There has been lots of discussion on this blog (and others for that matter) on the importance of early defect detection, refactoring, and code reviews, but what does it all mean to a team of developers trying to maximize their velocity in a 2 week iteration? Based on a number of studies, and some real-world customer feedback  we have put together the following ROI…but note that this ROI is not measured in dollars, but rather in hours saved, because a development team can more easily relate to a 20 hour time savings per iteration rather than a break even point of 14.5 months. A few assumptions first…the team is made up of 10 developers, working on 5 stories (each story creates about 300 LOC) every 2 week iteration. Also, we used internal estimates for the refactoring time savings since we couldn’t find any 3^rd party data on refactoring ROI. . If you have anything more concrete, I’d love to hear about it.

From this table (which has been a regular slide in our Agile in Action roadshow series) we see that tools can help, in this example just over 40 hours/iteration, which if you break that down further works out to about 1/2 day per developer every 2 weeks. Now that is an ROI that an agile development team can relate to…

It was a mistake for Eric to wear a t-shirt to his job interview, and it was a bigger mistake to wear that particular t-shirt.

People who do not get hired after an interview second guess themselves; they look for concrete reasons as to why they were not hired for that particular job.  They might justify it by saying the company sucked, the interviewer was an HR douchebag, the hiring manager did not know their stuff.  Of course, they may be correct in passing these judgments, however, chances are there simply was a mismatch between the person interviewing and the company.  When this happens, count your blessings that the people doing the interviewing for the company knew that.  Being brought into a company that is a mismatch with your values and attitudes can impact everything you do, not to mention, make you downright miserable.

An interview is an opportunity for you to interview the company…to find out if you like them.  It is not just about sitting in front of some scary people and answering the questions they fire at you.   For most people, interviews are not pleasant experiences.  However, they are an evil necessity, until a more effective way of assessing people is invented.  And this brings me to the point of this blog…how the hell do you get through an interview?

1. Be prepared, know the names of the interviewers, know the company business and feel free to bring in notes.  It is entirely reasonable to request more information from the company representative setting up the interview.
2. Appear enthusiastic and interested (but not so much that you are confused with a salesperson!).
3. Dress appropriately.  This generally means clean trousers and a shirt with a collar, maybe a tie for the men, a clean skirt and a blouse for the women.
4. Answer the questions, and if you do not know the answer, let the interviewer know with the promise to get back to them.
5. ASK QUESTIONS…find out enough information to determine whether you want to be an employee.
6. Finally, follow up…if you like what you heard during the interview.  Just an e-mail will suffice, and believe me that will set you apart from 90% of the candidates.

As readers know, we’ve been talking about code reviews pretty regularly here and elsewhere over the past few months. To continue that discussion, here’s a question we run into often: are in-person code reviews as the primary way to communicate, by definition a bad thing?

Here’s some more data from the Forrester Consulting study commissioned by Klocwork that shows the majority of respondents still conduct in-person reviews… elsewhere in the survey only 36% of respondents indicated that they worked on a centralized team with everyone in one location. So that means, if 60% still conduct in-person reviews, they’re likely excluding valuable contributors to the review.

Data that shows majority still conduct in-person code reviews

Is this practice just being done because “that’s the way it is” or are there good reasons for in-person meetings being the primary way to review code? I could see the odd in-person meeting being necessary for a variety of reasons but given how distributed teams are these days and the variety of tools available to effectively review code remotely, it doesn’t seem that efficient.

There’s a general philosophy gaining more prominence around meeting reduction, whether in software development or elsewhere. We’re seeing many organizations question why their code review process needs to be in-person when it excludes people who aren’t co-located and generally takes up too much of people’s time. What are you seeing?

Mark Grice is a pretty unflappable guy, but when you ask him a question about barriers to successful adoption of Source Code Analysis (SCA) technology, he starts to splutter.

I like developers.

I have spent a career hiring, motivating, confusing, annoying and retaining developers.  I am not going to go so far as to say I understand you guys, but I do know what makes a good developer.  More importantly, I know what makes someone a bad fit for the team I am recruiting for.

First impressions are important. Yeah, I know, it sucks and your technical prowess should speak for itself, but it doesn’t.  Let’s face it, if you forget the “L” in Klocwork in your cover letter, I’m laughing too hard to pay attention to your superior coding skills.

If you continually refer to me as “Sir”, my feminist nose gets a bit out of joint; resumes filled with spelling errors throw into question your attention to detail and your level of concern for putting forth solid code.

While I am on the subject of resumes, it’s very impressive that people have the experience to fill up 15 pages of a resume. Maybe it’s even impressive that they have the time to type out a 15-page resume, but no one else has the time or the inclination to read a 15-page resume.  To date, the record length for a resume that I have received is 25 pages – this person is not employed here.

Being in this industry and in HR for as long as I have, I have learned something shocking – people stretch the truth on their resumes!  Imagine that!  And then imagine a company having the audacity to have someone in for an interview and test the person to assess whether what they claim on their resume is actually the case.  Of course, as a candidate, you should then take great offense to the fact that my colleagues and I called into question your integrity, your intelligence, and your worth as a citizen of the world.  In fact, you should probably follow up your interview with a strongly worded e-mail addressed to Sir at Kocwork.  Or maybe you shouldn’t.

Just…don’t…do…that.   We are not attacking your credibility. We do not enter the interview room thinking you are a lying, worthless waste of skin. In fact, we are pretty excited to meet you, so far we have liked what we have seen, otherwise you would not be here.

We will remain excited to meet you, right up to the point where you show up half an hour late, wearing a questionable outfit covered with what appears to be last week’s Sunday dinner.  Maybe you will look me in the eye, or maybe you will direct your eyes to my chest and keep them fixed there throughout the interview.  When that happens I like to observe where your eyes remain clamped when my male coworkers are interviewing you because inevitably it has nothing to do with what is on the interviewer’s chest. It’s just a convenient place to rest one’s gaze.  However,  between you and me, it kinda freaks me out.

I found this blog to be rather cathartic. I have more, so much more and if I am invited back as a guest blogger, maybe my therapy bills will go down.  Until we meet across a table in our interview room, I wish you good luck and good code!

With the recent story that the iPad has inherent security vulnerabilities, I thought it might be an appropriate time to delve into the world of software security guidelines…but I must warn you, this blog will contain an abnormal amount of acronyms, and may not be suitable for all audiences.

When talking about software security guidelines, there are really 5 or 6 organizations that are leading the charge, and they include:

-          OWASP

-          SANS Institute

-          MITRE

-          PCI Security Standards Council

-          SEI

Let’s first look at OWASP. OWASP stands for Open Web Application Security Project, which is a not-for-profit charitable organization that is focused on improving the security of application software. They are probably best known for their Top 10 lists from 2004, 2007, and most recently 2010.

Next is the SANS Institute. SANS of course is a FLA that stands for SysAdmin, Audit, Networking, Security. The SANS Institute claims to be the most trusted source for computer security training, certification and research, and have been developing and releasing their Top 20 annually for the past 7 years or so.

The MITRE Corporation is a not-for-profit organization that was founded in the late 50’s, and has over 7,000 very smart dudes (65% have Masters or PhDs). MITRE has come up with their own security guideline as well, that is the CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) and it provides a common language of discourse for discussing, finding and dealing with the causes of software security vulnerabilities as they are found in code, design, or system architecture. The CWE lists over 800 programming errors, design errors, and architectural errors that can lead to exploitable vulnerabilities. Interestingly, MITRE and SANS decided to collaborate to come up with the CWE Top 25, yet another “Top” list they have been putting together for the last couple of years.

The PCI Security Standards Council was founded by American Express, Discover Financial Services, JCB International, MasterCard Worldwide, and Visa, Inc. and is an open global forum for the ongoing development, enhancement, storage, dissemination and implementation of security standards for account data protection. The PCI SSC has come up with the PCI DSS, “a multifaceted security standard that includes requirements for security management, policies, procedures, network architecture, software design and other critical protective measures. This comprehensive standard is intended to help organizations proactively protect customer account data”.

Finally, there is the SEI (the Software Engineering Institute, which is a federally funded R&D center at CMU, aka Carnegie Mellon University). The SEI is home to CERT which was established in 1988 to address internet security problems and to find ways to reduce the number and impact of security breaches. CERT focuses on protection, detection, and response to attacks on networked computer systems. Surprisingly enough, CERT is not actually an acronym.

Neither PCI nor CERT has received the memo yet that in order to be cool, you have to have a “Top X” list…perhaps next year?

Now, not to be left out of the fun, the NCSD (National Cyber Security Division) of the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has their own strategic initiative called BSI (Build Security In). The NCSD obviously wants to cover pretty much all the bases since, in addition to their own BSI, they also sponsor pretty much all of the other guidelines.

I would be remiss if I didn’t at least acknowledge a few other notables with respect to software security guidelines, and to make it more interesting, I will only provide the acronym. I challenge you to come up with the full name. So, a few others involved in security guidelines are NIST (who run a project called SAMATE, and also run an event called SATE, which BTW is also sponsored by DHS NCSD), WASC, and finally STIG. For fun, I’ll throw in CVE, even though it is not a guideline, but more of a dictionary or list that was put together by MITRE, and shockingly is sponsored by DHS NCSD. I’m starting to think that DHS wants to be everyone’s BFF.

Hopefully you’ve learned a little more about the alphabet soup of security guidelines out there. If you’re scratching your head thinking WTF, you’re probably not alone…

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.

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.

Our partners at Code Integrity have a good blog that touches on many of the benefits and barriers to static analysis within a development organization. They have an interesting post on “False false positives” – a great phrase that captures one of the key challenges in developer adoption of the technology.

While increased sophistication means that static analysis tools can catch more problems with a higher degree of accuracy, the burden increases on the reviewer of the results to interpret them correctly. If you were grep’ing through some code for something you can quickly review (and dismiss) many of the results because you understand what your “analysis” is doing. With static source code analysis, this is much less apparent.

We see many engineers look at a complex bug report and not take the necessary time to understand the problem and fix it. This is mostly because they don’t understand what the static analysis tool is doing and how deep it is analyzing the code. The result is a real bug being marked as a false positive – or a “false false positive” if you will. These bugs then disappear off the queue never to be seen again – a lost opportunity.

One of their key recommendations to overcoming this barrier is using training and joint review of results to educate developers on why the tool is flagging a potential error, what the mitigation options are, etc. Code Integrity has a bunch of deployment and training services to help customers with these types of deployment hurdles.

In our experience, all developers need is one ‘aha’ moment where the tool finds a nasty, subtle bug that would be hard to find using any other method. Once that happens, the developer is a convert. I would also say the burden isn’t just on training, but the tool vendors as well. We all have to continue making the usability of the tool such that developers should be able to instantly recognize why the tool is flagging the error and give the developer all the info they need to recognize the bug and take the appropriate action.