For those of you who were at the Cinncinnati NFJS show, please continue on to the next blog entry in your reader--you've already heard this. For those of you who weren't, then allow me to make the announcement:

Hi. My name's Ted Neward, and I am now a ThoughtWorker.

After four months of discussions, interviews, more discussions and more interviews, I can finally say that ThoughtWorks and I have come to a meeting of the minds, and starting 3 September I will be a Principal Consultant at ThoughtWorks. My role there will be to consult, write, mentor, architect and speak on Java, .NET, XML Services (and maybe even a little Ruby), not to mention help ThoughtWorks' clients achieve IT success in other general ways.

Yep, I'm basically doing the same thing I've been doing for the last five years. Except now I'm doing it with a TW logo attached to my name.

By the way, ThoughtWorkers get to choose their own titles, and I'm curious to know what readers think my title should be. Send me your suggestions, and if one really strikes home, I'll use it and update this entry to reflect the choice. I have a few ideas, but I'm finding that other people can be vastly more creative than I, and I'd love to have a title that rivals Neal's "Meme Wrangler" in coolness.

Oh, and for those of you who were thinking this, "Seat Warmer" has already been taken, from what I understand.

Honestly, this is a connection that's been hovering at the forefront of my mind for several years. I like ThoughtWorks' focus on success, their willingness to explore new ideas (both methodologies and technologies), their commitment to the community, their corporate values, and their overall attitude of "work hard, play hard". There have definitely been people who came away from ThoughtWorks with a negative impression of the company, but they're the minority. Any company that encourages T-shirts and jeans, XBoxes in the office, and wants to promote good corporate values is a winner in my book. In short, ThoughtWorks is, in many ways, the consulting company that I would want to build, if I were going to build a consulting firm. I'm not a wild fan of the travel commitments, mind you, but I am definitely no stranger to travel, we've got some ideas about how I can stay at home a bit more, and frankly I've been champing at the bit to get injected into more agile and team projects, so it feels like a good tradeoff. Plus, I get to think about languages and platforms in a more competitive and hostile way--not that TW is a competitive and hostile place, mind you, but in that my new fellow ThoughtWorkers will not let stupid thoughts stand for long, and will quickly find the holes in my arguments even faster, thus making the arguments as a whole that much stronger... or shooting them down because they really are stupid. (Either outcome works pretty well for me.)

What does this mean to the rest of you? Not much change, really--I'm still logging lots of hours at conferences, I'm still writing (and blogging, when the muse strikes), and I'm still available for consulting/mentoring/speaking; the big difference is that now I come with a thousand-strong developers of proven capability at my back, not to mention two of the more profound and articulate speakers in the industry (in Neal and Martin) as peers. So if you've got some .NET, Java, or Ruby projects you're thinking about, and you want a team to come in and make it happen, you know how to reach me.

Another DZone newsletter crosses my Inbox, and again I feel compelled to comment. Not so much in the uber-aggressive style of my previous attempt, since I find myself more on the fence on this one, but because I think it's a worthwhile debate and worth calling out.

The article in question is "5 Reasons Why You Don't Want A Jack-of-all-Trades Developer", by Rebecca Murphey. In it, she talks about the all-too-common want-ad description that appears on job sites and mailing lists:

I've spent the last couple of weeks trolling Craigslist and have been shocked at the number of ads I've found that seem to be looking for an entire engineering team rolled up into a single person. Descriptions like this aren't at all uncommon:

Candidates must have 5 years experience defining and developing data driven web sites and have solid experience with ASP.NET, HTML, XML, JavaScript, CSS, Flash, SQL, and optimizing graphics for web use. The candidate must also have project management skills and be able to balance multiple, dynamic, and sometimes conflicting priorities. This position is an integral part of executing our web strategy and must have excellent interpersonal and communication skills.

Her disdain for this practice is the focus of the rest of the article:

Now I don't know about you, but if I were building a house, I wouldn't want an architect doing the work of a carpenter, or the foundation guy doing the work of an electrician. But ads like the one above are suggesting that a single person can actually do all of these things, and the simple fact is that these are fundamentally different skills. The foundation guy may build a solid base, but put him in charge of wiring the house and the whole thing could, well, burn down. When it comes to staffing a web project or product, the principle isn't all that different -- nor is the consequence.

I'll admit, when I got to this point in the article, I was fully ready to start the argument right here and now--developers have to have a well-rounded collection of skills, since anecdotal evidence suggests that trying to go the route of programming specialization (along the lines of medical specialization) isn't going to work out, particularly given the shortage of programmers in the industry right now to begin with. But she goes on to make an interesting point:

The thing is, the more you know, the more you find out you don't know. A year ago I'd have told you I could write PHP/MySQL applications, and do the front-end too; now that I've seen what it means to be truly skilled at the back-end side of things, I realize the most accurate thing I can say is that I understand PHP applications and how they relate to my front-end development efforts. To say that I can write them myself is to diminish the good work that truly skilled PHP/MySQL developers are doing, just as I get a little bent when a back-end developer thinks they can do my job.

She really caught me eye (and interest) with that first statement, because it echoes something Bjarne Stroustrup told me almost 15 years ago, in an email reply sent back to me (in response to my rather audacious cold-contact email inquiry about the costs and benefits of writing a book): "The more you know, the more you know you don't know". What I think also caught my eye--and, I admit it, earned respect--was her admission that she maybe isn't as good at something as she thought she was before. This kind of reflective admission is a good thing (and missing far too much from our industry, IMHO), because it leads not only to better job placements for us as well as the companies that want to hire us, but also because the more honest we can be about our own skills, the more we can focus efforts on learning what needs to be learned in order to grow.

She then turns to her list of 5 reasons, phrased more as a list of suggestions to companies seeking to hire programming talent; my comments are in italics:

So to all of those companies who are writing ads seeking one magical person to fill all of their needs, I offer a few caveats before you post your next Craigslist ad:

1. If you're seeking a single person with all of these skills, make sure you have the technical expertise to determine whether a person's skills match their resume. Outsource a tech interview if you need to. Any developer can tell horror stories about inept predecessors, but when a front-end developer like myself can read PHP and think it's appalling, that tells me someone didn't do a very good job of vetting and got stuck with a programmer who couldn't deliver on his stated skills.

(T: I cannot stress this enough--the technical interview process practiced at most companies is a complete sham and travesty, and usually only succeeds in making sure the company doesn't hire a serial killer, would-be terrorist, or financially destitute freeway-underpass resident. I seriously think most companies should outsource the technical interview process entirely.)

2. A single source for all of these skills is a single point of failure on multiple fronts. Think long and hard about what it will mean to your project if the person you hire falls short in some aspect(s), and about the mistakes that will have to be cleaned up when you get around to hiring specialized people. I have spent countless days cleaning up after back-end developers who didn't understand the nuances and power of CSS, or the difference between a div, a paragraph, a list item, and a span. Really.

(T: I'm not as much concerned about the single point of failure argument here, to be honest. Developers will always have "edges" to what they know, and companies will constantly push developers to that edge for various reasons, most of which seem to be financial--"Why pay two people to do what one person can do?" is a really compelling argument to the CFO, particularly when measured against an unquantifiable, namely the quality of the project.)

3. Writing efficient SQL is different from efficiently producing web-optimized graphics. Administering a server is different from troubleshooting cross-browser issues. Trust me. All are integral to the performance and growth of your site, and so you're right to want them all -- just not from the same person. Expecting quality results in every area from the same person goes back to the foundation guy doing the wiring. You're playing with fire.

(T: True, but let's be honest about something here. It's not so much that the company wants to play with fire, or that the company has a manual entitled "Running a Dilbert Company" that says somewhere inside it, "Thou shouldst never hire more than one person to run the IT department", but that the company is dealing with limited budgets and headcount. If you only have room for one head under the budget, you want the maximum for that one head. And please don't tell me how wrong that practice of headcount really is--you're preaching to the choir on that one. The people you want to preach to are the Jack Welches of the world, who apparently aren't listening to us very much.)

4. Asking for a laundry list of skills may end up deterring the candidates who will be best able to fill your actual need. Be precise in your ad: about the position's title and description, about the level of skill you're expecting in the various areas, about what's nice to have and what's imperative. If you're looking to fill more than one position, write more than one ad; if you don't know exactly what you want, try harder to figure it out before you click the publish button.

(T: Asking people to think before publishing? Heresy! Truthfully, I don't think it's a question of not knowing what they want, it's more trying to find what they want. I've seen how some of these same job ads get generated, and it's usually because a programmer on the team has left, and they had some degree of skill in all of those areas. What the company wants, then, is somebody who can step into exactly what that individual was doing before they handed in their resignation, but ads like, "Candidate should look at Joe Smith's resume on Dice.com (http://...) and have exactly that same skill set. Being named Joe Smith a desirable 'plus', since then we won't have to have the sysadmins create a new login handle for you." won't attract much attention. Frankly, what I've found most companies want is to just not lose the programmer in the first place.)

5. If you really do think you want one person to do the task of an entire engineering team, prepare yourself to get someone who is OK at a bunch of things and not particularly good at any of them. Again: the more you know, the more you find out you don't know. I regularly team with a talented back-end developer who knows better than to try to do my job, and I know better than to try to do his. Anyone who represents themselves as being a master of front-to-back web development may very well have no idea just how much they don't know, and could end up imperiling your product or project -- front to back -- as a result.

(T: Or be prepared to pay a lot of money for somebody who is an expert at all of those things, or be prepared to spend a lot of time and money growing somebody into that role. Sometimes the exact right thing to do is have one person do it all, but usually it's cheaper to have a small team work together.)

(On a side note, I find it amusing that she seems to consider PHP a back-end skill, but I don't want to sound harsh doing so--that's just a matter of perspective, I suppose. (I can just imagine the guffaws from the mainframe guys when I talk about EJB, message-queue and Spring systems being "back-end", too.) To me, the whole "web" thing is front-end stuff, whether you're the one generating the HTML from your PHP or servlet/JSP or ASP.NET server-side engine, or you're the one generating the CSS and graphics images that are sent back to the browser by said server-side engine. If a user sees something I did, it's probably because something bad happened and they're looking at a stack trace on the screen.)

The thing I find interesting is that HR hiring practices and job-writing skills haven't gotten any better in the near-to-two-decades I've been in this industry. I can still remember a fresh-faced wet-behind-the-ears Stroustrup-2nd-Edition-toting job candidate named Neward looking at job placement listings and finding much the same kind of laundry list of skills, including those with the impossible number of years of experience. (In 1995, I saw an ad looking for somebody who had "10 years of C++ experience", and wondering, "Gosh, I guess they're looking to hire Stroustrup or Lippmann", since those two are the only people who could possibly have filled that requirement at the time. This was right before reading the ad that was looking for 5 years of Java experience, or the ad below it looking for 15 years of Delphi....)

Given that it doesn't seem likely that HR departments are going to "get a clue" any time soon, it leaves us with an interesting question: if you're a developer, and you're looking at these laundry lists of requirements, how do you respond?

Here's my own list of things for programmers/developers to consider over the next five to ten years:

1. These "laundry list" ads are not going away any time soon. We can rant and rail about the stupidity of HR departments and hiring managers all we want, but the basic fact is, this is the way things are going to work for the forseeable future, it seems. Changing this would require a "sea change" across the industry, and sea change doesn't happen overnight, or even within the span of a few years. So, to me, the right question to ask isn't, "How do I change the industry to make it easier for me to find a job I can do?", but "How do I change what I do when looking for a job to better respond to what the industry is doing?"
2. Exclusively focusing on a single area of technology is the Kiss of Death. If all you know is PHP, then your days are numbered. I mean no disrespect to the PHP developers of the world--in fact, were it not too ambiguous to say it, I would rephrase that as "If all you know is X, your days are numbered." There is no one technical skill that will be as much in demand in ten years as it is now. Technologies age. Industry evolves. Innovations come along that completely change the game and leave our predictions of a few years ago in the dust. Bill Gates (he of the "640K comment") has said, and I think he's spot on with this, "We routinely overestimate where we will be in five years, and vastly underestimate where we will be in ten." If you put all your eggs in the PHP basket, then when PHP gets phased out in favor of (insert new "hotness" here), you're screwed. Unless, of course, you want to wait until you're the last man standing, which seems to have paid off well for the few COBOL developers still alive.... but not so much for the Algol, Simula, or RPG folks....
3. Assuming that you can stop learning is the Kiss of Death. Look, if you want to stop learning at some point and coast on what you know, be prepared to switch industries. This one, for the forseeable future, is one that's predicated on radical innovation and constant change. This means we have to accept that everything is in a constant state of flux--you can either rant and rave against it, or roll with it. This doesn't mean that you don't have to look back, though--anybody who's been in this industry for more than 10 years has seen how we keep reinventing the wheel, particularly now that the relationship between Ruby and Smalltalk has been put up on the big stage, so to speak. Do yourself a favor: learn stuff that's already "done", too, because it turns out there's a lot of lessons we can learn from those who came before us. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santanyana). Case in point: if you're trying to get into XML services, spend some time learning CORBA and DCOM, and compare how they do things against WSDL and SOAP. What's similar? What's different? Do some Googling and see if you can find comparison articles between the two, and what XML services were supposed to "fix" from the previous two. You don't have to write a ton of CORBA or DCOM code to see those differences (though writing at least a little CORBA/DCOM code will probably help.)
4. Find a collection of people smarter than you. Chad Fowler calls this "Being the worst player in any band you're in" (My Job Went to India (and All I Got Was This Lousy Book), Pragmatic Press). The more you surround yourself with smart people, the more of these kinds of things (tools, languages, etc) you will pick up merely by osmosis, and find yourself more attractive to those kind of "laundry list" job reqs. If nothing else, it speaks well to you as an employee/consultant if you can say, "I don't know the answer to that question, but I know people who do, and I can get them to help me".
5. Learn to be at least self-sufficient in related, complementary technologies. We see laundry list ads in "clusters". Case in point: if the company is looking for somebody to work on their website, they're going to rattle off a list of five or so things they want he/she to know--HTML, CSS, XML, JavaScript and sometimes Flash (or maybe now Silverlight), in addition to whatever server-side technology they're using (ASP.NET, servlets, PHP, whatever). This is a pretty reasonable request, depending on the depth of each that they want you to know. Here's the thing: the company does not want the guy who says he knows ASP.NET (and nothing but ASP.NET), when asked to make a small HTML or CSS change, to turn to them and say, "I'm sorry, that's not in my job description. I only know ASP.NET. You'll have to get your HTML guy to make that change." You should at least be comfortable with the basic syntax of all of the above (again, with possible exception for Flash, which is the odd man out in that job ad that started this piece), so that you can at least make sure the site isn't going to break when you push your changes live. In the case of the ad above, learn the things that "surround" website development: HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Flash, Java applets, HTTP (!!), TCP/IP, server operating systems, IIS or Apache or Tomcat or some other server engine (including the necessary admin skills to get them installed and up and running), XML (since it's so often used for configuration), and so on. These are all "complementary" skills to being an ASP.NET developer (or a servlet/JSP developer). If you're a C# or Java programmer, learn different programming languages, a la F# (.NET) or Scala (Java), IronRuby (.NET) or JRuby (Java), and so on. If you're a Ruby developer, learn either a JVM language or a CLR language, so you can "plug in" more easily to the large corporate enterprise when that call comes.
6. Learn to "read" the ad at a higher level. It's often possible to "read between the lines" and get an idea of what they're looking for, even before talking to anybody at the company about the job. For example, I read the ad that started this piece, and the internal dialogue that went on went something like this:

   Candidates must have 5 years experience (No entry-level developers wanted, they want somebody who can get stuff done without having their hand held through the process) defining and developing data driven (they want somebody who's comfortable with SQL and databases) web sites (wait for it, the "web cluster" list is coming) and have solid experience with ASP.NET (OK, they're at least marginally a Microsoft shop, that means they probably also want some Windows Server and IIS experience), HTML, XML, JavaScript, CSS (the "web cluster", knew that was coming), Flash (OK, I wonder if this is because they're building rich internet/intranet apps already, or just flirting with the idea?), SQL (knew that was coming), and optimizing graphics for web use (OK, this is another wrinkle--this smells of "we don't want our graphics-heavy website to suck"). The candidate must also have project management skills (in other words, "You're on your own, sucka!"--you're not part of a project team) and be able to balance multiple, dynamic, and sometimes conflicting priorities (in other words, "You're own your own trying to balance between the CTO's demands and the CEO's demands, sucka!", since you're not part of a project team; this also probably means you're not moving into an existing project, but doing more maintenance work on an existing site). This position is an integral part of executing our web strategy (in other words, this project has public visibility and you can't let stupid errors show up on the website and make us all look bad) and must have excellent interpersonal and communication skills (what job doesn't need excellent interpersonal and communication skills?).

   See what I mean? They want an ASP.NET dev. My guess is that they're thinking a lot about Silverlight, since Silverlight's closest competitor is Flash, and so theoretically an ASP.NET-and-Flash dev would know how to use Silverlight well. Thus, I'm guessing that the HTML, CSS, and JavaScript don't need to be "Adept" level, nor even "Master" level, but "Journeyman" is probably necessary, and maybe you could get away with "Apprentice" at those levels, if you're working as part of a team. The SQL part will probably have to be "Journeyman" level, the XML could probably be just "Apprentice", since I'm guessing it's only necessary for the web.config files to control the ASP.NET configuration, and the "optimizing web graphics", push-come-to-shove, could probably be forgiven if you've had some experience at doing some performance tuning of a website.
7. Be insightful. I know, every interview book ever written says you should "ask questions", but what they're really getting at is "Demonstrate that you've thought about this company and this position". Demonstrating insight about the position and the company and technology as a whole is a good way to prove that you're a neck above the other candidates, and will help keep the job once you've got it.
8. Be honest about what you know. Let's be honest--we've all met developers who claimed they were "experts" in a particular tool or technology, and then painfully demonstrated how far from "expert" status they really were. Be honest about yourself: claim your skills on a simple four-point scale. "Apprentice" means "I read a book on it" or "I've looked at it", but "there's no way I could do it on my own without some serious help, and ideally with a Master looking over my shoulder". "Journeyman" means "I'm competent at it, I know the tools/technology"; or, put another way, "I can do 80% of what anybody can ask me to do, and I know how to find the other 20% when those situations arise". "Master" means "I not only claim that I can do what you ask me to do with it, I can optimize systems built with it, I can make it do things others wouldn't attempt, and I can help others learn it better". Masters are routinely paired with Apprentices as mentors or coaches, and should expect to have this as a major part of their responsibilities. (Ideally, anybody claiming "architect" in their title should be a Master at one or two of the core tools/technologies used in their system; or, put another way, architects should be very dubious about architecting with something they can't reasonably claim at least Journeyman status in.) "Adept", shortly put, means you are not only fully capable of pulling off anything a Master can do, but you routinely take the tool/technology way beyond what anybody else thinks possible, or you know the depth of the system so well that you can fix bugs just by thinking about them. With your eyes closed. While drinking a glass of water. Seriously, Adept status is not something to claim lightly--not only had you better know the guys who created the thing personally, but you should have offered up suggestions on how to make it better and had one or more of them accepted.
9. Demonstrate that you have relevant skills beyond what they asked for. Look at the ad in question: they want an ASP.NET dev, so any familiarity with IIS, Windows Server, SQL Server, MSMQ, COM/DCOM/COM+, WCF/Web services, SharePoint, the CLR, IronPython, or IronRuby should be listed prominently on your resume, and brought up at least twice during your interview. These are (again) complementary technologies, and even if the company doesn't have a need for those things right now, it's probably because Joe didn't know any of those, and so they couldn't use them without sending Joe to a training class. If you bring it up during the interview, it can also show some insight on your part: "So, any questions for us?" "Yes, are you guys using Windows Server 2008, or 2003, for your back end?" "Um, we're using 2003, why do you ask?" "Oh, well, when I was working as an ASP.NET dev for my previous company, we moved up to 2008 because it had the Froobinger Enhancement, which let us...., and I was just curious if you guys had a similar need." Or something like that. Again, be entirely honest about what you know--if you helped the server upgrade by just putting the CDs into the drive and punching the power button, then say as much.
10. Demonstrate that you can talk to project stakeholders and users. Communication is huge. The era of the one-developer team is long since over--you have to be able to meet with project champions, users, other developers, and so on. If you can't do that without somebody being offended at your lack of tact and subtlety (or your lack of personal hygiene), then don't expect to get hired too often.
11. Demonstrate that you understand the company, its business model, and what would help it move forward. Developers who actually understand business are surprisingly and unfortunately rare. Be one of the rare ones, and you'll find companies highly reluctant to let you go.

Is this an exhaustive list? Hardly. Is this list guaranteed to keep you employed forever? Nope. But this seems to be working for a lot of the people I run into at conferences and client consulting gigs, so I humbly submit it for your consideration.

But in no way do I consider this conversation completely over, either--feel free to post your own suggestions, or tell me why I'm full of crap on any (or all) of these.

This crossed my Inbox, and I have to say, I'm stunned at this incredible display of teamwork. Frankly... well, see for yourself.

Speaking of things crossing my Inbox, Shane Paterson sent me this email:

Hi Ted,

How’s things in the USA?

I just wrote the following little blog entry I wanted to share with you, which I thought you may find interesting.

---

I used to work with a Naval Architect a few years back. On day we were discussing where the name "Naval Architect" came from. He explained that "Naval Architecture" is really "Naval Engineering" or "Ship Engineering". The word Engineering came into use AFTER the industrial revolution, however ship design existed hundreds of years before. At that time, people needed a name for ship designers, so they reasoned that Architects designed buildings, therefore ship designers must be a kind of Architect too - hence the name "Naval Architect".

Clearly IT didn't exist before the industrial revolution, and IT Architects don't design buildings, so the question begs to be asked "How did we end up with the word Architecture being used for a role in IT". It seems to me to be a rather vague and grandiose name for a role which is probably better described by the use of the word "Engineer".

Perhaps instead of the names "Solution Architect" and "Enterprise Architect" we should actually be using the names "IT Solution Engineer", "IT Enterprise Engineer"?

I've heard this idea put forward before, and I have to say, I'm not overly fond of it, because I believe that what we do as architects is fundamentally different from what a civil engineer does when he engages in the architect's role.

When a civil architect--be it Frank Lloyd Wright or the folks who designed the I-35 bridge in Minnesota--sits down to draw up the plans for a given project, they do so under a fairly strict set of laws and codes governing the process. Not only must the civic restrictions about safety and appearance be honored and respected, but also the basic physical laws of the universe--weight loads, stress, wind shear and harmonics (which the engineers of the first infamous Tacoma Narrows bridge discovered, to everlasting infamy). Ignoring these has disastrous consequences, and a discipline of mathematical calculation joins in with legal regulation to ensure that those laws are obeyed. Only then can the architect engage in the artistry that Lloyd Wright made so much a part of his craft.

Software architecture, though, is a different matter. Not only do we mostly enjoy complete freedom from legal regulation (Sarbannes-Oxley compliance being perhaps the most notable exception, and even then it routinely fails to apply at the small- to medium-sized project levels), we can also ignore most of the laws of physics (the speed of digital signal across a cable or through the air being perhaps our most notable barrier at the moment). "Access data in Tokyo from a web server in Beijing and send the rendered results to a browser in San Francisco? Sure, yeah, no problem, so long as there's a TCP/IP connection, I don't see why not...." There's just so much less by way of physical restrictions in software than there is in civil (or any other kind) of engineering, it seems.

And that sort of hits the central point squarely on the head--there's a lot we don't know about building software yet. We keep concocting these tortured metaphors and imperfect analogies to other practices, industries and disciplines in an attempt to figure out how best to build software, and they keep leading us astray in various ways. When's the last time you heard an accountant say, "Well, what I do is kinda like what the clerk in a retail store does--handle money--so therefore I should take ideas on how to do my job better from retail store clerks"? Sure, maybe the basic premise is true at some levels, but clearly the difference is in the details. And analogies and metaphors have this dangerous habit--they cause us to lose sight of those limitations, in the pursuit of keeping the analogy pure. Remember when everybody was getting purist about objects, such that an automobile repair shop's accounting system had to model "Car" as an object having an "Engine" object and four "Tire" objects and so on, not because these were things that needed to be repaired and tracked somehow, but because cars in real life have an engine and four tires and other things? (Stroustrup even touches on this at one point, talking about an avionics system which ran into design difficulties trying to decide if "Cloud" objects were owned by the "Sky" object, or something along those lines.) All analogies break down somewhere.

Now, to go back to architects and architecture. At the risk of offering up yet another of those tortured metaphors, let me proffer my own architect analogy: an architect is not like a construction architect, but more like the conductor of a band or symphony. Yes, the band could play without him, but at the end of the day, the band plays better with one guy coordinating the whole thing. The larger the band, the more necessary a conductor becomes. Sometimes the conductor is the same thing as the composer (and perhaps that's the most accurate analogous way to view this), in which case it's his "vision" of how the music in his head should come out in real life, and his job is to lead the performers into contributing towards that vision. Each performer has their own skills, freedom to interpret, and so on, but within the larger vision of the work.

Is it a perfect analogy? Heavens, no. It falls apart, just as every other analogy does, if you stress it too hard. But it captures the essence of art and rigor that I think seeing it as "architecture" along the lines of civil engineering just can't. At least, not easily.

Overheard, at the NFJS Phoenix 2008 show:

"We (ThoughtWorkers) are firm believers in aggressively promiscuous pairing." --Neal Ford

This comment deserves response:

First of all, if you're quoting my post, blocking out my name, and attacking me behind my back by calling me "our intrepid troll", you could have shown the decency of linking back to my original post. Here it is, for those interested in the real discussion:

http://www.agilesoftwaredevelopment.com/blog/jurgenappelo/professionalism-knowledge-first

Well, frankly, I didn't get your post from your blog, I got it from an email 'zine (as indicated by the comment "This crossed my Inbox..."), and I didn't really think that anybody would have any difficulty tracking down where it came from, at least in terms of the email blast that put it into my Inbox. Coupled with the fact that, quite honestly, I don't generally make a practice of using peoples' names without their permission (and my email to the author asking if I could quote the post with his name attached generated no response), so I blocked out the name. Having said that, I'm pleased to offer full credit as to its source.

Now, let's review some of your remarks:

"COBOL is (at least) twenty years old, so therefore any use of COBOL must clearly be as idiotic."

I never talked about COBOL, or any other programming language. I was talking about old practices that are nowadays considered harmful and seriously damaging. (Like practising waterfall project management, instead of agile project management.) I don't see how programming in COBOL could seriously damage a business. Why do you compare COBOL with lobotomies? I don't understand. I couldn't care less about programming languages. I care about management practices.

Frankly, the distinction isn't very clear in your post, and even more frankly, to draw a distinction here is a bit specious. "I didn't mean we should throw away the good stuff that's twenty years old, only the bad stuff!" doesn't seem much like a defense to me. There are cases where waterfall style development is exactly the right thing to do a more agile approach is exactly the wrong thing to do--the difference, as I'm fond of saying, lies entirely in the context of the problem. Analogously, there are cases where keeping an existing COBOL system up and running is the wrong thing to do, and replacing it with a new system is the right thing to do. It all depends on context, and for that reason, any dogmatic suggestion otherwise is flawed.

"How can a developer honestly claim to know "what it can be good for", without some kind of experience to back it?"

I'm talking about gaining knowledge from the experience of others. If I hear 10 experts advising the same best practice, then I still don't have any experience in that best practice. I only have knowledge about it. That's how you can apply your knowledge without your experience.

Leaving aside the notion that there is no such thing as best practices (another favorite rant of mine), what you're suggesting is that you, the individual, don't necessarily have to have experience in the topic but others have to, before we can put faith into it. That's a very different scenario than saying "We don't need no stinkin' experience", and is still vastly more dangerous than saying, "I have used this, it works." I (and lots of IT shops, I've found) will vastly prefer the latter to the former.

"Knowledge, apparently, isn't enough--experience still matters"

Yes, I never said experience doesn't matter. I only said it has no value when you don't have gained the appropriate knowledge (from other sources) on when to apply it, and when not.

You said it when you offered up the title, "Knowledge, not Experience".

"buried under all the ludicrous hyperbole, he has a point"

Thanks for agreeing with me.

You're welcome! Seriously, I think I understand better what you were trying to say, and it's not the horrendously dangerous comments that I thought you were saying, so I will apologize here and now for believing you to be a wet-behind-the-ears/lets-let-technology-solve-all-our-problems/dangerous-to-the-extreme developer that I've run across far too often, particularly in startups. So, please, will you accept my apology?

"developers, like medical professionals, must ensure they are on top of their game and spend some time investing in themselves and their knowledge portfolio"

Exactly.

Exactly.

"this doesn't mean that everything you learn is immediately applicable, or even appropriate, to the situation at hand"

I never said that. You're putting words into my mouth.

My only claim is that you need to KNOW both new and old practices and understand which ones are good and which ones can be seriously damaging. I simply don't trust people who are bragging about their experience. What if a manager tells me he's got 15 years of experience managing developers? If he's a micro-manager I still don't want him. Because micro-management is considered harmful these days. A manager should KNOW that.

Again, this was precisely the read I picked up out of the post, and my apologies for the misinterpretation. But I stand by the idea that this is one of those posts that could be read in a highly dangerous fashion, and used to promote evil, in the form of "Well, he runs a company, so therefore he must know what he's doing, and therefore having any kind of experience isn't really necessary to use something new, so... see, Mr. CEO boss-of-mine? We're safe! Now get out of my way and let me use Software Factories to build our next-generation mission-critical core-of-the-company software system, even though nobody's ever done it before."

To speak to your example for a second, for example: Frankly, there are situations where a micro-manager is a good thing. Young, inexperienced developers, for example, need more hand-holding and mentoring than older, more senior, more experienced developers do (speaking stereotypically, of course). And, quite honestly, the guy with 15 years managing developers is far more likely to know how to manage developers than the guy who's never managed developers before at all. The former is the safer bet; not a guarantee, certainly, but often the safer bet, and that's sometimes the best we can do in this industry.

"And we definitely shouldn't look at anything older than five years ago and equate it to lobotomies."

I never said that either. Why do you claim that I said this? I don't have a problem with old techniques. The daily standup meeting is a 80-year old best practice. It was already used by pilots in the second world war. How could I be against that? It's fine as it is.

Um... because you used the term "lobotomies" first? And because your title pretty clearly implies the statement, perhaps? (And let's lose the term "best practice" entirely, please? There is no such thing--not even the daily standup.)

It's ok you didn't like my article. Sure it's meant to be provocative, and food for thought. The article got twice as many positive votes than negative votes from DZone readers. So I guess I'm adding value. But by taking the discussion away from its original context (both physically and conceptually), and calling me names, you're not adding any value for anyone.

I took it in exactly the context it was given--a DZone email blast. I can't help it if it was taken out of context, because that's how it was handed to me. What's worse, I can see a development team citing this as an "expert opinion" to their management as a justification to try untested approaches or technologies, or as inspiration to a young developer, who reads "knowledge, not experience", and thinks, "Wow, if I know all the cutting-edge latest stuff, I don't need to have those 10 years of experience to get that job as a senior application architect." If your article was aimed more clearly at the development process side of things, then I would wish it had appeared more clearly in the arena of development processes, and made it more clear that your aim was to suggest that managers (who aren't real big on reading blogs anyway, I've sadly found) should be a bit more pragmatic and open-minded about who they hire.

Look, I understand the desire for a provocative title--for me, the author of "The Vietnam of Computer Science", to cast stones at another author for choosing an eye-catching title is so far beyond hypocrisy as to move into sheer wild-eyed audacity. But I have seen, first-hand, how that article has been used to justify the most incredibly asinine technology decisions, and it moves me now to say "Be careful what you wish for" when choosing titles that meant to be provocative and food for thought. Sure, your piece got more positive votes than negative ones. So too, in their day, did articles on client-server, on CORBA, on Six-Sigma, on the necessity for big up-front design....

Let me put it to you this way. Assume your child or your wife is sick, and as you reach the hospital, the admittance nurse offers you a choice of the two doctors on call. Who do you want more: the doctor who just graduated fresh from medical school and knows all the latest in holistic and unconventional medicine, or the doctor with 30 years' experience and a solid track record of healthy patients?

Recently this little gem crossed my Inbox....

Professionalism = Knowledge First, Experience Last
By J----- A-----

Do you trust a doctor with diagnosing your mental problems if the doctor tells you he's got 20 years of experience? Do you still trust that doctor when he picks up his tools, and asks you to prepare for a lobotomy?

Would you still be impressed if the doctor had 20 years of experience in carrying out lobotomies?

I am always skeptic when people tell me they have X years of experience in a certain field or discipline, like "5 years of experience as a .NET developer", "8 years of experience as a project manager" or "12 years of experience as a development manager". It is as if people's professional levels need to be measured in years of practice.

This, of course, is nonsense.

Professionalism is measured by what you are going to do now...

Are you going to use some discredited technique from half a century ago?
•    Are you, as a .NET developer, going to use Response.Write, because you've got 5 years of experience doing exactly that?
•    Are you, as a project manager, going to create Gantt charts, because that's what you've been doing for 8 years?
•    Are you, as a development manager, going to micro-manage your team members, as you did in the 12 years before now?

If so, allow me to illustrate the value of your experience...

(Photo of "Zero" signs)

Here's an example of what it means to be a professional:

There's a concept called Kanban making headlines these days in some parts of the agile community. I honestly and proudly admit that I have no experience at all in applying Kanban. But that's just a minor inconvenience. Because I have attained the knowledge of what it is and what it can be good for. And now there are some planning issues in our organization for which this Kanban-stuff might be the perfect solution. I'm sure we're going to give it a shot, in a controlled setting, with time allocated for a pilot and proper evaluations afterwards. That's the way a professional tries to solve a problem.

Professionals don't match problems with their experiences. They match them with their knowledge.

Sure, experience is useful. But only when you already have the knowledge in place. Experience has no value when there's no knowledge to verify that you are applying the right experience.

Knowledge Comes First, Experience Comes Last

This is my message to anyone who wants to be a professional software developer, a professional project manager, or a professional development manager.

You must gain and apply knowledge first, and experience will help you after that. Professionals need to know about the latest developments and techniques.

They certainly don't bother measuring years of experience.

Are you still practicing lobotomies?

Um....

Wow.

Let's start with the logical fallacy in the first section. Do I trust a doctor with diagnosing my mental problems if he tells me he's got 20 years of experience? Generally, yes, unless I have reasons to doubt this. If the guy picks up a skull-drill and starts looking for a place to start boring into my skull, sure, I'll start to question his judgement.... But what does this have to do with anything? I wouldn't trust the guy if he picked up a chainsaw and started firing it up, either.

Look, I get the analogy: "Doctor has 20 years of experience using outdated skills", har har. Very funny, very memorable, and totally inappropriate metaphor for the situation. To stand here and suggest that developers who aren't using the latest-and-greatest, so-bleeding-edge-even-saying-the-name-cuts-your-skin tools or languages or technologies are somehow practicing lobotomies (which, by the way, are still a recommended practice in certain mental disorder cases, I understand) in order to solve any and all mental-health issues, is a gross mischaracterization--and the worst form of negligence--I've ever heard suggested.

And it comes as no surprise that it's coming from the CIO of a consulting company. (Note to self: here's one more company I don't want anywhere near my clients' IT infrastructure.)

Let's take this analogy to its logical next step, shall we?

COBOL is (at least) twenty years old, so therefore any use of COBOL must clearly be as idiotic as drilling holes in your skull to let the demons out. So any company currently using COBOL has no real option other than to immediately upgrade all of their currently-running COBOL infrastructure (despite the fact that it's tested, works, and cashes most of the US banking industry's checks on a daily basis) with something vastly superior and totally untested (since we don't need experience, just knowlege), like... oh, I dunno.... how about Ruby? Oh, no, wait, that's at least 10 years old. Ditto for Java. And let's not even think about C, Perl, Python....

I know; let's rewrite the entire financial industry's core backbone in Groovy, since it's only, what, 6 years old at this point? I mean, sure, we'll have to do all this over again in just four years, since that's when Groovy will turn 10 and thus obviously begin it's long slide into mediocrity, alongside the "four humors" of medicine and Aristotle's (completely inaccurate) anatomical depictions, but hey, that's progress, right? Forget experience, it has no value compared to the "knowledge" that comes from reading the documentation on a brand-new language, tool, library, or platform....

What I find most appalling is this part right here:

I honestly and proudly admit that I have no experience at all in applying Kanban. But that's just a minor inconvenience. Because I have attained the knowledge of what it is and what it can be good for.

How can a developer honestly claim to know "what it can be good for", without some kind of experience to back it? (Hell, I'll even accept that you have familiarity and experience with something vaguely relating to the thing at hand, if you've got it--after all, experience in Java makes you a pretty damn good C# developer, in my mind, and vice versa.)

And, to make things even more interesting, our intrepid troll, having established the attention-gathering headline, then proceeds to step away from the chasm, by backing away from this "knowledge-not-experience" position in the same paragraph, just one sentence later:

I'm sure we're going to give it a shot, in a controlled setting, with time allocated for a pilot and proper evaluations afterwards.

Ah... In other words, he and his company are going to experiment with this new technique, "in a controlled setting, with time allocated for a pilot and proper evaluations afterwards", in order to gain experience with the technique and see how it works and how it doesn't.

In other words....

.... experience matters.

Knowledge, apparently, isn't enough--experience still matters, and it matters a lot earlier than his "knowledge first, experience last" mantra seems to imply. Otherwise, once you "know" something, why not apply it immediately to your mission-critical core?

At the end of the day, buried under all the ludicrous hyperbole, he has a point: developers, like medical professionals, must ensure they are on top of their game and spend some time investing in themselves and their knowledge portfolio. Jay Zimmerman takes great pains to point this out at every No Fluff Just Stuff show, and he's right: those who spend the time to invest in their own knowledge portfolio, find themselves the last to be fired and the first to be hired. But this doesn't mean that everything you learn is immediately applicable, or even appropriate, to the situation at hand. Just because you learned Groovy last weekend in Austin doesn't mean you have the right--or the responsibility--to immediately start slipping Groovy in to the production servers. Groovy has its share of good things, yes, but it's got its share of negative consequences, too, and you'd better damn well know what they are before you start betting the company's future on it. (No, I will not tell you what those negative consequences are--that's your job, because what if it turns out I'm wrong, or they don't apply to your particular situation?) Every technology, language, library or tool has a positive/negative profile to it, and if you can't point out the pros as well as the cons, then you don't understand the technology and you have no business using it on anything except maybe a prototype that never leaves your local hard disk. Too many projects were built with "flavor-of-the-year" tools and technologies, and a few years later, long after the original "bleeding-edge" developer has gone on to do a new project with a new "bleeding-edge" technology, the IT guys left to admin and upkeep the project are struggling to find ways to keep this thing afloat.

If you're languishing at a company that seems to resist anything and everything new, try this exercise on: go down to the IT guys, and ask them why they resist. Ask them to show you a data flow diagram of how information feeds from one system to another (assuming they even have one). Ask them how many different operating systems they have, how many different languages were used to create the various software programs currently running, what tools they have to know when one of those programs fails, and how many different data formats are currently in use. Then go find the guys currently maintaining and updating and bug-fixing those current programs, and ask to see the code. Figure out how long it would take you to rewrite the whole thing, and keep the company in business while you're at it.

There is a reason "legacy code" exists, and while we shouldn't be afraid to replace it, we shouldn't be cavalier about tossing it out, either.

And we definitely shouldn't look at anything older than five years ago and equate it to lobotomies. COBOL had some good ideas that still echo through the industry today, and Groovy and Scala and Ruby and F# undoubtedly have some buried mines that we will, with benefit of ten years' hindsight, look back at in 2018 and say, "Wow, how dumb were we to think that this was the last language we'd ever have to use!".

That's experience talking.

And the funny thing is, it seems to have served us pretty well. When we don't listen to the guys claiming to know how to use something effectively that they've never actually used before, of course.

Caveat emptor.

If you've peeked at my blog site in the last twenty minutes or so, you've probably noticed some churn in the template in the upper-left corner; by now, it's been finalized, and it reads "JOB REFERRALS".

WTHeck? Has Ted finally sold out? Sort of, not really. At least, I don't think so.

Here's the deal: the company behind those ads, Entice Labs, contacted me to see if I was interested in hosting some job ads on my blog, given that I seem to generate a moderate amount of traffic. I figured it was worthwhile to at least talk to them, and the more I did, the more I liked what I heard--the ads are focused specifically at developers of particular types (I chose a criteria string of "Software Developers", subcategorized by "Java, .NET, .NET (Visual Basic), .NET (C#), C++, Flex, Ruby on Rails, C, SQL, JavaScript, HTML" though I'm not sure whether "HTML" will bring in too many web-designer jobs), and visitors to my blog don't have to click through the ads to get to the content, which was important to me. And, besides, given the current economic climate, if I can help somebody find a new job, I'd like to.

Now for the full disclaimer: I will be getting money back from these job ads, though how much, to be honest with you, I'm not sure. I'm really not doing this for the money, so I make this statement now: I will take 50% of whatever I make through this program and donate it to a charitable organization. The other 50% I will use to offset travel and expenses to user groups and/or CodeCamps and/or for-free conferences put on throughout the country. (Email me if you know of one that you're organizing or attending and would like to see me speak at, and I'll tell you if there's any room in the budget left for it. )

Anyway, I figured if the ads got too obnoxious, I could always remove them; it's an experiment of sorts. Tell me what you think.

After the previous post, I just had to look. The implementation of Object.equals is, as was previously noted, just "return this == obj", but the implementation of Object.hashCode is far more complicated.

Taken straight from the latest hg-pulled OpenJDK sources, Object.hashCode is a native method registered from Object.c that calls into a Hotspot-exported function, JVM_IHashCode(), from hotspot\src\share\vm\prims\jvm.cpp:

JVM_ENTRY(jint, JVM_IHashCode(JNIEnv* env, jobject handle))
  JVMWrapper("JVM_IHashCode");
  // as implemented in the classic virtual machine; return 0 if object is NULL
  return handle == NULL ? 0 : ObjectSynchronizer::FastHashCode (THREAD, JNIHandles::resolve_non_null(handle)) ;
JVM_END

which in turn calls ObjectSynchronizer::FastHashCode, defined in hotspot\src\share\vm\runtime\synchronizer.cpp as:

intptr_t ObjectSynchronizer::FastHashCode (Thread * Self, oop obj) {
  if (UseBiasedLocking) {
    // NOTE: many places throughout the JVM do not expect a safepoint
    // to be taken here, in particular most operations on perm gen
    // objects. However, we only ever bias Java instances and all of
    // the call sites of identity_hash that might revoke biases have
    // been checked to make sure they can handle a safepoint. The
    // added check of the bias pattern is to avoid useless calls to
    // thread-local storage.
    if (obj->mark()->has_bias_pattern()) {
      // Box and unbox the raw reference just in case we cause a STW safepoint.
      Handle hobj (Self, obj) ;
      // Relaxing assertion for bug 6320749.
      assert (Universe::verify_in_progress() ||
              !SafepointSynchronize::is_at_safepoint(),
             "biases should not be seen by VM thread here");
      BiasedLocking::revoke_and_rebias(hobj, false, JavaThread::current());
      obj = hobj() ;
      assert(!obj->mark()->has_bias_pattern(), "biases should be revoked by now");
    }
  }

  // hashCode() is a heap mutator ...
  // Relaxing assertion for bug 6320749.
  assert (Universe::verify_in_progress() ||
          !SafepointSynchronize::is_at_safepoint(), "invariant") ;
  assert (Universe::verify_in_progress() ||
          Self->is_Java_thread() , "invariant") ;
  assert (Universe::verify_in_progress() ||
         ((JavaThread *)Self)->thread_state() != _thread_blocked, "invariant") ;

  ObjectMonitor* monitor = NULL;
  markOop temp, test;
  intptr_t hash;
  markOop mark = ReadStableMark (obj);

  // object should remain ineligible for biased locking
  assert (!mark->has_bias_pattern(), "invariant") ;

  if (mark->is_neutral()) {