So a while back, I explored where developers get their information.  Surprisingly, it is hard to find hard data on the subject.  As a bonus from a Forrester study commissioned by Klocwork into the habits of code review, part of  the data revealed developers’ use of social media tools.  When asked directly about their use of these tools to communicate with other developers, the majority polled would not choose a social media channel.

It just goes to show that yet again, software developers are a breed apart.  As an aside, as I was researching this topic, I found an interesting post on why Social Media Experts are poets, Software developers are novelist that delves into ideas on barrier-of-entry as related to quality-perception of creative tasks.

A while back, I talked about how I keep running into organizations that seem to go out of their way to make developers’ lives hell.  I’ve run into several examples where developers had to switch between different environments just to write and compile code.  That’s as productive as watching paint dry and as much fun as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

For teams that want to run source code analysis in these types of environments (or any kind of dev tooling, frankly)  it’s very difficult for vendors to support.  I did my usual PM grumbling about these environments but since that post exactly 1 year ago I’ve come to realize that these environments are a reality and we need to figure out a way to support them.  Maybe it’s not productive but organizations are making it work.  I’m sure they would even argue that they have made it productive (good luck to them).  It’s for this reason that Klocwork has given in and instead of pointing our finger and making fun (I swear I never did), we’ve decided that it’s in our best interest to make sure we provide these customers with the capability to run static analysis.

A couple of releases ago, Klocwork introduced a new tool called Klocwork Desktop that provides Klocwork command line users with the same graphical capabilities that one would get from Visual Studio or Eclipse.  This tool was great for users who never used an IDE.  With Klocwork’s 9.1 release we have extended Klocwork Desktop’s reach by providing a remote capability that’s designed to support the type of environments described above.  Using Klocwork Desktop in remote mode allows users to view their source and detected-issue information when Klocwork Desktop does not have direct access to source files or defects, yet still get the benefits of finding and fixing your defects before you check-in your code.

One really cool feature that is part of this is the “you’ve got mail” notification.  At first, I have to admit this is something that worried me.  If I had to label one thing as a productivity drain it was those annoying alerts you get of new email coming in.  Of course right in the middle of doing something important you get distracted by a new email with plans for the next party (or in my case hearing about the kids latest poop explosion).  The first thing I always do is turn it off.  But in the case of finding bugs while coding, it only makes sense to give you these notifications in a heartbeat.  So you can actually be writing code on some machine in Jakarta and automatically your machine in San Jose is alerting you of bugs.  Pretty neat stuff.

It’s often taken as read that developers think code reviews are just a pain in the behind. Maybe that sentiment is true when a developer’s sitting amongst his/her peers and getting interrogated on the quality of their code, but some of the data from a Forrester Consulting study commissioned by Klocwork seems to contradict that a bit. The survey asked software development professionals a whole bunch of questions related to code reviews (some of which we’ve referenced before) and here are two interesting data points that suggest developers see real benefits from code reviews.

So 79% of respondents indicate that, yes, code reviews have been effective at reducing the number of bugs found later in the development cycle. Furthermore, 43% state that code reviews have caused a fundamentally positive shift in their project’s direction. Cool.

Of course, in other parts of the survey, respondents complain about aspects of code review, in particular how time consuming and difficult they can be to implement consistently. Nonetheless, the data indicates that when organizations put their heads down and make them part of their development process, real benefits will be realized. So, the challenge is making them part of the process – of course we advocate a tools-based approach, making them more lightweight, and combining automation into your software verification strategy so that manual reviews aren’t the only technique being used to find implementation errors.

This data line-up with what you’re seeing within your organization?

Documentation is the castor oil of programming. The managers know it must be good, because programmers hate it so much. Gerald M. Weinberg

I used to be a strong believer in formal doc reviews. Distribute a draft, plan a meeting, and have everyone gather around the table. But in the last few years, my team has moved towards mostly meetingless reviews–because people hate review meetings (you know, like code reviews, only worse), because people haven’t always read the drafts when they get to the meeting, and because some of our dev team is overseas.

• First, we distributed PDFs and asked reviewers to submit comments in email or on a hard copy. For the overseas team, email was the only option. This is not fun for either the reviewer, who has to do a lot of copying and pasting and referring to page numbers, or for the writer.
• Then we tried Adobe Acrobat PDF reviews, which allowed all reviewers to comment on the same PDF and view others’ comments. This was a big improvement over the email method.
• Now that all of our product documentation is hosted on a MediaWiki-based site, we’ve asked reviewers to edit the pages themselves, or add comments to the Talk pages. This makes life much easier for both reviewers and writers.

Still, as Anne Gentle stresses in Conversation and Community, using a collaborative medium doesn’t guarantee that collaboration will happen.

How do we encourage developers and testers to “own” the documentation for their tools, and to think of help as part of the product? If we can get developers and testers to RTFM, the benefits are obvious. They understand the tools in a way that no one else does, so they’ll provide feedback that no one else can. And they’ll become familiar with the help for the tools they’re responsible for, so they’d know whether a change they’re making or testing would affect the help.

I thought up a few ways that might increase the amount of review feedback:

• Create review tasks in our Agile project tracking tool, XPlanner. A top-down approach, and I wasn’t enthusiastic about it. Kinda like the daily castor oil treatment.
• Make everyone’s MediaWiki user page into their doc review page; we’d add links to these pages and reviewers would be notified through email, then they could delete the link when they’ve reviewed it. A nice bottom-up approach, I thought, in the spirit of the wiki.

But encouraging collaboration may be less about tools and more about process. If we involve reviewers earlier, they can tell us what they think before we’ve written a draft. A draft takes a long time to review, and if a reviewer doesn’t like it, they might not provide any feedback at all.

As Donna L. Davis says in a review of Andreas Rüping’s Agile Documentation:

Documentation isn’t bad. But bad documentation is terrible.

Is reviewing docs worse than eating Brussels sprouts? Do you review docs when asked, or do you hide the invitations under the edge of your plate, hoping mom won’t notice? Is the help so bad that you can’t be bothered? Are you just too busy? Are you one of those people who never consults the help for tools you use? Do you think your users will be able to use the tools you’re developing or testing without the docs?

What would make you more inclined to “own” the help for the tools you’re developing or testing?

There’s a tradition in R&D management that goes something like this: “give them toys and they’ll be happy.” Typically this has meant the biggest monitors, or the fastest CPUs, or an egregiously unnecessary SLI GPU configuration (for, ahem, high capacity computation tasks, right…), or whatever the latest piece of hardware might be that catches the purchasing manager’s eye.

But what about the software on that hardware? Sure, we equip people with an IDE (if they’ll use it, or whatever text editor they demand if they won’t) and whatever other tools are mandated as part of their development lifecycle. In fact, typical managers would dearly love to be able to mandate more tools for their developers. It’s easy, after all, for a manager to make the correlation that more toys = happy developer = more productivity = more code = bigger bonus = happy manager.

So why do so many developers, particularly in the embedded space, use outdated software tools? What’s the excuse, after all, for vi or some close derivative being a dominant code editor?

Inverse snobbery has been a popular theme in the privileged parts of the world for much of the last thirty years. “Yes, we drive a Lada because we just don’t believe that a BMW is necessary.” Really? Does anybody actually believe that tripe? I mean, I can well believe “I use vi because I have to; it’s the only editor that works on this cruddy piece of hardware.” But forgive me if I have a hard time with “I use vi because I like it better than anything else.” We all get used to stuff that makes no real sense, but surely there’s a point where even the most inverted technical snob has to look themselves in the mirror and know, deep in their darkest most hidden-away recesses of existential reality, that they’re just full of it.

Intransigence. Inertia. Feet dug in harder than you could possibly shift in a lifetime. Call it what you will, but unless something life-changing, like a project in a new language happens, many developers have a nasty habit of sticking with what they know. “What we do is hard enough,” goes the meme, “we don’t need to make it any worse.”

So how are those same developers coping with the demands of the ever-increasing footprint that is professional development? After all, it’s not enough anymore to simply bang out some code and check it in, moving on to the next assignment and hoping nobody notices. Now the professional developer is tasked with unit testing, performance testing, static analysis, memory profiling, code review, refactoring for maintenance, architectural cohesion, you name it. The list only ever gets longer as we move the goal posts for QA closer and closer to the consumer, requiring the developer to pick up the slack in the interim.

How does that footprint get coverage? There are still the same number of hours in the day, and the required amount of code generated by each developer hasn’t markedly decreased over the last 10 years. So what gives? One thing’s for sure… vi hasn’t made developer productivity much better than when it was first written at Berkley all those years ago (with all due deference to the strides made by vim/gvim in recent years).

I’m going to examine several different communities in upcoming posts and look at the approach they take to solving this problem, covering a range of backgrounds and roles from embedded driver writers to creators of modern web applications. In the meantime, have a look inside yourself and, if you pass muster as some analog of the crusty vi user I paint above, ask yourself why, and what might make you change. Recent history abounds with case studies, some of which I’ll reference, but at the end of the day it’s all about you and your personal work practice.

Just returned from my second stint on the Agile in Action roadshow with our friends from Electric Cloud, Perforce, and VersionOne, this time visiting the cities of Toronto, Philadelphia and Chicago. Rather than going into minute detail (and the fact it is a Friday afternoon before a long weekend), I thought I would share a few random observations from this trip:

• Organizations (and individuals) are begging for as much information and guidance as they can get on Agile and tools for Agile, and are willing to give up a days in the office and brave horrific traffic to get it
• Teams that are 6 to 9 months practicing Agile think they’re novices, but in reality are seasoned veterans and have lived through most of the nightmares newer teams are currently facing
• Toronto cab drivers have a random-number generator for their “flat-rate” fares from the airport
• The majority of our audience would rank low to medium on both their knowledge and their adoption of Agile…they all want to go Agile, they just don’t know where to start (or if they were started, how they could improve things)
• Window seats suck, but not as much as middle seats
• Developers do code reviews, but don’t like doing them…
• …but you could always count of the one guy in the audience who claimed to like them…obviously someone’s living in denial
• And finally, if you are in 3 different hotels in 3 nights, keep the sleeve your room key comes in on you at all times…I guarantee you’ll forget your room number at least once during the trip.

What is the ROI to the company for developer tools?  This has always been and continues to be a struggle in any development organization. Developer productivity to date has been very poorly measured and studied. Programming has always been a creative task bound within the constraints of  a framework.  Many people have tried to measure direct individual developer productivity with less than convincing results:

Bugs per dev, bugs per team, bug regression rates, bug trend lines, comparative .NET Framework book sales rates,  # of [static analysis] violations per kloc, etc, etc.. the list is really endless…

So when it comes to assessing the value of development tools, what are the motivational and productivity drivers?  During my time as a development manager, my focus was always on reducing roadblocks and mindless repetitive tasks.  When you are well compensating developers to use their grey matter, you don’t want their efforts to be wasted on the simple stuff.

Focusing on a bottom-up approach, I base the tool choices on the marginal cost for adding a developer.  After getting the basics out of the way, including corporate overhead, dev box, standard  software load and a complier, what’s next?

Well, there are a plethora of vendors all screaming at you to buy their product, but let’s take a step back and look at what makes a developer produce better code.

Here is my list in order and why.  It starts at the developer desktop and depends on frequency of use and then spreads out to the rest of the development team:

• Source control (with nightly backups) – Even for a development team of one, don’t leave home without it.  The benefits of source control really can’t be overstated: revision control, easy diffs, build integration, product branching  and maintenance, etc.

• static analysis – like grammar checking for Office but so much deeper. It has been proven time and time again that getting rid of the minor flaws and style inconsistencies right when the developer is working and the code is fresh in their brain is the most productive.  Waiting 2 hours, a  day and for some even a week costs a context switch.  When you add in the regression analysis for the maintainability, this tool just shines and pays for itself quickly

• Issue tracking – some might debate that this tool’s placement should be above static analysis, but as I said,  my focus here is on the developer’s desktop and not team or management needs.

• refactoring – only sightly better than find/search/replace - not essential but when used frequently and consistently can be used for good productivity benefits .  It’s one of the small tools that get you through the day.

• code review – similar to static analysis but now we have widened our view off of the desktop and include the team to build better code. No one person can know everything and extra pairs of eyes on the code is only going to make it better.

• unit testing – anything to take away the drudgery of building simple test cases that completely cover the class/api interfaces and maintaining with the refactoring that will happen over time.  You might ask why unit testing is lower on the list. Simple. You can’t test code that has not been written yet.

• dynamic/performance profiling and input injection – your customer will like you for this one.  Over time, most applications grow, add new features and become sluggish pigs.  Version performance testing and making critical judgments in trading off performance for value is one of the  keys to repeat customers.

There you have it.  A list of tools for developers (note I said developers not PMs or teams) that I consider essential to have on each desktop to get them through their day.

Previously I posted the value of using coding standards, specifically MISRA C and MISRA C++.  This time I wanted to go through some general experiences we had with some of the checkers, specifically the ones that seem to throw a lot of violated rules, to the point that on some code bases MISRA flagged more than one error per LOC!

There are still tons of great rules you can apply even if you don’t make an embedded product.  But as I said before, it doesn’t make sense to turn on all the MISRA rules.  After running through many code bases and looking at the value of MISRA we certainly noticed a trend with a few culprits.  Here are a few examples that we found to be noisy with non-MISRA compliant code.

MISRA C 6.3 and MISRA C++ 3-9-2:

MISRA has the distinction of “required” rules and “advisory” rules.  This is an “advisory” rule.  Essentially it wants you to avoid using types like char, int, short, long etc. and to use specific length typedefs instead.  Obviously, many code bases use the basic types, so be prepared for many issues.

MISRA C 14.9 and MISRA C++ 6-4-1:

This is a “required” rule.  This rule  is really about making sure you have braces for your if/else keywords.  Good practice to have but how many of us really do this?

MISRA C 12.13 and MISRA C++ 5-2-10:

This is an “advisory” rule.  The rule doesn’t want you to mix increment and decrement operators into an expression.  This makes sense because it can be pretty confusing to read.  But in our experiments this seems to be something that many developers do.

MISRA C 17.4 and MISRA C++ 5-0-15:

This is a “required” rule.  The rule only wants to allow you to use array indexing for pointer arithmetic.  Everything else is non-compliant.

MISRA C 14.7 and MISRA C++ 6-6-5:

This is a “required” rule and another control flow example.  A function can only have one point of exit at the end of a function.  I can understand this but as you know, that is not reality.

MISRA C 13.2:

This is an “advisory” rule.  It states that tests against zero should be made explicit.  In other words: if (x != 0) is the proper way, not if (x).  The exception to this is if the operand is Boolean.  I don’t know about you, but you can crown me the super wiener on this? I never make it explicit.

So if you plan to pick up MISRA on your existing project beware of these rules.  I’d like to hear if you do any of those things in your code base.

In a previous post I discussed the process where we practice dogfooding.  This is the process of using Klocwork on Klocwork (KonK).  We started this program several years back with the hopes that we would learn some valuable lessons about usability, performance and anything else that would give us an edge.  The truth is that KonK has consistently allowed us to test our design assumptions early by allowing our own developers to use Klocwork as part of their development.

One of the unexpected results was inadvertently uncovering data that further validated for us the importance of bugs found by a static analysis tool. We correlated testing-found issues and KonK (static analysis) issues assigned to each developer. The result as this graph shows (note: graph is using a logarithmic scale and is a few years old), is there was a very high relationship between the two. Those familiar with bugs found by static analysis tools know that they are often quite different in nature from a bug found by testing where you’re testing requirements, yet developers with a high count of testing-found issues also had a high KonK count. In some cases they pointed to the same problem, in others an indication of the overall bad to the bone problems in some of the new components.

Since we already eat our own dogfood, we’re already believers in the use of static analysis, but this kind of data is a great example of the benefit of finding issues early using static analysis

When I was documenting a new refactoring plugin for Vim, I checked out the Vim web site, and came across this blasphemy:

Vim isn’t an editor designed to hold its users’ hands. It is a tool, the use of which must be learned.

Later, someone sent me this beauty, from Elitist Jerks:

Stop being lazy and read.

Are users lazy? Do they expect hand-holding? Do they expect one button and no manual?

Or is this more true to life?

In the end, it probably comes down to this: Make tools usable. Then technical communicators can spend more time creating truly helpful help, and less time explaining a bad UI.

If our goal as communicators is not just great help, but a great product, Agile makes more sense than ever.  If we want our usability suggestions to be implemented, we need to get developers’ attention while they’re working on that feature. Find the rough edges that would require a lot of splainy-splainy, request a change, and then rejoice that we don’t need to explain what’s now obvious. Sometimes it’s hard for me to decide what’s a rough edge. Would my audience of developers find this as confusing as I do? But I’m learning to trust my gut.

At the same time, though I appreciate the benefits of Agile, I’ve started to worry less about the help being “done” at the end of an iteration; instead, I want to make sure I understand a feature well enough before the end of the iteration to suggest design changes and know what help will be required.