Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from Computer Things
I have a lot in the works for the this month's Logic for Programmers release. Among other things, I'm completely rewriting the chapter on Logic Programming Languages. I originally showcased the paradigm with puzzle solvers, like eight queens or four-coloring. Lots of other demos do this too! It takes creativity and insight for humans to solve them, so a program doing it feels magical. But I'm trying to write a book about practical techniques and I want everything I talk about to be useful. So in v0.9 I'll be replacing these examples with a couple of new programs that might get people thinking that Prolog could help them in their day-to-day work. On the other hand, for a newsletter, showcasing a puzzle solver is pretty cool. And recently I stumbled into this post by my friend Pablo Meier, where he solves a videogame puzzle with Prolog:1 Summary for the text-only readers: We have a test with 10 true/false questions (denoted a/b) and four student attempts. Given the scores of the first three students, we have to figure out the fourth student's score. bbababbabb = 7 baaababaaa = 5 baaabbbaba = 3 bbaaabbaaa = ??? You can see Pablo's solution here, and try it in SWI-prolog here. Pretty cool! But after way too long studying Prolog just to write this dang book chapter, I wanted to see if I could do it more elegantly than him. Code and puzzle spoilers to follow. (Normally here's where I'd link to a gentler introduction I wrote but I think this is my first time writing about Prolog online? Uh here's a Picat intro instead) The Program You can try this all online at SWISH or just jump to my final version here. :- use_module(library(dif)). % Sound inequality :- use_module(library(clpfd)). % Finite domain constraints First some imports. dif lets us write dif(A, B), which is true if A and B are not equal. clpfd lets us write A #= B + 1 to say "A is 1 more than B".2 We'll say both the student submission and the key will be lists, where each value is a or b. In Prolog, lowercase identifiers are atoms (like symbols in other languages) and identifiers that start with a capital are variables. Prolog finds values for variables that match equations (unification). The pattern matching is real real good. % ?- means query ?- L = [a,B,c], [Y|X] = [1,2|L], B + 1 #= 7. B = 6, L = [a, 6, c], X = [2, a, 6, c], Y = 1 Next, we define score/33 recursively. % The student's test score % score(student answers, answer key, score) score([], [], 0). score([A|As], [A|Ks], N) :- N #= M + 1, score(As, Ks, M). score([A|As], [K|Ks], N) :- dif(A, K), score(As, Ks, N). First key is the student's answers, second is the answer key, third is the final score. The base case is the empty test, which has score 0. Otherwise, we take the head values of each list and compare them. If they're the same, we add one to the score, otherwise we keep the same score. Notice we couldn't write if x then y else z, we instead used pattern matching to effectively express (x && y) || (!x && z). Prolog does have a conditional operator, but it prevents backtracking so what's the point??? A quick break about bidirectionality One of the coolest things about Prolog: all purely logical predicates are bidirectional. We can use score to check if our expected score is correct: ?- score([a, b, b], [b, b, b], 2). true But we can also give it answers and a key and ask it for the score: ?- score([a, b, b], [b, b, b], X). X = 2 Or we could give it a key and a score and ask "what test answers would have this score?" ?- score(X, [b, b, b], 2). X = [b, b, _A], dif(_A,b) X = [b, _A, b], dif(_A,b) X = [_A, b, b], dif(_A,b) The different value is written _A because we never told Prolog that the array can only contain a and b. We'll fix this later. Okay back to the program Now that we have a way of computing scores, we want to find a possible answer key that matches all of our observations, ie gives everybody the correct scores. key(Key) :- % Figure it out score([b, b, a, b, a, b, b, a, b, b], Key, 7), score([b, a, a, a, b, a, b, a, a, a], Key, 5), score([b, a, a, a, b, b, b, a, b, a], Key, 3). So far we haven't explicitly said that the Key length matches the student answer lengths. This is implicitly verified by score (both lists need to be empty at the same time) but it's a good idea to explicitly add length(Key, 10) as a clause of key/1. We should also explicitly say that every element of Key is either a or b.4 Now we could write a second predicate saying Key had the right 'type': keytype([]). keytype([K|Ks]) :- member(K, [a, b]), keytype(Ks). But "generating lists that match a constraint" is a thing that comes up often enough that we don't want to write a separate predicate for each constraint! So after some digging, I found a more elegant solution: maplist. Let L=[l1, l2]. Then maplist(p, L) is equivalent to the clause p(l1), p(l2). It also accepts partial predicates: maplist(p(x), L) is equivalent to p(x, l1), p(x, l2). So we could write5 contains(L, X) :- member(X, L). key(Key) :- length(Key, 10), maplist(contains([a,b]), L), % the score stuff Now, let's query for the Key: ?- key(Key) Key = [a, b, a, b, a, a, b, a, a, b] Key = [b, b, a, b, a, a, a, a, a, b] Key = [b, b, a, b, a, a, b, b, a, b] Key = [b, b, b, b, a, a, b, a, a, b] So there are actually four different keys that all explain our data. Does this mean the puzzle is broken and has multiple different answers? Nope The puzzle wasn't to find out what the answer key was, the point was to find the fourth student's score. And if we query for it, we see all four solutions give him the same score: ?- key(Key), score([b, b, a, a, a, b, b, a, a, a], Key, X). X = 6 X = 6 X = 6 X = 6 Huh! I really like it when puzzles look like they're broken, but every "alternate" solution still gives the same puzzle answer. Total program length: 15 lines of code, compared to the original's 80 lines. Suck it, Pablo. (Incidentally, you can get all of the answer at once by writing findall(X, (key(Key), score($answer-array, Key, X)), L).) I still don't like puzzles for teaching The actual examples I'm using in the book are "analyzing a version control commit graph" and "planning a sequence of infrastructure changes", which are somewhat more likely to occur at work than needing to solve a puzzle. You'll see them in the next release! I found it because he wrote Gamer Games for Lite Gamers as a response to my Gamer Games for Non-Gamers. ↩ These are better versions of the core Prolog expressions \+ (A = B) and A is B + 1, because they can defer unification. ↩ Prolog-descendants have a convention of writing the arity of the function after its name, so score/3 means "score has three parameters". I think they do this because you can overload predicates with multiple different arities. Also Joe Armstrong used Prolog for prototyping, so Erlang and Elixir follow the same convention. ↩ It still gets the right answers without this type restriction, but I had no idea it did until I checked for myself. Probably better not to rely on this! ↩ We could make this even more compact by using a lambda function. First import module yall, then write maplist([X]>>member(X, [a,b]), Key). But (1) it's not a shorter program because you replace the extra definition with an extra module import, and (2) yall is SWI-Prolog specific and not an ISO-standard prolog module. Using contains is more portable. ↩
My April Cools is out! Gaming Games for Non-Gamers is a 3,000 word essay on video games worth playing if you've never enjoyed a video game before. Patreon notes here. (April Cools is a project where we write genuine content on non-normal topics. You can see all the other April Cools posted so far here. There's still time to submit your own!) April Cools' Club
Logic for Programmers v0.8 now out! The new release has minor changes: new formatting for notes and a better introduction to predicates. I would have rolled it all into v0.9 next month but I like the monthly cadence. Get it here! Betteridge's Law of Software Engineering Specialness In There is No Automatic Reset in Engineering, Tim Ottinger asks: Do the other people have to live with January 2013 for the rest of their lives? Or is it only engineering that has to deal with every dirty hack since the beginning of the organization? Betteridge's Law of Headlines says that if a journalism headline ends with a question mark, the answer is probably "no". I propose a similar law relating to software engineering specialness:1 If someone asks if some aspect of software development is truly unique to just software development, the answer is probably "no". Take the idea that "in software, hacks are forever." My favorite example of this comes from a different profession. The Dewey Decimal System hierarchically categorizes books by discipline. For example, Covered Bridges of Pennsylvania has Dewey number 624.37. 6-- is the technology discipline, 62- is engineering, 624 is civil engineering, and 624.3 is "special types of bridges". I have no idea what the last 0.07 means, but you get the picture. Now if you look at the 6-- "technology" breakdown, you'll see that there's no "software" subdiscipline. This is because when Dewey preallocated the whole technology block in 1876. New topics were instead to be added to the 00- "general-knowledge" catch-all. Eventually 005 was assigned to "software development", meaning The C Programming Language lives at 005.133. Incidentally, another late addition to the general knowledge block is 001.9: "controversial knowledge". And that's why my hometown library shelved the C++ books right next to The Mothman Prophecies. How's that for technical debt? If anything, fixing hacks in software is significantly easier than in other fields. This came up when I was interviewing classic engineers. Kludges happened all the time, but "refactoring" them out is expensive. Need to house a machine that's just two inches taller than the room? Guess what, you're cutting a hole in the ceiling. (Even if we restrict the question to other departments in a software company, we can find kludges that are horrible to undo. I once worked for a company which landed an early contract by adding a bespoke support agreement for that one customer. That plagued them for years afterward.) That's not to say that there aren't things that are different about software vs other fields!2 But I think that most of the time, when we say "software development is the only profession that deals with XYZ", it's only because we're ignorant of how those other professions work. Short newsletter because I'm way behind on writing my April Cools. If you're interested in April Cools, you should try it out! I make it way harder on myself than it actually needs to be— everybody else who participates finds it pretty chill. Ottinger caveats it with "engineering, software or otherwise", so I think he knows that other branches of engineering, at least, have kludges. ↩ The "software is different" idea that I'm most sympathetic to is that in software, the tools we use and the products we create are made from the same material. That's unusual at least in classic engineering. Then again, plenty of machinists have made their own lathes and mills! ↩
I know I said we'd be back to normal newsletters this week and in fact had 80% of one already written. Then I unearthed something that was better left buried. Blog post here, Patreon notes here (Mostly an explanation of how I found this horror in the first place). Next week I'll send what was supposed to be this week's piece. (PS: April Cools in three weeks!)
No newsletter next week, I'm teaching a TLA+ workshop. Speaking of which: I spend a lot of time thinking about formal methods (and TLA+ specifically) because it's where the source of almost all my revenue. But I don't share most of the details because 90% of my readers don't use FM and never will. I think it's more interesting to talk about ideas from FM that would be useful to people outside that field. For example, the idea of "property strength" translates to the idea that some tests are stronger than others. Another possible export is how FM approaches nondeterminism. A nondeterministic algorithm is one that, from the same starting conditions, has multiple possible outputs. This is nondeterministic: # Pseudocode def f() { return rand()+1; } When specifying systems, I may not encounter nondeterminism more often than in real systems, but I am definitely more aware of its presence. Modeling nondeterminism is a core part of formal specification. I mentally categorize nondeterminism into five buckets. Caveat, this is specifically about nondeterminism from the perspective of system modeling, not computer science as a whole. If I tried to include stuff on NFAs and amb operations this would be twice as long.1 1. True Randomness Programs that literally make calls to a random function and then use the results. This the simplest type of nondeterminism and one of the most ubiquitous. Most of the time, random isn't truly nondeterministic. Most of the time computer randomness is actually pseudorandom, meaning we seed a deterministic algorithm that behaves "randomly-enough" for some use. You could "lift" a nondeterministic random function into a deterministic one by adding a fixed seed to the starting state. # Python from random import random, seed def f(x): seed(x) return random() >>> f(3) 0.23796462709189137 >>> f(3) 0.23796462709189137 Often we don't do this because the point of randomness is to provide nondeterminism! We deliberately abstract out the starting state of the seed from our program, because it's easier to think about it as locally nondeterministic. (There's also "true" randomness, like using thermal noise as an entropy source, which I think are mainly used for cryptography and seeding PRNGs.) Most formal specification languages don't deal with randomness (though some deal with probability more broadly). Instead, we treat it as a nondeterministic choice: # software if rand > 0.001 then return a else crash # specification either return a or crash This is because we're looking at worst-case scenarios, so it doesn't matter if crash happens 50% of the time or 0.0001% of the time, it's still possible. 2. Concurrency # Pseudocode global x = 1, y = 0; def thread1() { x++; x++; x++; } def thread2() { y := x; } If thread1() and thread2() run sequentially, then (assuming the sequence is fixed) the final value of y is deterministic. If the two functions are started and run simultaneously, then depending on when thread2 executes y can be 1, 2, 3, or 4. Both functions are locally sequential, but running them concurrently leads to global nondeterminism. Concurrency is arguably the most dramatic source of nondeterminism. Small amounts of concurrency lead to huge explosions in the state space. We have words for the specific kinds of nondeterminism caused by concurrency, like "race condition" and "dirty write". Often we think about it as a separate topic from nondeterminism. To some extent it "overshadows" the other kinds: I have a much easier time teaching students about concurrency in models than nondeterminism in models. Many formal specification languages have special syntax/machinery for the concurrent aspects of a system, and generic syntax for other kinds of nondeterminism. In P that's choose. Others don't special-case concurrency, instead representing as it as nondeterministic choices by a global coordinator. This more flexible but also more inconvenient, as you have to implement process-local sequencing code yourself. 3. User Input One of the most famous and influential programming books is The C Programming Language by Kernighan and Ritchie. The first example of a nondeterministic program appears on page 14: For the newsletter readers who get text only emails,2 here's the program: #include /* copy input to output; 1st version */ main() { int c; c = getchar(); while (c != EOF) { putchar(c); c = getchar(); } } Yup, that's nondeterministic. Because the user can enter any string, any call of main() could have any output, meaning the number of possible outcomes is infinity. Okay that seems a little cheap, and I think it's because we tend to think of determinism in terms of how the user experiences the program. Yes, main() has an infinite number of user inputs, but for each input the user will experience only one possible output. It starts to feel more nondeterministic when modeling a long-standing system that's reacting to user input, for example a server that runs a script whenever the user uploads a file. This can be modeled with nondeterminism and concurrency: We have one execution that's the system, and one nondeterministic execution that represents the effects of our user. (One intrusive thought I sometimes have: any "yes/no" dialogue actually has three outcomes: yes, no, or the user getting up and walking away without picking a choice, permanently stalling the execution.) 4. External forces The more general version of "user input": anything where either 1) some part of the execution outcome depends on retrieving external information, or 2) the external world can change some state outside of your system. I call the distinction between internal and external components of the system the world and the machine. Simple examples: code that at some point reads an external temperature sensor. Unrelated code running on a system which quits programs if it gets too hot. API requests to a third party vendor. Code processing files but users can delete files before the script gets to them. Like with PRNGs, some of these cases don't have to be nondeterministic; we can argue that "the temperature" should be a virtual input into the function. Like with PRNGs, we treat it as nondeterministic because it's useful to think in that way. Also, what if the temperature changes between starting a function and reading it? External forces are also a source of nondeterminism as uncertainty. Measurements in the real world often comes with errors, so repeating a measurement twice can give two different answers. Sometimes operations fail for no discernable reason, or for a non-programmatic reason (like something physically blocks the sensor). All of these situations can be modeled in the same way as user input: a concurrent execution making nondeterministic choices. 5. Abstraction This is where nondeterminism in system models and in "real software" differ the most. I said earlier that pseudorandomness is arguably deterministic, but we abstract it into nondeterminism. More generally, nondeterminism hides implementation details of deterministic processes. In one consulting project, we had a machine that received a message, parsed a lot of data from the message, went into a complicated workflow, and then entered one of three states. The final state was totally deterministic on the content of the message, but the actual process of determining that final state took tons and tons of code. None of that mattered at the scope we were modeling, so we abstracted it all away: "on receiving message, nondeterministically enter state A, B, or C." Doing this makes the system easier to model. It also makes the model more sensitive to possible errors. What if the workflow is bugged and sends us to the wrong state? That's already covered by the nondeterministic choice! Nondeterministic abstraction gives us the potential to pick the worst-case scenario for our system, so we can prove it's robust even under those conditions. I know I beat the "nondeterminism as abstraction" drum a whole lot but that's because it's the insight from formal methods I personally value the most, that nondeterminism is a powerful tool to simplify reasoning about things. You can see the same approach in how I approach modeling users and external forces: complex realities black-boxed and simplified into nondeterministic forces on the system. Anyway, I hope this collection of ideas I got from formal methods are useful to my broader readership. Lemme know if it somehow helps you out! I realized after writing this that I already talked wrote an essay about nondeterminism in formal specification just under a year ago. I hope this one covers enough new ground to be interesting! ↩ There is a surprising number of you. ↩
More in programming
Understand how computers represent numbers and perform operations at the bit level before diving into assembly
To be a successful founder, you have to believe that what you're working on is going to work — despite knowing it probably won't! That sounds like an oxymoron, but it's really not. Believing that what you're building is going to work is an essential component of coming to work with the energy, fortitude, and determination it's going to require to even have a shot. Knowing it probably won't is accepting the odds of that shot. It's simply the reality that most things in business don't work out. At least not in the long run. Most businesses fail. If not right away, then eventually. Yet the world economy is full of entrepreneurs who try anyway. Not because they don't know the odds, but because they've chosen to believe they're special. The best way to balance these opposing points — the conviction that you'll make it work, the knowledge that it probably won't — is to do all your work in a manner that'll make you proud either way. If it doesn't work, you still made something you wouldn't be ashamed to put your name on. And if it does work, you'll beam with pride from making it on the basis of something solid. The deep regret from trying and failing only truly hits when you look in the mirror and see Dostoevsky staring back at you with this punch to the gut: "Your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing." Oof. Believe it's going to work. Build it in a way that makes you proud to sign it. Base your worth on a human on something greater than a business outcome.
I recently went into a deep dive on “UART” and will publish a much longer article on the topic. This is just a recap of the basics to help put things in context. Many tutorials focus on using UART over USB, which adds many layers of abstraction, hiding what it actually is. Here, I deliberately … Continue reading How to use “real” UART → The post How to use “real” UART appeared first on Quentin Santos.
You know about Critical Race Theory, right? It says that if there’s an imbalance in, say, income between races, it must be due to discrimination. This is what wokism seems to be, and it’s moronic and false. The right wing has invented something equally stupid. Introducing Critical Trade Theory, stolen from this tweet. If there’s an imbalance in trade between countries, it must be due to unfair practices. (not due to the obvious, like one country is 10x richer than the other) There’s really only one way the trade deficits will go away, and that’s if trade goes to zero (or maybe if all these countries become richer than America). Same thing with the race deficits, no amount of “leg up” bullshit will change them. Why are all the politicians in America anti-growth anti-reality idiots who want to drive us into the poor house? The way this tariff shit is being done is another stupid form of anti-merit benefits to chosen groups of people, with a whole lot of grift to go along with it. Makes me just not want to play.
One of the most memorable quotes in Arthur Miller’s The Death of a Salesman comes from Uncle Ben, who describes his path to becoming wealthy as, “When I was seventeen, I walked into the jungle, and when I was twenty-one I walked out. And by God I was rich.” I wish I could describe the path to learning engineering strategy in similar terms, but by all accounts it’s a much slower path. Two decades in, I am still learning more from each project I work on. This book has aimed to accelerate your learning path, but my experience is that there’s still a great deal left to learn, despite what this book has hoped to accomplish. This final chapter is focused on the remaining advice I have to give on how you can continue to improve at strategy long after reading this book’s final page. Inescapably, this chapter has become advice on writing your own strategy for improving at strategy. You are already familiar with my general suggestions on creating strategy, so this chapter provides focused advice on creating your own plan to get better at strategy. It covers: Exploring strategy creation to find strategies you can learn from via public and private resources, and through creating learning communities How to diagnose the strategies you’ve found, to ensure you learn the right lessons from each one Policies that will help you find ways to perform and practice strategy within your organization, whether or not you have organizational authority Operational mechanisms to hold yourself accountable to developing a strategy practice My final benediction to you as a strategy practitioner who has finished reading this book With that preamble, let’s write this book’s final strategy: your personal strategy for developing your strategy practice. This is an exploratory, draft chapter for a book on engineering strategy that I’m brainstorming in #eng-strategy-book. As such, some of the links go to other draft chapters, both published drafts and very early, unpublished drafts. Exploring strategy creation Ideally, we’d start our exploration of how to improve at engineering strategy by reading broadly from the many publicly available examples. Unfortunately, there simply aren’t many easily available works to learn from others’ experience. Nonetheless, resources do exist, and we’ll discuss the three categories that I’ve found most useful: Public resources on engineering strategy, such as companies’ engineering blogs Private and undocumented strategies available through your professional network Learning communities that you build together, including ongoing learning circles Each of these is explored in its own section below. Public resources While there aren’t as many public engineering strategy resources as I’d like, I’ve found that there are still a reasonable number available. This book collects a number of such resources in the appendix of engineering strategy resources. That appendix also includes some individuals’ blog posts that are adjacent to this topic. You can go a long way by searching and prompting your way into these resources. As you read them, it’s important to recognize that public strategies are often misleading, as discussed previously in evaluating strategies. Everyone writing in public has an agenda, and that agenda often means that they’ll omit important details to make themselves, or their company, come off well. Make sure you read through the lines rather than taking things too literally. Private resources Ironically, where public resources are hard to find, I’ve found it much easier to find privately held strategy resources. While private recollections are still prone to inaccuracies, the incentives to massage the truth are less pronounced. The most useful sources I’ve found are: peers’ stories – strategies are often oral histories, and they are shared freely among peers within and across companies. As you build out your professional network, you can usually get access to any company’s engineering strategy on any topic by just asking. There are brief exceptions. Even a close peer won’t share a sensitive strategy before its existence becomes obvious externally, but they’ll be glad to after it does. People tend to over-estimate how much information companies can keep private anyway: even reading recent job postings can usually expose a surprising amount about a company. internal strategy archaeologists – while surprisingly few companies formally collect their strategies into a repository, the stories are informally collected by the tenured members of the organization. These folks are the company’s strategy archaeologists, and you can learn a great deal by explicitly consulting them becoming a strategy archaeologist yourself – whether or not you’re a tenured member of your company, you can learn a tremendous amount by starting to build your own strategy repository. As you start collecting them, you’ll interest others in contributing their strategies as well. As discussed in Staff Engineer’s section on the Write five then synthesize approach to strategy, over time you can foster a culture of documentation where one didn’t exist before. Even better, building that culture doesn’t require any explicit authority, just an ongoing show of excitement. There are other sources as well, ranging from attending the hallway track in conferences to organizing dinners where stories are shared with a commitment to privacy. Working in community My final suggestion for seeing how others work on strategy is to form a learning circle. I formed a learning circle when I first moved into an executive role, and at this point have been running it for more than five years. What’s surprised me the most is how much I’ve learned from it. There are a few reasons why ongoing learning circles are exceptional for sharing strategy: Bi-directional discussion allows so much more learning and understanding than mono-directional communication like conference talks or documents. Groups allow you to learn from others’ experiences and others’ questions, rather than having to guide the entire learning yourself. Continuity allows you to see the strategy at inception, during the rollout, and after it’s been in practice for some time. Trust is built slowly, and you only get the full details about a problem when you’ve already successfully held trust about smaller things. An ongoing group makes this sort of sharing feasible where a transient group does not. Although putting one of these communities together requires a commitment, they are the best mechanism I’ve found. As a final secret, many people get stuck on how they can get invited to an existing learning circle, but that’s almost always the wrong question to be asking. If you want to join a learning circle, make one. That’s how I got invited to mine. Diagnosing your prior and current strategy work Collecting strategies to learn from is a valuable part of learning. You also have to determine what lessons to learn from each strategy. For example, you have to determine whether Calm’s approach to resourcing Engineering-driven projects is something to copy or something to avoid. What I’ve found effective is to apply the strategy rubric we developed in the “Is this strategy any good?” chapter to each of the strategies you’ve collected. Even by splitting a strategy into its various phases, you’ll learn a lot. Applying the rubric to each phase will teach you more. Each time you do this to another strategy, you’ll get a bit faster at applying the rubric, and you’ll start to see interesting, recurring patterns. As you dig into a strategy that you’ve split into phases and applied the evaluation rubric to, here are a handful of questions that I’ve found interesting to ask myself: How long did it take to determine a strategy’s initial phase could be improved? How high was the cost to fund that initial phase’s discovery? Why did the strategy reach its final stage and get repealed or replaced? How long did that take to get there? If you had to pick only one, did this strategy fail in its approach to exploration, diagnosis, policy or operations? To what extent did the strategy outlive the tenure of its primary author? Did it get repealed quickly after their departure, did it endure, or was it perhaps replaced during their tenure? Would you generally repeat this strategy, or would you strive to avoid repeating it? If you did repeat it, what conditions seem necessary to make it a success? How might you apply this strategy to your current opportunities and challenges? It’s not necessary to work through all of these questions for every strategy you’re learning from. I often try to pick the two that I think might be most interesting for a given strategy. Policy for improving at strategy At a high level, there are just a few key policies to consider for improving your strategic abilities. The first is implementing strategy, and the second is practicing implementing strategy. While those are indeed the starting points, there are a few more detailed options worth consideration: If your company has existing strategies that are not working, debug one and work to fix it. If you lack the authority to work at the company scope, then decrease altitude until you find an altitude you can work at. Perhaps setting Engineering organizational strategies is beyond your circumstances, but strategy for your team is entirely accessible. If your company has no documented strategies, document one to make it debuggable. Again, if operating at a high altitude isn’t attainable for some reason, operate at a lower altitude that is within reach. If your company’s or team’s strategies are effective but have low adoption, see if you can iterate on operational mechanisms to increase adoption. Many such mechanisms require no authority at all, such as low-noise nudges or the model-document-share approach. If existing strategies are effective and have high adoption, see if you can build excitement for a new strategy. Start by mining for which problems Staff-plus engineers and senior managers believe are important. Once you find one, you have a valuable strategy vein to start mining. If you don’t feel comfortable sharing your work internally, then try writing proposals while only sharing them to a few trusted peers. You can even go further to only share proposals with trusted external peers, perhaps within a learning circle that you create or join. Trying all of these at once would be overwhelming, so I recommend picking one in any given phase. If you aren’t able to make traction, then try another until something works. It’s particularly important to recognize in your diagnosis where things are not working–perhaps you simply don’t have the sponsorship you need to enforce strategy so you need to switch towards suggesting strategies instead–and you’ll find something that works. What if you’re not allowed to do strategy? If you’re looking to find one, you’ll always unearth a reason why it’s not possible to do strategy in your current environment. If you’ve convinced yourself that there’s simply no policy that would allow you to do strategy in your current role, then the two most useful levers I’ve found are: Lower your altitude – there’s always a scale where you can perform strategy, even if it’s just your team or even just yourself. Only you can forbid yourself from developing personal strategies. Practice rather than perform – organizations can only absorb so much strategy development at a given time, so sometimes they won’t be open to you doing more strategy. In that case, you should focus on practicing strategy work rather than directly performing it. Only you can stop yourself from practice. Don’t believe the hype: you can always do strategy work. Operating your strategy improvement policies As the refrain goes, even the best policies don’t accomplish much if they aren’t paired with operational mechanisms to ensure the policies actually happen, and debug why they aren’t happening. Although it’s tempting to ignore operations when it comes to our personal habits, I think that would be a mistake: our personal habits have the most significant long-term impact on ourselves, and are the easiest habits to ignore since others generally won’t ask about them. The mechanisms I’d recommend: Explicitly track the strategies that you’ve implemented, refined, documented, or read. This should be in a document, spreadsheet or folder where you can explicitly see if you have or haven’t done the work. Review your tracked strategies every quarter: are you working on the expected number and in the expected way? If not, why not? Ideally, your review should be done in community with a peer or a learning circle. It’s too easy to deceive yourself, it’s much harder to trick someone else. If your periodic review ever discovers that you’re simply not doing the work you expected, sit down for an hour with someone that you trust–ideally someone equally or more experienced than you–and debug what’s going wrong. Commit to doing this before your next periodic review. Tracking your personal habits can feel a bit odd, but it’s something I highly recommend. I’ve been setting and tracking personal goals for some time now—for example, in my 2024 year in review—and have benefited greatly from it. Too busy for strategy Many companies convince themselves that they’re too much in a rush to make good decisions. I’ve certainly gotten stuck in this view at times myself, although at this point in my career I find it increasingly difficult to not recognize that I have a number of tools to create time for strategy, and an obligation to do strategy rather than inflict poor decisions on the organizations I work in. Here’s my advice for creating time: If you’re not tracking how often you’re creating strategies, then start there. If you’ve not worked on a single strategy in the past six months, then start with one. If implementing a strategy has been prohibitively time consuming, then focus on practicing a strategy instead. If you do try all those things and still aren’t making progress, then accept your reality: you don’t view doing strategy as particularly important. Spend some time thinking about why that is, and if you’re comfortable with your answer, then maybe this is a practice you should come back to later. Final words At this point, you’ve read everything I have to offer on drafting engineering strategy. I hope this has refined your view on what strategy can be in your organization, and has given you the tools to draft a more thoughtful future for your corner of the software engineering industry. What I’d never ask is for you to wholly agree with my ideas here. They are my best thinking on this topic, but strategy is a topic where I’m certain Hegel’s world view is the correct one: even the best ideas here are wrong in interesting ways, and will be surpassed by better ones.
