. I also want to clarify an important point before I begin, scaleability doesn't equate to a binary yes or no answer, scaleability should always be expressed as an cost per unit of scale and I'll illustrate why. Let's use a simplified model of a common web architecture. In this model, work is divided between application servers (computation) and database servers (storage). If we assume that a foreign key requires validation at the storage level, no matter how scaleable our application layer is, we're going to run into a storage scaling problem. Note: Oracle RAC is this model...at the end of the day, no matter how many RAC nodes yo...

As more businesses look to cloud application providers for solution, the need for developers to understand secure coding practices is becoming much more important. Gone are the days when a developer would write an application that only ran in a secure environment and now it is possible for applications to be moved to locations where previously well managed security gaps now are exposed to the internet at large. Developers now more than ever need to understand basic security principles and follow practices to keep their applications and data safe from attackers. To make things more secure, a developer needs to first understand and believe the following statements: You don't know how to do it properly Nothing is completely secure Obscurity doesn't equal security Security is a continuum You don't know how to do it properly If I had a nickel for every developer who though they invented the newest, greatest, cleverest encryption/hashing routine, I'd be a millio...

One of my beefs with Hibernate as an ORM is that it encourages anemic domain models that have no operations and are simply data structures. This coupled with java's verbosity tend to make code unmaintainable (when used by third party systems) as well as cause developers to focus in THINGS instead of ACTIONS. For example take the following class that represents a way to illustrate part of a flight booking at an airline: public class Flight { public Date start; public Date finish; public long getDuration() { return finish.getTime() - start.getTime(); } } This is the core "business" requirement for a use case in this model in terse java. Form an OO perspective, start and finish are attributes, and getDuration is an operation (that we happen to believe is mathematically derived from the first two fields. Of course, due to training and years of "best practices" brainwashing, most folks will immediately and mindlessly follow the java ...

A quick post about my reality: Success is attainable through failure, and tradition is a crutch. I'm amazed at how many people think that they can envision some favorable outcome and attain it on the first try, flawlessly, with no course adjustments. This is as silly as imagining that a child can learn to walk simply by possessing the desire and some careful instruction. From my observation, anything even moderately complex and less automatic than breathing requires trial and error and the most important skill to learn is how to accept failure with open eyes and learn from it. In fact, I'd suggest that a critical part of learning something new is attaining an understanding what failures led to WHY it's done a certain way and not one of a million other ways. Sometimes the answer is buried in history and in fact, there might not even be a great reason for doing it that way anymore. One warning sign I use as my gauge on when this may have happened is when discussing ...

For many people (myself included), creating software is difficult, rewarding, and enjoyable. There is a feeling of pleasure in the act of creating something that is ultimately useful for someone... either for commerce, pleasure, or even the mundane (writing software to keep a deicer working properly...cool... yeah, that's a pun). It's important to keep things in the proper context though, you are not your code, I am not mine, we are not our code, to be effective, we must decouple our ego from our code and embrace Egoless Programming . Software should not be an extension of ourselves because software is much more transient than even we are, it's supposed to be, that's what makes it cool. Technology changes, the state of the art moves forward, patterns evolve, die, reemerge in a new form. In a way, deconstructing what's been done before and reforming it into something new is where the value of solid software development comes from, not from building the "u...

An anti-pattern is a commonly recurring software design pattern that is ineffective or counterproductive. One architectural anti-pattern I've seen a number of times is something I'll call the "Through the Looking Glass" pattern. It's named so because APIs and internal representations are often reflected and defined by their consumers. The core of this pattern is that the software components are split in a manner that couples multiple components in an inappropriate manner. An example is software that is split between a "front end" and a "back end", but they both use the same interfaces and/or value objects to do their work. This causes a situation where almost every back end change requires a front-end change and visa versa. As particularly painful examples, think of using GWT (in general) or trying to use SOAP APIs through javascript. There are a number of other ways this pattern can show up... most often it can be a team structure...