News Articles

When I first heard your title I instantly thought of the other books that share parts of it. But when thinking further about the title, I think that's a quite good title. I puts the book into a category and gives a scope of where it is applicable as well as a goal (journeyman).

With other topics you also have several books that form ecosystems. Be it Design Patterns, Refactoring, Language books, Head First etc. So why not having an ecosystem of Software Craftsmanship books.

Thinking of another title was actually not that easy. On the one hand you want to distinguish your book from the others (not being confused with them, or being referred to as "the other book"). On the other hand you want your readers (and potential buyers) identify your book as part of the topic they are looking for. So a too fancy title (like "My Job went to India") is not helpful either. You also don't want to be confused with those tons of recipies for life improvement books (so be careful about the wording).

Changes I could imagine would be:

Software Craftsmanship: The Apprentice Years. (missing the goal)

Software Craftsmanship: The Long Road. (negative tone)

Craft your journeyman's piece: yourself.

Although I'd rather keep it, I also offer you my personal title:

Creating Passionate Developers: The beginning. / How to spark excitement.

Hope it helps

Michael

I first of all noticed this group (and joined it) because I was intrigued by the title.  

After the title hooked me, I began to read through the excerpts.  I quickly realized that the book is speaking to my exact station as a software developer.  I'm a fresh bit of young talent in California, working in my first real career role as a software developer.  I have a lot of energy and new ideas, as well as a lot to learn.  "Wearing the White Belt" and "Perpetual Learning" both seemed to be speaking directly to my personal situation.  I have developed strong skills in one language, and have been tasked with learning another, etc..

Needless to say, I've been very excited about the book.  I've been following along each week, although until now, I haven't contributed any sort of feedback.  This is mostly because I feel that (at this point) I have more to learn from the book than to contribute to it.  The question over the title of the book seems to be one where my input is more relevant, because I'm definitely the target audience, and I'll definitely be enjoying a personal copy.

So for what it's worth, I think the title is great.  It caught my attention immediately.  I love the idea of Software Craftsmanship.  One of my favorite books, however recent, is "Beautiful Code."  I look up to the authors of that title as masters of the craft, and they represent what I'm working to become.  I've only been developing professionally for a few years, but I have already seen that there is a great need within the industry for people to understand software development more in terms of old world craftsmanship, just as you've labeled it.  I'd rather think of myself as a journeyman than as an engineer, and I'm thankful to be in a position at work where my manager and co-workers share the values that the title expresses.  I think that's too often not the case.

I do understand the concern.  I'm an avid reader and collector of software development titles, and though I'm familiar with Pete McBreen's book, I honestly didn't think twice about the similarity in the titles.  I simply thought: "here's a new book."  From my perspective, the titles don't clash, and the similarity in the name might only speak to a common thread, and an idea which needs to promoted in the industry.  If anything, the titles could mutually reinforce one another, and I think that would only be a good thing both for those ideas and for the books themselves.

Whatever the title, I've enjoyed reading along so far, and look forward to more developments.  But I think the title speaks volumes, and I encourage you to keep it.

Best,

-kpr

Ps.  I also took to the cover, and I think it's a wonderful concept. ..so more kudos!

We have re-titled the book. :-)

"... but some of it will be non-technical and company-specific and therefore useless once you move on. "

This is valid for all companies and domains (and especially universities). But while learning this specific stuff we also discover a lot about the abstractions that lie behind it and the methods of learning.

I don't know if you have the leverage to optimize your learning at a startup where slack is not that abundant as you try to get things done. A company that provides the means and time to practise and learn during worktime is certainly quite helpful and can cope much better with the different skills available.

Michael

As someone who has worked for a company during their start-up phase and on into their operational phase I have the following comments:

The 2 phases were very different, with very good reason. Initially that "hacker-friendy culture" exisited but once we had paying customers on the books we needed the process and control to ensure that service was not interruped.

I manged to deal with both scenarios and learnt a huge amount from each.

So when I hear someone say that they are the type "who loves to create things, the constraints and layers of most large companies kill my soul" I get a bit concerned. It is possible to learn a huge amount at a large organisation even taking into account the processes and procedures that will be in place. I accept that there are times when these processes and procedures can seem to be overly restrictive and indeed this has been a contributing factor in me leaving a previous position. This however doesn't mean that working for large organisation can not worthwhile.

I suspect many of us have met people with this attitude. My experience is that, even in a small organisation, this attitude can cause issues. It very often translates to "I know better than you". In most cases this turns out not to be true.

When you say that you like to build "software systems of my own design" what I hear is someone saying that they are not open to ideas from others, not willing to work as part of a team, not aware of the impact that their work has on other people.

People with this attitude are absolutely more suited to a small organisation but by turning your back on large organisations you are not turning yourself into a well rounded software professional.

sl805e, these are very good points.  If I have an achilles heel, it is my disdain for large organizations.  I wholeheartedly agree that learning opportunities can be found in every situation, even in situations I would rather avoid.

I understand your concern for my "soul-killing" comment and how that often coincides with the trait of "I know better than you".  I'm hoping that's not the case for me, though I'm sure I've been guilty of that tendency at times.  I should have stuck with the positive side of the statement:  I love to create things, and in my experience, working for small companies on small teams facilitates this.  I also understand why you could take my "software systems of my own design" comment as sounding like a prima dona, someone who can't possibly be bothered with the contributions of the pitiful mortals who stumble around in ignorance.  But consider the context of this blog, please read some of the patterns to get a sense of where I'm coming from.  I have left you with the wrong impression of me if you think I am not open to ideas from others or not interested in teamwork.

As another person who has worked in several startups as a contractor (and now works full-time for a company owned by a large corporation), I would also have to say that it doesn't automatically follow that startups have great examples of good teamwork, super creativity or informed management. In fact, in my experience, it has often turned out to be the opposite (or at best, a mixed bag). True, an individual in a startup often has an opportunity to learn many things (wearing many hats) and maybe even shine, BUT if any component of the startup (be it technical, managerial, etc) is dysfunctional then it can be a pretty bad place to be.

Are big corporations bad?

Short answer: Sometimes. Maybe. Depends.

Long answer: I would say that while its true large corporations often do have the mind-numbing soul-destroying conventions attributed to them, they are sometimes great places to learn good responsible practices that will make you a better craftsman. It depends on the company. Having spent 7 months carefully looking (including interviewing at some very well known companies), I now work for a "regular" small company but the management and technical team here are excellent. We dont have cubicles. People are respected. Communications are good. It can be fun. Im working on a project that is a "startup" idea but inside an existing business. I feel Im in a good creative place where our ideas are encouraged and heard.

So, part of a craftman's journey should include stints in all types of companies large and small, and in all types of positions and then deciding which part to focus on for a rewarding career.

I think there is a huge misconception that the best way to program (or administer systems) is to work long hours.  I'm more productive when I work less.  And yes, there are some days where I am really in a groove and can and want to put in 12 or more effective hours of work, but those are generally followed by days where I'm only functional and effective for a few hours.  And constant required long hours do make your job painful. 

I do think that a lot of the reason so many new managers do no better than their predicessors is because of a lack of management training (and in many cases interest.)  If management is just what you do because you a) want out of a technical roll or b) at some point it is the only (visible or common) way to progress in your career, chances are you aren't going to be very good at it.

Fun's gotta be the wrong concept. The pay would be a lot less if you could guarantee it was fun.

If (on average) you don't have to do overtime, you're doing okay. Simple. Quantifiable. Sustainable.

Anything better than that is a bonus. Fun is a double-bonus.

Of course it is difficult to stand up as a newcomer to an unfitting environment. But perhaps thats the best thing one can do. Either way - improving the environment or getting fired and looking for a better place to improve your craftmanship - its a win.

Regarding the work hours - I fully agree. It is surely a sign of proficient people to work less and achieve more. To focus on the real neccessities and remove waste is one of the most important lessons to learn. When looking at lean and comparing this to the ways most of us still work - there is much room for improvement (kind of downsizing). And if you work less you have more time for your family and for learning and practising. (See also Kents 8 hour workday in XP)

But getting so efficient is surely a part of becoming a journeyman. 

I don't agree with Dave that it is the apprentice lone responsibility to create an environment suitable for improvement. The company should be very interested in this - and most are if you just ask them.

Back to Agile - you need to have slack to perform well as an agile team. Besides the buffering effect it also reduces the pressure and allows you to adapt much easier to changing requirements. And 100% (or more) utilization of anything is always a bad approach as every operations, production or development manager can tell you (I wonder why software developers have to be utilized at 120%).

Michael

Regarding Death Marches :)

http://despair.com/quality.html

shogun70, I have to disagree.  Fun is an ideal, but in my opinion, it's not a double-bonus.  I suppose it depends on what makes you tick.  To me, working side-by-side with a small team, learning new technologies, while creating software is naturally fun.  There are certainly times in even the best circumstances when I need to grit my teeth, deal with difficult situations, or put in a long day here and there, but I believe that the act of developing software is fun when it is managed properly.

Michael, I'm not trying to say that no one else is responsible for creating an environment suitable for improvement, but I am saying that the apprentice should not hesistate to try to create this environment if his employer is not.  I am trying to prevent newcomers from accepting the status quo, putting their heads down like everyone else, and muddling through their cubicle farms in isolation with locked-down internet connections preventing them from collaborating.  Apprentices should actively seek out (or create) teams, organizations, and companies that will maximize their learning potential.

Ok, there I agree wholeheartedly. There are many ways for anyone enthusiastic to create collaborative environments even within restricted zones.

What I find a bit difficult is all the responsibility the apprentice has to bear. If you look at your craftsman studio at obtiva (as far as I could get from your blog) there is a much more positive environment and the apprentices are welcomed and supported. Where should an apprentice draw its motivation from if there is a more hostile environment and all this responsibility?

Michael

Michael, that's a great question.  I guess my answer would be found here.

Julie,

Often the only upward career path for programmers is into technical management. Now often, if you're on that path you've had time to learn something by going through senior programming / team leadership positions beforehand. So it doesn't automatically follow that because that may be your only visible path you're automatically going to be bad at it.

However a person making that progression can (and probably should) take an interest in the craft of managing technical people and management in general. There's always something new to learn in technical careers.

I find myself in a sim. boat having not 'learned' much from school but rather teaching myself over the years as my interests and needs changed.  However, the reason I think that I have had better success on my own than within the educational system is due to a number of factors:

1. Pacing: One of the problems I always had with classes is how SLOW they are.  I understand that it's a group evnironment, and they want to make sure everyone (or at least most) 'get it', but I've always had trouble wasting time on something once I 'get it'.  When I teach myself something, I can struggle with a concept as much or as little as I want until I 'get' it and then I can move on to something else.  I don't have to keep practicing it just for the sake of practicing.

2. Material: The problem with a class setting has always been that you have to follow an outline of material that the teacher thinks (or wants) you to learn.  In my experience 90% of what they cover is stuff I'll never really care about or at least rarely use.  Rarely enough that by the time I have to remember what I learned, I've forgotten it and have to look it up in a book anyway.  When I'm learning on my own, I can skip to the parts that I really want to know (usually because I have a real problem I'm trying to solve and I think learning X will help solve it).

3. Relevance: I think this goes towards the same type of thing I mentioned in point two, but it's important enough to be it's own point as well.  When I learn on my own, I can make sure that everything is relevant to my needs or at least I *think* it's going to be relevant to my needs and so I have the motivation.

There are probably a lot more reasons I could think of as to why 'going on my own' has always worked better for me than 'taking a class', but those are the ones off the top of my head.  I would also say that, at least for me and in my experience, a large part of learning success comes from a person's motivation and passion - if you're at school because 'that's what you are supposed to do', or you're a programmer because 'it pays well' then you are going to have a tough time learning and improving.

But if you're a programmer because you can't help but write code and build stuff, then you're going to find the learning path both fun and easy!

Can there be a successful apprentice without a master craftsman?  Where are the master craftsmen?

Do the most successful software corporations provide an environment that encourages (or allows) the master craftsman to educate new programmers?

Does the open source movement create an apprenticeship environment?

Where can any apprentice go to get brutally honest assessments of their efforts?  To what extent have we damaged education by worrying more about a student's self-esteem than their ability to meet the highest standards?

Certainly it is the responsibility of the individual to pursue their own learning - but doesn't the culture around them share a large responsibility in training them?

Great entry. The sooner we all get this one the more satisfied and successful we will be.

I often tell those I work with who are faced with challenges that they need to fight for the issues they think are important. There will never be enough time to address all that we think is vitaland yet we owe it to ourselves, our employers, our craft, whatever that craft is, to find the pieces we are passionate about, or identify the problems and work on the solution. Achieving satisfaction from my job requires that I be a proactive member of the problem solving group. 

But how do you strike a balance though between this and taking on too much? Overcommiting seems to be a common theme in all businesses today.


This quote speaks to so much about what makes for a successful learning experience:

“In a society which emphasizes teaching, children and students -- and adults -- become passive and unable to think or act for themselves. Creative, active individuals can only grow up in a society that emphasizes learning instead of teaching.”


Teaching is passive and instructor focused, whereas learning is focused on the needs of the student. We learn by doing.  So listening to a lecture, reading a book, or talking to a colleague, while important, are only the beginning of the learning process. Once we are “doing” our brain begins to make connections and the ideas, concepts and theories start to stick.

We can blame plenty of different folks for the passive learning that has been the de facto method since we were children, or we can focus on educating others on how to be better learners and better teachers.  I see this happening all around me, two examples: (Gary Pollice is doing some amazing work with his students at Worcester Polytech Institute, the learning principles Kathy Sierra has long talked about and made into a successful series of books (Head First)  – check out her presentation from a recent OReilly conference here: http://toc.oreilly.com/2008/02/video-of-tim-oreilly-and-kathy.html

Ken asked: Can there be a successful apprentice without a master craftsman? Where are the master craftsmen?

Yes, I believe that there can be a successful apprentice without a dedicated master craftsman. Or at least relatively successful. The master craftsmen are few and far between because people tend to move away from the craft as they have opportunities for advancement. It's a rare person that opts to stay technical for the course of their career

Ken asked: Do the most successful software corporations provide an environment that encourages (or allows) the master craftsman to educate new programmers?

I would like to think so. I am not a master craftsman, but as a journeyman co-leading a software corporation, I am trying to create an apprentice-friendly environment. I wouldn't say I am trying to educate, though. I'm trying to facilitate their learning.

Ken asked: Does the open source movement create an apprenticeship environment?

I think the open source movement makes life easier on apprentices. I know I would not have been able to become a programmer at all without open source software. The things that open source helped me with the most were providing me with an easy to learn language (Perl) that was freely available, with free documentation and an endless supply of source code that I could download and read.

Ken asked: Where can any apprentice go to get brutally honest assessments of their efforts?

It is the apprentice's job to find a mentor, a peer, or a group to get feedback from. This is a key aspect of apprenticeship.

Ken asked: Certainly it is the responsibility of the individual to pursue their own learning - but doesn't the culture around them share a large responsibility in training them?

The culture should absolutely take responsibility for giving people the best training they can get. But this book is written at apprentices rather than industry leaders, so I focus on self-motivated learning. Apprentices can't wait for the culture to give them what they need, they have to go out and get it themselves.

I'd like to say what a joy it has been to go through the current draft of Software Craftsmanship. 

I'm currently in a situation where I found myself deeply yearning for a new career in web development.  The problem is I'm in an industry that focuses on business software, and for 40+ hours a week, I have a limited time to interact with what I have a true desire to learn.  I have a fairly good knowledge of programming concepts, but very little knowledge of the software development cycle.  I feel that I'm stuck in the 'apprentice category', which repels me from making the difficult decision that I'm currently stuck with: switching careers without enough knowledge of a particular language that a new company requires or sticking with in the current industry I'm in.  I certainly have the ability to learn any language, but I don't have a problem to solve aside from the mundane ones that the books I read in my personal time have to offer.

So the point of the short blurb about myself is this - I have created a dillemma that expels the point of this blog, that favorable conditions never come (working 40 hours a week in an environment that does not promote learning what you desire).  Although my point seems unfair and slightly abstract, due to the fact that I could certainly switch careers and find somewhere else to work that involves web development - it goes back to the challenge I mentioned earlier - switching careers.  It is difficult when you lack confidence in the skills the new career requires.

Before reading the first few chapters of Software Craftsmanship I lacked the proper guidance to make this decision.  Now I know better what I have to do to become a successful craftsman.

My first significant job out of college actually was an apprenticeship in many respects, even if it wouldn't have been called that.  The guys who started the company came from corporate telecom software, and wanted to jump on this newfangled World Wide Web bandwagon (it was 1995 after all).  They recognized eagerness and potential in me and were willing to bring me on board.  I read and studied a lot of great code, and really grew as a developer.  I was always encouraged to "think outside the box" to do my job.

The other ingredient in that mix that I've learned not to underestimate, is that I really became good friends with the people I worked with there.  It really helps to create the kind of personal environment where you're not on the corporate carrot-and-stick, or trying not to ruffle the wrong person's feathers.  When personal tensions began to grow in the company soil, it changed the whole dynamic of everything, even the business model, and it became time to move on.

Conditions have become much less favorable for learning in the intervening years.  When I started that job I was a single guy living in an apartment three miles from the office, with virtually no responsibilities beyond showing up for work and paying my bills.  Now I try to take advantage of some of the inflexible givens of my schedule.  Right now, one of those big givens is my commute -- an hour each way on the train.  So rather than waste that time sleeping or playing solitaire, I try to take advantage of it to do reading, writing, and various development projects that help me stay current and sharp.

silv3r189, I'm glad the material in this book has been helpful for you.  It's great to hear that you have found a career that you are excited about, though the switch is never easy.  Keep us posted on your progress.  Maybe even contribute to the career switch topic in the forum ?

I think one of the points Ken tries to make, the role of open source projects:

Not just using available open source technologies, but actually participating in open source projects is a very powerful way to learn. Most open source projects resemble start ups (one founder and some enthusiastic contributors, agile practices, fast turnaround etc.). So there you have tons of projects to choose from, great developers, quite a lot of freedom to experiment, positive feedback mentality almost ideal conditions for being an apprentice. And the great thing about this is: you don't have to leave your work (staying on the safe ground financially - especially with wife and children). You can contribute to the projects in your spare time or perhaps take some time off work.

And becoming an active contributor to an open source project has a lot of other advantages. Its quite positive on any C.V. nowadays, you get in touch with a lot of interesting people, you learn a lot and you can contribute back at least a bit of the benefits you gained from all the open source software you use.

Michael, yes those domains were intentionally taken down (by me) because this domain is their replacement.

Michael, I'm glad you're interested in hearing more about Obtiva's Studio and our apprentices' experiences.  I don't need much encouragement to write about that topic.  :-)  You won't be able to find the blogs of our current apprentices since none of them are currently blogging (publicly), but you can follow them on Twitter (apprentice, njackson, aberant).

Taking the domains down is a bit counterintuitive. Shouldn't they just redirect here. As there are a lot of static links in blogs and articles and cached search machine entries that refer to them?

Thanks a lot for the fast response. It is always great to here such success stories. That encourages everyone to take steps in that direction themselves.