Full Width [alt+shift+f] Shortcuts [alt+shift+k]
Sign Up [alt+shift+s] Log In [alt+shift+l]
18
One tenet of big-a Agile1 is that developers should all work on individual user stories as the smallest unit of work2. That a ticket should almost always be a story, because that means it's something that delivers concrete value to the users. There are some cases in which this leads to absurdity. I've written tongue-in-cheek tickets of this type at work before, on a platform team: "As a DAYJOB engineering team, I want..." "As a configuration file, I want..." I've also seen this done as a serious story, or Poe's law struck and it's impossible to tell if it's satire. This has it all backwards. User stories are great for tracking what users should be able to do and how to deliver value. But they're not great for understanding the work to be done. A story can require a surprisingly large or small amount of work. You don't know until you break it down by analyzing how to do the task that's behind the story. We end up doing this and using stories in a way that leads to convoluted ticket...
a year ago

Improve your reading experience

Logged in users get linked directly to articles resulting in a better reading experience. Please login for free, it takes less than 1 minute.

More from ntietz.com blog

Licensing can be joyful (and legally dubious)

Software licenses are a reflection of our values. How you choose to license a piece of software says a lot about what you want to achieve with it. Do you want to reach the maximum amount of users? Do you want to ensure future versions remain free and open source? Do you want to preserve your opportunity to make a profit? They can also be used to reflect other values. For example, there is the infamous JSON license written by Doug Crockford. It's essentially the MIT license with this additional clause: The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. This has caused quite some consternation. It is a legally dubious addition, because "Good" and "Evil" are not defined here. Many people disagree on what these are. This is really not enforceable, and it's going to make many corporate lawyers wary of using software under this license1. I don't think that enforcing this clause was the point. The point is more signaling values and just having fun with it. I don't think anyone seriously believes that this license will be enforceable, or that it will truly curb the amount of evil in the world. But will it start conversations? * * * There are a lot of other small, playful licenses. None of these are going to change the world, but they inject a little joy and play into an area of software that is usually serious and somber. When I had to pick a license for my exceptional language (Hurl), I went down that serious spiral at first. What license will give the project the best adoption, or help it achieve its goals? What are its goals? Well, one its goals was definitely to be funny. Another was to make sure that people can use the software for educational purposes. If I make a language as a joke, I do want people to be able to learn from it and do their own related projects! This is where we enter one of the sheerly joyous parts of licensing: the ability to apply multiple licenses to software so that the user can decide which one to use the software under. You see a lot of Rust projects dual-licensed under Apache and MIT licenses, because the core language is dual-licensed for very good reasons. We can apply similar rationale to Hurl's license, and we end up with triple-licensing. It's currently available under three licenses, each for a separate purpose. Licensing it under the AGPL enables users to create derivative works for their own purposes (probably to learn) as long as it remains licensed the same way. And then we have a commercial license option, which is there so that if you want to commercialize it, I can get a cut of that2. The final option is to license it under the Gay Agenda License, which was created originally for this project. This option basically requires you to not be a bigot, and then you can use the software under the MIT license terms. It seems fair to me. When I got through that license slide at SIGBOVIK 2024, I knew that the mission was accomplished: bigotry was defeated the audience laughed. * * * The Gay Agenda License is a modified MIT license which requires you do a few things: You must provide attribution (typical MIT manner) You have to stand up for LGBTQ rights You have to say "be gay, do crime" during use of the software Oh, and if you support restricting LGBTQ rights, then you lose that license right away. No bigots allowed here. This is all, of course, written in more complete sentences in the license itself. The best thing is that you can use this license today! There is a website for the Gay Agenda License, the very fitting gal.gay3. The website has all the features you'd expect, like showing the license text, using appropriate flags, and copying the text to the clipboard for ease of putting this in your project. Frequently Anticipated Questions Inspired by Hannah's brilliant post's FAQ, here are answers to your questions that you must have by now. Is this enforceable? We don't really know until it's tested in court, but if that happens, everyone has already lost. So, who knows, I hope we don't find out! Isn't it somewhat ambiguous? What defines what is standing up for LGBTQ rights? Ah, yes, good catch. This is a big problem for this totally serious license. Definitely a problem. Can I use it in my project? Yeah! Let me know if you do so I can add it into a showcase on the website. But keep in mind, this is a joke totally serious license, so only use it on silly things highly serious commercial projects! How do I get a commercial license of Hurl? This is supposed to be about the Gay Agenda License, not Hurl. But since you asked, contact me for pricing. When exactly do I have to say "be gay, do crime"? To be safe, it's probably best that you mutter it continuously while using all software. You never know when it's going to be licensed under the Gay Agenda License, so repeat the mantra to ensure compliance. Thank you to Anya for the feedback on a draft of this post. Thank you to Chris for building the first version of gal.gay for me. 1 Not for nothing, because most of those corporations would probably be using the software for evil. So, mission accomplished, I guess? 2 For some reason, no one has contacted me for this option yet. I suspect widespread theft of my software, since surely people want to use Hurl. They're not using the third option, since we still see rampant transphobia. 3 This is my most expensive domain yet at $130 for the first year. I'm hoping that the price doesn't raise dramatically over time, but I'm not optimistic, since it's a three-letter domain. That said, anything short of extortion will likely be worth keeping for the wonderful email addresses I get out of this, being a gay gal myself. It's easier to spell on the phone than this domain is, anyway.

6 months ago 67 votes
Asheville

Asheville is in crisis right now. They're without drinking water, faucets run dry, and it's difficult to flush toilets. As of yesterday, the hospital has water (via tanker trucks), but 80% of the public water system is still without running water. Things are really bad. Lots of infrastructure has been washed away. Even when water is back, there has been tremendous damage done that will take a long time to recover from and rebuild. * * * Here's the only national news story my friend from Asheville had seen which covered the water situation specifically. It's hard for me to understand why this is not covered more broadly. And my heart aches for those in and around the Asheville area. As I'm far away, I can't do a lot to help. But I can donate money, which my friend said is the only donation that would help right now if you aren't in the area. She specifically pointed me to these two ways to donate: Beloved Asheville: a respected community organization in Asheville, this is a great place to send money to help. (If you're closer to that area, it does look like they have specific things they're asking for as well, but this feels like an "if you can help this way, you'd already know" situation.) Mutual Aid Disaster Relief: there's a local Asheville chapter which is doing work to help. Also an organization to support for broad disaster recovery in general. I've donated money. I hope you will, too, for this and for the many other crises that affect us. Let's help each other.

6 months ago 61 votes
Teleportation

teleportation does exist from OR to recovery room I left something behind not quite a part of myself —unwelcome guests poisoning me from the inside no longer welcome

6 months ago 52 votes
Rust needs a web framework for lazy developers

I like to make silly things, and I also like to put in minimal effort for those silly things. I also like to make things in Rust, mostly for the web, and this is where we run into a problem. See, if I want to make something for the web, I could use Django but I don't want that. I mean, Django is for building serious businesses, not for building silly non-commercial things! But using Rust, we have to do a lot more work than if we build it with Django or friends. See, so far, there's no equivalent, and the Rust community leans heavily into the "wire it up yourself" approach. As Are We Web Yet? says, "[...] you generally have to wire everything up yourself. Expect to put in a little bit of extra set up work to get started." This undersells it, though. It's more than a little bit of extra work to get started! I know because I made a list of things to do to get started. Rust needs something that does bundle this up for you, so that we can serve all web developers. Having it would make it a lot easier to make the case to use Rust. The benefits are there: you get wonderful type system, wonderful performance, and build times that give you back those coffee breaks you used to get while your code compiled. What do we need? There is a big pile of stuff that nearly every web app needs, no matter if it's big or small. Here's a rough list of what seems pretty necessary to me: Routing/handlers: this is pretty obvious, but we have to be able to get an incoming request to some handler for it. Additionally, this routing needs to handle path parameters, ideally with type information, and we'll give bonus points for query parameters, forms, etc. Templates: we'll need to generate, you know, HTML (and sometimes other content, like JSON or, if you're in the bad times still, XML). Usually I want these to have basic logic, like conditionals, match/switch, and loops. Static file serving: we'll need to serve some assets, like CSS files. This can be done separately, but having it as part of the same web server is extremely handy for both local development and for small-time deployments that won't handle much traffic. Logins: You almost always need some way to log in, since apps are usually multi-user or deployed on a public network. This is just annoying to wire up every time! It should be customizable and something you can opt out of, but it should be trivial to have logins from the start. Permissions: You also need this for systems that have multiple users, since people will have different data they're allowed to access or different roles in the system. Permissions can be complicated but you can make something relatively simple that follows the check(user, object, action) pattern and get really far with it. Database interface: You're probably going to have to store data for your app, so you want a way to do that. Something that's ORM-like is often nice, but something light is fine. Whatever you do here isn't the only way to interact with the database, but it'll be used for things like logins, permissions, and admin tools, so it's going to be a fundamental piece. Admin tooling: This is arguably a quality-of-life issue, not a necessity, except that every time you setup your application in a local environment or in production you're going to have to bootstrap it with at least one user or some data. And you'll have to do admin actions sometimes! So I think having this built-in for at least some of the common actions is a necessity for a seamless experience. WebSockets: I use WebSockets in a lot of my projects. They just let you do really fun things with pushing data out to connected users in a more real-time fashion! Hot reloading: This is a huge one for developer experience, because you want to have the ability to see changes really quickly. When code or a template change, you need to see that reflected as soon as humanly possible (or as soon as the Rust compiler allows). Then we have a pile of things that are quality-of-life improvements, and I think are necessary for long-term projects but might not be as necessary upfront, so users are less annoyed at implementing it themselves because the cost is spread out. Background tasks: There needs to be a story for these! You're going to have features that have to happen on a schedule, and having a consistent way to do that is a big benefit and makes development easier. Monitoring/observability: Only the smallest, least-critical systems should skip this. It's really important to have and it will make your life so much easier when you have it in that moment that you desperately need it. Caching: There are a lot of ways to do this, and all of them make things more complicated and maybe faster? So this is nice to have a story for, but users can also handle it themselves. Emails and other notifications: It's neat to be able to have password resets and things built-in, and this is probably a necessity if you're going to have logins, so you can have password resets. But other than that feature, it feels like it won't get used that much and isn't a big deal to add in when you need it. Deployment tooling: Some consistent way to deploy somewhere is really nice, even if it's just an autogenerated Dockerfile that you can use with a host of choice. CSS/JS bundling: In the time it is, we use JS and CSS everywhere, so you probably want a web tool to be aware of them so they can be included seamlessly. But does it really have to be integrated in? Probably not... So those are the things I'd target in a framework if I were building one! I might be doing that... The existing ecosystem There's quite a bit out there already for building web things in Rust. None of them quite hit what I want, which is intentional on their part: none of them aspire to be what I'm looking for here. I love what exists, and I think we're sorely missing what I want here (I don't think I'm alone). Web frameworks There are really two main groups of web frameworks/libraries right now: the minimalist ones, and the single-page app ones. The minimalist ones are reminiscent of Flask, Sinatra, and other small web frameworks. These include the excellent actix-web and axum, as well as myriad others. There are so many of these, and they all bring a nice flavor to web development by leveraging Rust's type system! But they don't give you much besides handlers; none of the extra functionality we want in a full for-lazy-developers framework. Then there are the single-page app frameworks. These fill a niche where you can build things with Rust on the backend and frontend, using WebAssembly for the frontend rendering. These tend to be less mature, but good examples include Dioxus, Leptos, and Yew. I used Yew to build a digital vigil last year, and it was enjoyable but I'm not sure I'd want to do it in a "real" production setting. Each of these is excellent for what it is—but what it is requires a lot of wiring up still. Most of my projects would work well with the minimalist frameworks, but those require so much wiring up! So it ends up being a chore to set that up each time that I want to do something. Piles of libraries! The rest of the ecosystem is piles of libraries. There are lots of template libraries! There are some libraries for logins, and for permissions. There are WebSocket libraries! Often you'll find some projects and examples which integrate a couple of the things you're using, but you won't find something that integrates all the pieces you're using. I've run into some of the examples being out of date, which is to be expected in a fast-moving ecosystem. The pile of libraries leaves a lot of friction, though. It makes getting started, the "just wiring it up" part, very difficult and often an exercise in researching how things work, to understand them in depth enough to do the integration. What I've done before The way I've handled this before is basically to pick a base framework (typically actix-web or axum) and then search out all the pieces I want on top of it. Then I'd wire them up, either all at the beginning or as I need them. There are starter templates that could help me avoid some of this pain. They can definitely help you skip some of the initial pain, but you still get all the maintenance burden. You have to make sure your libraries stay up to date, even when there are breaking changes. And you will drift from the template, so it's not really feasible to merge changes to it into your project. For the projects I'm working on, this means that instead of keeping one framework up to date, I have to keep n bespoke frameworks up to date across all my projects! Eep! I'd much rather have a single web framework that handles it all, with clean upgrade instructions between versions. There will be breaking changes sometimes, but this way they can be documented instead of coming about due to changes in the interactions between two components which don't even know they're going to be integrated together. Imagining the future I want In an ideal world, there would be a framework for Rust that gives me all the features I listed above. And it would also come with excellent documentation, changelogs, thoughtful versioning and handling of breaking changes, and maybe even a great community. All the things I love about Django, could we have those for a Rust web framework so that we can reap the benefits of Rust without having to go needlessly slowly? This doesn't exist right now, and I'm not sure if anyone else is working on it. All paths seem to lead me toward "whoops I guess I'm building a web framework." I hope someone else builds one, too, so we can have multiple options. To be honest, "web framework" sounds way too grandiose for what I'm doing, which is simply wiring things together in an opinionated way, using (mostly) existing building blocks1. Instead of calling it a framework, I'm thinking of it as a web toolkit: a bundle of tools tastefully chosen and arranged to make the artisan highly effective. My toolkit is called nicole's web toolkit, or newt. It's available in a public repository, but it's really not usable (the latest changes aren't even pushed yet). It's not even usable for me yet—this isn't a launch post, more shipping my design doc (and hoping someone will do my work for me so I don't have to finish newt :D). The goal for newt is to be able to create a new small web app and start on the actual project in minutes instead of days, bypassing the entire process of wiring things up. I think the list of must-haves and quality-of-life features above will be a start, but by no means everything we need. I'm not ready to accept contributions, but I hope to be there at some point. I think that Rust really needs this, and the whole ecosystem will benefit from it. A healthy ecosystem will have multiple such toolkits, and I hope to see others develop as well. * * * If you want to follow along with mine, though, feel free to subscribe to my RSS feed or newsletter, or follow me on Mastodon. I'll try to let people know in all those places when the toolkit is ready for people to try out. Or I'll do a post-mortem on it, if it ends up that I don't get far with it! Either way, this will be fun. 1 I do plan to build a few pieces from scratch for this, as the need arises. Some things will be easier that way, or fit more cohesively. Can't I have a little greenfield, as a treat?

6 months ago 61 votes
What I tell people new to on-call

The first time I went on call as a software engineer, it was exciting—and ultimately traumatic. Since then, I've had on-call experiences at multiple other jobs and have grown to really appreciate it as part of the role. As I've progressed through my career, I've gotten to help establish on-call processes and run some related trainings. Here is some of what I wish I'd known when I started my first on-call shift, and what I try to tell each engineer before theirs. Heroism isn't your job, triage is It's natural to feel a lot of pressure with on-call responsibilities. You have a production application that real people need to use! When that pager goes off, you want to go in and fix the problem yourself. That's the job, right? But it's not. It's not your job to fix every issue by yourself. It is your job to see that issues get addressed. The difference can be subtle, but important. When you get that page, your job is to assess what's going on. A few questions I like to ask are: What systems are affected? How badly are they impacted? Does this affect users? With answers to those questions, you can figure out what a good course of action is. For simple things, you might just fix it yourself! If it's a big outage, you're putting on your incident commander hat and paging other engineers to help out. And if it's a false alarm, then you're putting in a fix for the noisy alert! (You're going to fix it, not just ignore that, right?) Just remember not to be a hero. You don't need to fix it alone, you just need to figure out what's going on and get a plan. Call for backup Related to the previous one, you aren't going this alone. Your main job in holding the pager is to assess and make sure things get addressed. Sometimes you can do that alone, but often you can't! Don't be afraid to call for backup. People want to be helpful to their teammates, and they want that support available to them, too. And it's better to be wake me up a little too much than to let me sleep through times when I was truly needed. If people are getting woken up a lot, the issue isn't calling for backup, it's that you're having too many true emergencies. It's best to figure out that you need backup early, like 10 minutes in, to limit the damage of the incident. The faster you figure out other people are needed, the faster you can get the situation under control. Communicate a lot In any incident, adrenaline runs and people are stressed out. The key to good incident response is communication in spite of the adrenaline. Communicating under pressure is a skill, and it's one you can learn. Here are a few of the times and ways of communicating that I think are critical: When you get on and respond to an alert, say that you're there and that you're assessing the situation Once you've assessed it, post an update; if the assessment is taking a while, post updates every 15 minutes while you do so (and call for backup) After the situation is being handled, update key stakeholders at least every 30 minutes for the first few hours, and then after that slow down to hourly You are also going to have to communicate within the response team! There might be a dedicated incident channel or one for each incident. Either way, try to over communicate about what you're working on and what you've learned. Keep detailed notes, with timestamps When you're debugging weird production stuff at 3am, that's the time you really need to externalize your memory and thought processes into a notes document. This helps you keep track of what you're doing, so you know which experiments you've run and which things you've ruled out as possibilities or determined as contributing factors. It also helps when someone else comes up to speed! That person will be able to use your notes to figure out what has happened, instead of you having to repeat it every time someone gets on. Plus, the notes doc won't forget things, but you will. You will also need these notes later to do a post-mortem. What was tried, what was found, and how it was fixed are all crucial for the discussion. Timestamps are critical also for understanding the timeline of the incident and the response! This document should be in a shared place, since people will use it when they join the response. It doesn't need to be shared outside of the engineering organization, though, and likely should not be. It may contain details that lead to more questions than they answer; sometimes, normal engineering things can seem really scary to external stakeholders! You will learn a lot! When you're on call, you get to see things break in weird and unexpected ways. And you get to see how other people handle those things! Both of these are great ways to learn a lot. You'll also just get exposure to things you're not used to seeing. Some of this will be areas that you don't usually work in, like ops if you're a developer, or application code if you're on the ops side. Some more of it will be business side things for the impact of incidents. And some will be about the psychology of humans, as you see the logs of a user clicking a button fifteen hundred times (get that person an esports sponsorship, geez). My time on call has led to a lot of my professional growth as a software engineer. It has dramatically changed how I worked on systems. I don't want to wake up at 3am to fix my bad code, and I don't want it to wake you up, either. Having to respond to pages and fix things will teach you all the ways they can break, so you'll write more resilient software that doesn't break. And it will teach you a lot about the structure of your engineering team, good or bad, in how it's structured and who's responding to which things. Learn by shadowing No one is born skilled at handling production alerts. You gain these skills by doing, so get out there and do it—but first, watch someone else do it. No matter how much experience you have writing code (or responding to incidents), you'll learn a lot by watching a skilled coworker handle incoming issues. Before you're the primary for an on-call shift, you should shadow someone for theirs. This will let you see how they handle things and what the general vibe is. This isn't easy to do! It means that they'll have to make sure to loop you in even when blood is pumping, so you may have to remind them periodically. You'll probably miss out on some things, but you'll see a lot, too. Some things can (and should) wait for Monday morning When we get paged, it usually feels like a crisis. If not to us, it sure does to the person who's clicking that button in frustration, generating a ton of errors, and somehow causing my pager to go off. But not all alerts are created equal. If you assess something and figure out that it's only affecting one or two customers in something that's not time sensitive, and it's currently 4am on a Saturday? Let people know your assessment (and how to reach you if you're wrong, which you could be) and go back to bed. Real critical incidents have to be fixed right away, but some things really need to wait. You want to let them go until later for two reasons. First is just the quality of the fix. You're going to fix things more completely if you're rested when you're doing so! Second, and more important, is your health. It's wrong to sacrifice your health (by being up at 4am fixing things) for something non-critical. Don't sacrifice your health Many of us have had bad on-call experiences. I sure have. One regret is that I didn't quit that on-call experience sooner. I don't even necessarily mean quitting the job, but pushing back on it. If I'd stood up for myself and said "hey, we have five engineers, it should be more than just me on call," and held firm, maybe I'd have gotten that! Or maybe I'd have gotten a new job. What I wouldn't have gotten is the knowledge that you can develop a rash from being too stressed. If you're in a bad on-call situation, please try to get out of it! And if you can't get out of it, try to be kind to yourself and protect yourself however you can (you deserve better). Be methodical and reproduce before you fix Along with taking great notes, you should make sure that you test hypotheses. What could be causing this issue? And before that, what even is the problem? And how do we make it happen? Write down your answers to these! Then go ahead and try to reproduce the issue. After reproducing it, you can try to go through your hypotheses and test them out to see what's actually contributing to the issue. This way, you can bisect problem spaces instead of just eliminating one thing at a time. And since you know how to reproduce the issue now, you can be confident that you do have a fix at the end of it all! Have fun Above all, the thing I want people new to on-call to do? Just have fun. I know this might sound odd, because being on call is a big job responsibility! But I really do think it can be fun. There's a certain kind of joy in going through the on-call response together. And there's a fun exhilaration to it all. And the joy of fixing things and really being the competent engineer who handled it with grace under pressure. Try to make some jokes (at an appropriate moment!) and remember that whatever happens, it's going to be okay. Probably.

7 months ago 71 votes

More in programming

Brian Regan Helped Me Understand My Aversion to Job Titles

I like the job title “Design Engineer”. When required to label myself, I feel partial to that term (I should, I’ve written about it enough). Lately I’ve felt like the term is becoming more mainstream which, don’t get me wrong, is a good thing. I appreciate the diversification of job titles, especially ones that look to stand in the middle between two binaries. But — and I admit this is a me issue — once a title starts becoming mainstream, I want to use it less and less. I was never totally sure why I felt this way. Shouldn’t I be happy a title I prefer is gaining acceptance and understanding? Do I just want to rebel against being labeled? Why do I feel this way? These were the thoughts simmering in the back of my head when I came across an interview with the comedian Brian Regan where he talks about his own penchant for not wanting to be easily defined: I’ve tried over the years to write away from how people are starting to define me. As soon as I start feeling like people are saying “this is what you do” then I would be like “Alright, I don't want to be just that. I want to be more interesting. I want to have more perspectives.” [For example] I used to crouch around on stage all the time and people would go “Oh, he’s the guy who crouches around back and forth.” And I’m like, “I’ll show them, I will stand erect! Now what are you going to say?” And then they would go “You’re the guy who always feels stupid.” So I started [doing other things]. He continues, wondering aloud whether this aversion to not being easily defined has actually hurt his career in terms of commercial growth: I never wanted to be something you could easily define. I think, in some ways, that it’s held me back. I have a nice following, but I’m not huge. There are people who are huge, who are great, and deserve to be huge. I’ve never had that and sometimes I wonder, ”Well maybe it’s because I purposely don’t want to be a particular thing you can advertise or push.” That struck a chord with me. It puts into words my current feelings towards the job title “Design Engineer” — or any job title for that matter. Seven or so years ago, I would’ve enthusiastically said, “I’m a Design Engineer!” To which many folks would’ve said, “What’s that?” But today I hesitate. If I say “I’m a Design Engineer” there are less follow up questions. Now-a-days that title elicits less questions and more (presumed) certainty. I think I enjoy a title that elicits a “What’s that?” response, which allows me to explain myself in more than two or three words, without being put in a box. But once a title becomes mainstream, once people begin to assume they know what it means, I don’t like it anymore (speaking for myself, personally). As Brian says, I like to be difficult to define. I want to have more perspectives. I like a title that befuddles, that doesn’t provide a presumed sense of certainty about who I am and what I do. And I get it, that runs counter to the very purpose of a job title which is why I don’t think it’s good for your career to have the attitude I do, lol. I think my own career evolution has gone something like what Brian describes: Them: “Oh you’re a Designer? So you make mock-ups in Photoshop and somebody else implements them.” Me: “I’ll show them, I’ll implement them myself! Now what are you gonna do?” Them: “Oh, so you’re a Design Engineer? You design and build user interfaces on the front-end.” Me: “I’ll show them, I’ll write a Node server and setup a database that powers my designs and interactions on the front-end. Now what are they gonna do?” Them: “Oh, well, we I’m not sure we have a term for that yet, maybe Full-stack Design Engineer?” Me: “Oh yeah? I’ll frame up a user problem, interface with stakeholders, explore the solution space with static designs and prototypes, implement a high-fidelity solution, and then be involved in testing, measuring, and refining said solution. What are you gonna call that?” [As you can see, I have some personal issues I need to work through…] As Brian says, I want to be more interesting. I want to have more perspectives. I want to be something that’s not so easily definable, something you can’t sum up in two or three words. I’ve felt this tension my whole career making stuff for the web. I think it has led me to work on smaller teams where boundaries are much more permeable and crossing them is encouraged rather than discouraged. All that said, I get it. I get why titles are useful in certain contexts (corporate hierarchies, recruiting, etc.) where you’re trying to take something as complicated and nuanced as an individual human beings and reduce them to labels that can be categorized in a database. I find myself avoiding those contexts where so much emphasis is placed in the usefulness of those labels. “I’ve never wanted to be something you could easily define” stands at odds with the corporate attitude of, “Here’s the job req. for the role (i.e. cog) we’re looking for.” Email · Mastodon · Bluesky

21 hours ago 4 votes
We'll always need junior programmers

We received over 2,200 applications for our just-closed junior programmer opening, and now we're going through all of them by hand and by human. No AI screening here. It's a lot of work, but we have a great team who take the work seriously, so in a few weeks, we'll be able to invite a group of finalists to the next phase. This highlights the folly of thinking that what it'll take to land a job like this is some specific list of criteria, though. Yes, you have to present a baseline of relevant markers to even get into consideration, like a great cover letter that doesn't smell like AI slop, promising projects or work experience or educational background, etc. But to actually get the job, you have to be the best of the ones who've applied! It sounds self-evident, maybe, but I see questions time and again about it, so it must not be. Almost every job opening is grading applicants on the curve of everyone who has applied. And the best candidate of the lot gets the job. You can't quantify what that looks like in advance. I'm excited to see who makes it to the final stage. I already hear early whispers that we got some exceptional applicants in this round. It would be great to help counter the narrative that this industry no longer needs juniors. That's simply retarded. However good AI gets, we're always going to need people who know the ins and outs of what the machine comes up with. Maybe not as many, maybe not in the same roles, but it's truly utopian thinking that mankind won't need people capable of vetting the work done by AI in five minutes.

8 hours ago 3 votes
Requirements change until they don't

Recently I got a question on formal methods1: how does it help to mathematically model systems when the system requirements are constantly changing? It doesn't make sense to spend a lot of time proving a design works, and then deliver the product and find out it's not at all what the client needs. As the saying goes, the hard part is "building the right thing", not "building the thing right". One possible response: "why write tests"? You shouldn't write tests, especially lots of unit tests ahead of time, if you might just throw them all away when the requirements change. This is a bad response because we all know the difference between writing tests and formal methods: testing is easy and FM is hard. Testing requires low cost for moderate correctness, FM requires high(ish) cost for high correctness. And when requirements are constantly changing, "high(ish) cost" isn't affordable and "high correctness" isn't worthwhile, because a kinda-okay solution that solves a customer's problem is infinitely better than a solid solution that doesn't. But eventually you get something that solves the problem, and what then? Most of us don't work for Google, we can't axe features and products on a whim. If the client is happy with your solution, you are expected to support it. It should work when your customers run into new edge cases, or migrate all their computers to the next OS version, or expand into a market with shoddy internet. It should work when 10x as many customers are using 10x as many features. It should work when you add new features that come into conflict. And just as importantly, it should never stop solving their problem. Canonical example: your feature involves processing requested tasks synchronously. At scale, this doesn't work, so to improve latency you make it asynchronous. Now it's eventually consistent, but your customers were depending on it being always consistent. Now it no longer does what they need, and has stopped solving their problems. Every successful requirement met spawns a new requirement: "keep this working". That requirement is permanent, or close enough to decide our long-term strategy. It takes active investment to keep a feature behaving the same as the world around it changes. (Is this all a pretentious of way of saying "software maintenance is hard?" Maybe!) Phase changes In physics there's a concept of a phase transition. To raise the temperature of a gram of liquid water by 1° C, you have to add 4.184 joules of energy.2 This continues until you raise it to 100°C, then it stops. After you've added two thousand joules to that gram, it suddenly turns into steam. The energy of the system changes continuously but the form, or phase, changes discretely. Software isn't physics but the idea works as a metaphor. A certain architecture handles a certain level of load, and past that you need a new architecture. Or a bunch of similar features are independently hardcoded until the system becomes too messy to understand, you remodel the internals into something unified and extendable. etc etc etc. It's doesn't have to be totally discrete phase transition, but there's definitely a "before" and "after" in the system form. Phase changes tend to lead to more intricacy/complexity in the system, meaning it's likely that a phase change will introduce new bugs into existing behaviors. Take the synchronous vs asynchronous case. A very simple toy model of synchronous updates would be Set(key, val), which updates data[key] to val.3 A model of asynchronous updates would be AsyncSet(key, val, priority) adds a (key, val, priority, server_time()) tuple to a tasks set, and then another process asynchronously pulls a tuple (ordered by highest priority, then earliest time) and calls Set(key, val). Here are some properties the client may need preserved as a requirement: If AsyncSet(key, val, _, _) is called, then eventually db[key] = val (possibly violated if higher-priority tasks keep coming in) If someone calls AsyncSet(key1, val1, low) and then AsyncSet(key2, val2, low), they should see the first update and then the second (linearizability, possibly violated if the requests go to different servers with different clock times) If someone calls AsyncSet(key, val, _) and immediately reads db[key] they should get val (obviously violated, though the client may accept a slightly weaker property) If the new system doesn't satisfy an existing customer requirement, it's prudent to fix the bug before releasing the new system. The customer doesn't notice or care that your system underwent a phase change. They'll just see that one day your product solves their problems, and the next day it suddenly doesn't. This is one of the most common applications of formal methods. Both of those systems, and every one of those properties, is formally specifiable in a specification language. We can then automatically check that the new system satisfies the existing properties, and from there do things like automatically generate test suites. This does take a lot of work, so if your requirements are constantly changing, FM may not be worth the investment. But eventually requirements stop changing, and then you're stuck with them forever. That's where models shine. As always, I'm using formal methods to mean the subdiscipline of formal specification of designs, leaving out the formal verification of code. Mostly because "formal specification" is really awkward to say. ↩ Also called a "calorie". The US "dietary Calorie" is actually a kilocalorie. ↩ This is all directly translatable to a TLA+ specification, I'm just describing it in English to avoid paying the syntax tax ↩

5 hours ago 2 votes
How should Stripe deprecate APIs? (~2016)

While Stripe is a widely admired company for things like its creation of the Sorbet typer project, I personally think that Stripe’s most interesting strategy work is also among its most subtle: its willingness to significantly prioritize API stability. This strategy is almost invisible externally. Internally, discussions around it were frequent and detailed, but mostly confined to dedicated API design conversations. API stability isn’t just a technical design quirk, it’s a foundational decision in an API-driven business, and I believe it is one of the unsung heroes of Stripe’s business success. 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. Reading this document To apply this strategy, start at the top with Policy. To understand the thinking behind this strategy, read sections in reverse order, starting with Explore. More detail on this structure in Making a readable Engineering Strategy document. Policy & Operation Our policies for managing API changes are: Design for long API lifetime. APIs are not inherently durable. Instead we have to design thoughtfully to ensure they can support change. When designing a new API, build a test application that doesn’t use this API, then migrate to the new API. Consider how integrations might evolve as applications change. Perform these migrations yourself to understand potential friction with your API. Then think about the future changes that we might want to implement on our end. How would those changes impact the API, and how would they impact the application you’ve developed. At this point, take your API to API Review for initial approval as described below. Following that approval, identify a handful of early adopter companies who can place additional pressure on your API design, and test with them before releasing the final, stable API. All new and modified APIs must be approved by API Review. API changes may not be enabled for customers prior to API Review approval. Change requests should be sent to api-review email group. For examples of prior art, review the api-review archive for prior requests and the feedback they received. All requests must include a written proposal. Most requests will be approved asynchronously by a member of API Review. Complex or controversial proposals will require live discussions to ensure API Review members have sufficient context before making a decision. We never deprecate APIs without an unavoidable requirement to do so. Even if it’s technically expensive to maintain support, we incur that support cost. To be explicit, we define API deprecation as any change that would require customers to modify an existing integration. If such a change were to be approved as an exception to this policy, it must first be approved by the API Review, followed by our CEO. One example where we granted an exception was the deprecation of TLS 1.2 support due to PCI compliance obligations. When significant new functionality is required, we add a new API. For example, we created /v1/subscriptions to support those workflows rather than extending /v1/charges to add subscriptions support. With the benefit of hindsight, a good example of this policy in action was the introduction of the Payment Intents APIs to maintain compliance with Europe’s Strong Customer Authentication requirements. Even in that case the charge API continued to work as it did previously, albeit only for non-European Union payments. We manage this policy’s implied technical debt via an API translation layer. We release changed APIs into versions, tracked in our API version changelog. However, we only maintain one implementation internally, which is the implementation of the latest version of the API. On top of that implementation, a series of version transformations are maintained, which allow us to support prior versions without maintaining them directly. While this approach doesn’t eliminate the overhead of supporting multiple API versions, it significantly reduces complexity by enabling us to maintain just a single, modern implementation internally. All API modifications must also update the version transformation layers to allow the new version to coexist peacefully with prior versions. In the future, SDKs may allow us to soften this policy. While a significant number of our customers have direct integrations with our APIs, that number has dropped significantly over time. Instead, most new integrations are performed via one of our official API SDKs. We believe that in the future, it may be possible for us to make more backwards incompatible changes because we can absorb the complexity of migrations into the SDKs we provide. That is certainly not the case yet today. Diagnosis Our diagnosis of the impact on API changes and deprecation on our business is: If you are a small startup composed of mostly engineers, integrating a new payments API seems easy. However, for a small business without dedicated engineers—or a larger enterprise involving numerous stakeholders—handling external API changes can be particularly challenging. Even if this is only marginally true, we’ve modeled the impact of minimizing API changes on long-term revenue growth, and it has a significant impact, unlocking our ability to benefit from other churn reduction work. While we believe API instability directly creates churn, we also believe that API stability directly retains customers by increasing the migration overhead even if they wanted to change providers. Without an API change forcing them to change their integration, we believe that hypergrowth customers are particularly unlikely to change payments API providers absent a concrete motivation like an API change or a payment plan change. We are aware of relatively few companies that provide long-term API stability in general, and particularly few for complex, dynamic areas like payments APIs. We can’t assume that companies that make API changes are ill-informed. Rather it appears that they experience a meaningful technical debt tradeoff between the API provider and API consumers, and aren’t willing to consistently absorb that technical debt internally. Future compliance or security requirements—along the lines of our upgrade from TLS 1.2 to TLS 1.3 for PCI—may necessitate API changes. There may also be new tradeoffs exposed as we enter new markets with their own compliance regimes. However, we have limited ability to predict these changes at this point.

3 hours ago 1 votes
Bike Brooklyn! zine

I've been biking in Brooklyn for a few years now! It's hard for me to believe it, but I'm now one of the people other bicyclists ask questions to now. I decided to make a zine that answers the most common of those questions: Bike Brooklyn! is a zine that touches on everything I wish I knew when I started biking in Brooklyn. A lot of this information can be found in other resources, but I wanted to collect it in one place. I hope to update this zine when we get significantly more safe bike infrastructure in Brooklyn and laws change to make streets safer for bicyclists (and everyone) over time, but it's still important to note that each release will reflect a specific snapshot in time of bicycling in Brooklyn. All text and illustrations in the zine are my own. Thank you to Matt Denys, Geoffrey Thomas, Alex Morano, Saskia Haegens, Vishnu Reddy, Ben Turndorf, Thomas Nayem-Huzij, and Ryan Christman for suggestions for content and help with proofreading. This zine is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, so you can copy and distribute this zine for noncommercial purposes in unadapted form as long as you give credit to me. Check out the Bike Brooklyn! zine on the web or download pdfs to read digitally or print here!

yesterday 5 votes