Imagine if you were learning to play chess but you could never play against anyone but yourself. One cannot expect to become a great chess player without being able to watch masters play the game. After they leave school many software developers are left in this situation. It is not so easy for others to watch and learn from knowledge workers doing work on a computer because working in front of a monitor in a cube is not an inviting learning environment.
The software development community is in need of tools that open up the development process to encourage learning by team members. It is critically important to:
- get feedback from ‘masters’ about our work
- see how developers leverage good decisions and extend their position from them
- see how developers recover from bad decisions
Software developers need to be continuous learners to keep up with changes in the field. Young developers fresh out of college have decade’s worth of learning in front of them. The questions that I am interested in are:
- How do software developers learn about the systems they are hired to work on so they can be effective members of a team?
- How do software developers learn to be better programmers after they have left school?
Try, then fail, then fix
Failing at something followed by remedial work can lead to excellent gains in knowledge. However, this knowledge can be painful to acquire. Perhaps the most insidious characteristic of this type of learning is how difficult it is to impart the hard earned knowledge on others. Only the developer who makes the mistake and fixes it learns.
Read books and blogs
Books and blog posts on the subject of software development are great tools for professional developers to learn. However, not every topic has a high quality book or blog post written about it. Invariably, each developer encounters some level of specialization where finding reading material is impossible.
One might think that reading good code is a natural way to learn to become a better programmer. This can be tricky, however, because most developers read code left to right, top to bottom, jumping occasionally to other functions and files. But, how often is code actually written this way?
When writing code it is common to touch many different parts of many different files. The order of the additions and the deletions has an impact on how a problem was solved. Existing version control systems do not record enough of this information.
Code comments could be useful for telling a story about a system but they are not always the best place to record historical information. For example, if a developer is changing the name of a variable from ‘age’ to ‘yearsExperience’, they could write a comment about why that change was needed. That comment is really only relevant to the people who knew the old name and are interested in why the old name changed. Developers who never knew the old name are not interested in that comment. So, most developers would not write down that information anywhere.
On check in, developers write a commit message to the version control log. These logs could help animate the changes in a group of files if developers wrote good messages. Unfortunately, they do not. It is very difficult to write a complete description of all the changes that take place from one commit to another. Remembering and describing why we make a set of changes in a commit message is almost as hard as writing the code itself.
Code reviews are an excellent way to learn from one's peers. Some of the best discussions I have ever had about software engineering have taken place in code reviews. There is a significant drawback to code reviews, however, the team only gets one chance to perform the review. If one is not lucky enough to be in that review they miss out on all the learning that takes place there. Ideally, a narrative about a code review would exist that all developers could consume.
Question and answer websites that target developers and programming problems provide good opportunities for learning. One criticism of these opportunities is that they only happen when a developer is stuck. In other words, the sites provide only reactive opportunities to learn, not proactive ones.
There are clearly many people who are willing to help provide these reactive learning experiences. The people who answer questions have different motivations. Some genuinely want to help others learn something about software development. Some are building reputations that they hope to leverage professionally and some are supporting specific products. Regardless of why people choose to answer questions, they should have a chance to be more proactive.
Why don't we record more?
I have been working with my students on a new version control system that captures very fine-grained, textual information about coding sessions. It allows the sessions to be played back so a developer can tell a story about their code. These stories form a new type of program documentation that can be viewed by team members to learn about the systems they are working on and to learn how to become better developers.
I have had discussions with professional software developers about how our tool records every single keystroke and makes it available to be played back. Some are afraid of others being able to see all the mistakes that they make. Some have even asked if there was an option to 'turn off' the recording of data.
I try to explain that all developers make mistakes and that there is value in a lot of those mistakes. One can teach their colleagues by walking them through the misunderstandings and misconceptions they had of their system. Most of the mistakes I make are due to an incomplete understanding of the requirements, the existing system, or the algorithms being used. If I am having trouble understanding these then surely someone else might be too. Why should we all have to suffer through the same painful discovery process?
If we recorded more data about the programming process and provided stories about the reasons why things were done a certain way it would be easier for us to teach and learn from each other. Knowledge work would become a less lonely activity.