Unit Testing, Agile Development, Leadership & .NET - By Roy Osherove
Not to hold Oren Eini up as the only shining example of open-mindedness, but he does a pretty good job of outlining the benefits of TypeMock here:
ayende.com/.../Use-the-right-tool-for-the-job.aspx
And he even says he would add support for mocking statics to Rhino Mocks in a heartbeat:
ayende.com/.../Would-I-add-static-mocking-to-Rhino-Mocks.aspx
On the other hand, I think the "Alt" part of Alt.NET will continue to result in further duplicity due to its "underdog against the man*" emotionally motivated tendencies.
* where "the man" == "commercial" || "Microsoft"
This type of duplicity is largely responsible for me being dubious about whether or not ALT.NET applies or should apply to me as a software developer who uses .NET frequently. Whether or not ALT.NET is a good thing depends on how you define it, and here are the various definitions I see, and my take on each of those.
1. Theoretical: ALT.NET is about using the best tool/methodology for the job, regardless of where it comes from, and preferring principles and knowledge over tools and process.
- I like it - sign me up.
2. Heritage: ALT.NET is the new name for the NHibernate gang, and is a loosely affiliated club of alpha geeks.
- I have no opinion - doesn't apply to me.
3. Practice: ALT.NET is about bashing Microsoft and their tools (and various other commercial software vendors), as well as any developers that aren't tuned into ALT.NET and/or the favorite TOOLS of the ALT.NETers.
- Not interested.
My impression is that much of ALT.NET hides behind definition #1 while tending toward definition #3 in practice. I am conflicted in my feelings toward ALT.NET because I can't figure out what in the heck it ACTUALLY stands for, what membership really means, and what the acceptance criteria is. Perhaps I'm making this more complicated than it needs to be, but then again, I am a (software) engineer. ;-)
Respect to you Roy for bringing these points up, even though you obviously knew it would generate a lot of flamers. These are issues that need to be discussed openly and if the .NET community does not constantly evaluate itself in a critical manner it will not move forward and progress.
Does ALT.NET == Open Source. I don't think it should really, but I get that impression as an outsider?
Roy,
The essential objection to frameworks like TypeMock revolves around the employment of certain things at test time that we don't use at runtime.
In Ruby, open coding is part of the language. It's used at runtime as well as at test time. Class mocking in Ruby is much less of an end run around the nature of the languages and runtime that TypeMock is, even though they appear to look the same from a higher level perspective.
I'm not a big fan of attributes either, but in the case of Castle ActiveRecord, the use of the attributes is closer to the primary concept and concern of the classes in which they are used than Unity's (or StructureMap's for that matter) use of attributes for dependency wiring.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the release of the mapping DSL's for NHibernate that are currently works-in-process in the community. And, I appreciate the DSL's that are presently available for both Castle Windsor and StructureMap.
These configuration languages treat the aspects that they address with cohesive artifacts rather than scattering cohesive aspect information all over a codebase. I'm not saying that every instance of aspect configuration in the sphere should be moved to configuration languages, but we're finding that some are better served with this approach as opposed to what we were doing two or three years ago.
It's not an issue of big, chunky, black and white issues. We're getting into the finery of exactly and precisely when and where to use certain mechanisms in .NET to achieve the best possible design outcome. The factors in play are often so subtle that they are glossed over and dismissed as "negligible" or "undifferentiable".
We're finding that these subtle differentiations that lead to even subtler improvements yield huge advantages to agility and productivity when applied to a codebase as a whole rather than merely considered in isolation as mere canonical design principles.
Certain kinds and uses of metadata are fine, other's not so much. It depends on the type of design problem addressed with the metadata, and often these differences are too fine to even conceive of or to even see.
Even a person who has felt the pain of a lesser design option may not give enough credence to it even though some concrete experience might suggest otherwise.
Negligible differences and changes applied as non-local optima are very valuable, but it takes a tremendous amount of immersion in experience with very small but pervasive pains to act accordingly.
Continuous improvement is all about having zero tolerance of any amount of sub-optimization once it has been recognized.
The future advances in agility are made of subtle mastery and fluency rather than the really obvious advances we made in the early years while merely building a collection of indiscriminate practices.
That said, the alt.net community is subtly but steadily devolving into an echo-chambered cargo cult of its own making, and I personally appreciate you're willingness to step up to the challenge.
Pat,
You're commentary is a quite a blatant mis-characterization of alt.net. This kind of opportunistic misrepresentation is usually fueled either by some sort of personal agenda or by not really getting deep enough into the context to have made more than a shallow analysis.
Your perspective would be sharpened with more personal and in-person interaction with the persons, principles, and practices associated with "alt.net".
The alt.net mailing list is categorically NOT the alt.net community, it's more like the alt.net community's drain pipe.
Oran,
There is absolutely an "underdog against the man" thing happening in the .NET world, and fortunately so. Although, you're representation of it trivializes the truth of the motivation and the process.
An ironic thing about groups that have 'questioning authority' as a central theme is that they often do not necessarily take kindly to having their authority questioned.
Alt.NET has always had a strong element of elitism and dogmatism. I think there are some people (Palermo leaps immediately to mind) who are aware of this and are sincere in wanting to change this.
Some people really do think that 'decoupled design is the only design which will result in long-term success' is equivalent to 'water is wet' and it's fine that they think that. It isn't true, but that's okay.
I think you do have to have a thick(er) skin if you are going to be involved in the alt.net community and not drink the kool-aid. They may just dismiss you and call you a dick (I mean, I am one so that has never bothered me), but that's okay too.
I look at my involvement in alt.net, both on the mailing list and in the Chicago area (<plug> CodeCamp coming in September</plug>) as mostly selfish. Learning to learn how to be a better developer from better developers that I am.
And if some people can't tell the difference between programming and religious dogma, entertainment for everyone.
FYI, Roy and I had (are having?) a conversation via twitter that is really great and we're working towards shared understanding.
Any perceived negativity in these comment threads should be treated as a limitation of blog comments-as-a-conversation-medium rather than any actual negativity.
John,
How are you going to be a better developer if you continue to refute software development fundamentals? You consistently point yourself out as something consistent with a Flat Earth Society of sustainable software development.
And let's not dress Jeffrey Palermo up in angel's clothing. He's a nice guy, but I wouldn't - and neither do many inside the knowledge space - consider him to be as knowledgeable on the subject matter as his actions and assertions in community portray him.
You're characterization of the alt.net community as elitist and dogmatic betrays your need to cover up for not being able to grok the material. That's quite a destructive form of elitism predispositions in itself.
Scott,
Which part of my commentary is a mis-characterization of ALT.NET? I offered three different definitions. My perspective is not actually fueled by a personal agenda. (Note that I do not and have never worked for MS.) It is actually fueled by an open question in my mind (as I stated in the comment) of whether or not ALT.NET is something I would be interested in associating with. Unfortunately, I am not able to add more 'in-person interaction with the persons, principles, and practices associated with "alt.net"' due to my present financial circumstances. Say what you will about that, but I would love to spend more time flying over all over hell to meet smart people like you, but that's not an option for me right now. Why is in-person interaction necessary to form an IMPRESSION on an online community like ALT.NET? Is it not enough to read the blogs, browse the ALT.NET website and keep tabs on the mailing list in order to form a mere IMPRESSION? (What happened to your blog, incidentally?) That's all my comment was meant to convey - an impression and a question. Your statement that my comment consisted of "shallow analysis" clearly missed the fact that my comment was in fact an open question, and the fact that you responded so defensively without knowing anything about me or my motivations speaks volumes.
If the ALT.NET mailing list does not represent ALT.NET, what does? How can the two be distinguished? Is it impossible to 'get' ALT.NET if you don't have thousands of dollars to spend on flying to various conferences (and having an employer who agrees that that's valuable)? If not, how do you expect the community at large to be able to discern the difference between the 'drain pipe', as you call it, and the real message of ALT.NET?
I assure you that I'm not a Glory Hound, or any other sort of software villain, so I would appreciate it if you treat me with a little professional courtesy if you choose to reply. Remember that people like me who read your various messages on the internet judge you and ALT.NET based on them, whether you like it or not, so when you publicly bash me for having the audacity to question whether or not ALT.NET is useful to the software community at large, please be aware that you're probably turning off at least ten more people who were thinking about possibly getting more involved with ALT.NET. (Who wants to be part of a community that is supposedly based on questioning norms and assumptions, at least in part, which cannot be questioned in and of itself?)
Regards,
Pat
Seems like you're bashing me for bashing you for bashing the alt.net community. And around and around we go.
The alt.net community is the people in the community rather than the artificially-constrained thin pipe that we are often forced to communicate with when we're not making the effort to meet in-person.
My blog is gone because I began to recognize that the kind of topics and subject matter we're addressing require high-bandwidth media, or at least they require much more human processing before attempting to distill and serialize to text.
We know now that at a certain level of discourse and subject matter that text-based interaction becomes damaging, and this is why we've committed to in-person community.
I'm financially-constrained at the moment as well, but there are creative means to solving this problem that are available to folks whose motivation presently rests in moving the communications and community ball beyond the hurtles that we've identified as detrimental to the further pursuit and realization of our potential.
Hi Scott,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I apologize that you felt that I was bashing ALT.NET - that was not really my intent.
What are the hurtles that have been identified as detrimental? As a UG (NBNUG) founder, I am certainly motivated by improving the state of our community. As such, can you give me more information about the "creative means" of becoming a part of the conversation, in person?
Thank you!
PatrickJosephGannon at yahoo
@Pat: well said. I'm with you, brother. BTW, he still didn't address your questions. I like option #1, and am interested. But if it's just one more stupid technology pissing contest then I'm outta here.
LOL. Sure Scott. I don't 'refute' software fundamentals, I simply don't accept that these fundamentals are always applied in the exact same way in all programming areas.
TDD/BDD, for instance, don't really apply to a lot of ELT processes and programs. Whether you think I grok the material or not is irrelevant.
I'm not the gloryhound you are so I don't really care where Palermo ranks according the latest alt.net internal polling. I was acknowledging merely his own acknowledgement of a common perception of the situation.
As much as you seem to complain about it, you are a major contributor to the echo chamber. Alt.Net is the people in the community.
Once upon a time, I was a very active (online) community member. I've even was awarded an MVP one year. Where was my home base? The ASP.NET forums. What drained me the most was users similar to "thona" (ah, famous Thomas) who were elite in their thinking, bashing any architectural grounds.
Then "community" crowd from the forums started to become "Web 2.0", that is blogging and commenting on blogs. The "community" moved out and the "idiots" moved in, and that's when I decided I was going my own way.
Now when ALT.NET started, I had a review on who was flocking there. I like the idea of point #1 that Pat said as the 'community slogan' but I can see that there are lots of hidden agendas, thus creating more noise than signal, more purse fights than ever before (which raises points #2, #3).
But most of all, I think there is a lot of snobbish "leaders" in the community. For example, you said that, as a member who will only realize the benefits if I meet the fellow community members. I thought the idea behind alt.net is to promote the *ideas* not the *people*... and I think you need some adjustment to your thinking about that.
Now I don't have a terrible view on every single person in the alt.net community. I'm sure they are there because they are enjoying themselves as a good, fun community. However, it's people who 'represent' the alt.net community like you Scott which doesn't help with the recruitments per say. In your comments, you tarnished (especially the way you addressed Pat) the reputation of a community with open ideas.
Total score of alt.net, in my mind, before I read this 5.5 out of 10. After Roy's post 6/10 (he was objective of the posts and *publicly* shunned them). After Scott's statements 5/10.
So well done Scott... now how's about answering that question of Pat's? The one about "My impression is that much of ALT.NET hides behind definition #1 while tending toward definition #3 in practice. I am conflicted in my feelings toward ALT.NET because I can't figure out what in the heck it ACTUALLY stands for, what membership really means, and what the acceptance criteria is. Perhaps I'm making this more complicated than it needs to be, but then again, I am a (software) engineer."
And here I am, still thinking that Alt.Net is just an alternate to the main group of popular people.
Justin,
If you're conflicted about alt.net, then make the effort to grok the people and their ideas.
Many of us have found that the best way to do this is to get out in-person and have high-bandwidth interaction and communication.
You've come to believe that all ideas can be serialized to text by all people. That's not the reality for all ideas and all people.
The internet and remoted communications aren't sufficient. Choose to believe it or not. My experiences reinforce this notion and so I choose to live by what I have found through experience and observation.
Pat's questions can be resolved much more quickly and much more meaningfully and thoroughly by his investing time to engage in the forms of communication that are most amenable to the answers he's looking for.
Take yourself by the hand and make the investment that I'm suggesting is the best - and often only - course of action.
To do otherwise is its own form of elitism - and it's a passive elitism, for which I have little respect or patience.
Grok? en.wikipedia.org/.../Grok
I have to grok it to get anything out of it ? That is setting the bar pretty high.
"Take yourself by the hand and make the investment that I'm suggesting is the best - and often only - course of action."
That is really starting to sound just like those neverending debates about the perceptions of elitism in the open source community.
You *need* to meet in person to convey the ideas? "High-bandwidth interaction"? Jeez. I think that Alt.Net is turning into an extreme cult of true believers divorced from business reality.
Sorry to jump in here with what may amount to a quick flame, but the tone of your posts sounds more like a religion than simply design methodologies. Maybe that elitism is what is turning some off.
Is this really coming from you?
"The alt.net community is subtly but steadily devolving into an echo-chambered cargo cult of its own making."?
You actually have the audacity to write that? You have been the single-most detrimental voice to alt.net. You left blogging because people finally got sick and tired of you issuing your decrees and expecting the peasants to follow (do we need even bring up renaming the newsgroup without caring what people thought?). Smart people realize that it's the people, not the processes, that contribute most to the success of a project. And smarter people realize you talk with others to garner agreement on what best practices might look like. You don't make decisions in some kind of 'elitist' vacuum like the world you live in.
I mean, come on, you immediately attacked Pat for his comments.
"You're commentary is a quite a blatant mis-characterization of alt.net. This kind of opportunistic misrepresentation..."
His whole point was that he didn't understand what alt.net is.
"I can't figure out what in the heck it ACTUALLY stands for..."
But how dare he possibly theorize that some things about it might not suit him. You immediately suggested that he was shallow and ill-informed. Typical.
I hope you continue to focus on face to face discussions, and leave the blogging (and commenting) to those who are reasonable and willing to talk to people, not talk down at people.
John
@John
Indeed Scott coming to your aid is somewhat like having someone pour gasoline on you to try and put out the fire.
For others ... Scott is not the voice of ALT.Net, he is one voice that attaches himself to that label. Somewhat like fervent lunatics attach themselves to well meaning religions.
He has decided the Internet isn't a good enough communication medium for him as he always comes across badly - perhaps he should heed his own advice.
@Scott
Great reply, that was a blog entry in its own right! :)
One thing I do disagree with is the idea that the discussion group is a 'drain pipe'. Given that people interested in ALT.NET are from all round the world you need something like an online forum. I will of course continue to make the effort to come to ALT.NET conferences, when I can, but for me the forum and blogs are very useful.
So, some comments of my own to add.
I got asked by some of the guys to come to the first ALT.NET conference. I have had the chance to sit and enjoy BBQ and Mexican food with Scott, Palermo, and others.
I have to agree with Scott on the high bandwidth thing. When we discuss topics we are very passionate about, it is very difficult to catch the nuances and ideals.
I have not been on the alt.net mailing lists, so I will refrain from discussing that community specifically. But it does seem that there are factions and fractions around these topics whose passion is fascinating to me. I never understand why people take such great offense to Scott's comments (even if I do think they can feel acidic at times), and at the same time, I wish I had the passion of Scott and Palermo and Roy and Ayende and the guys out there. I think that they are really trying to make things better in a lot of ways.
BTW, 'John' is not me. Though I agree with him.
"You've come to believe that all ideas can be serialized to text by all people. That's not the reality for all ideas and all people."
While this is hilarious, it may also be true.
I attended Scott's presentation on BDD in Seattle at the Alt.NET Open Spaces and it was very clear. Concise to the point.
That being said, somehow people have been able to discuss, oh, I don't know, the works of Plato, the Bible, The Bridges of Madison County, etc. by reading the texts and writing about them.
The idea that alt.NET can't be 'grokked' unless you talk to someone in person is a f%^king joke.
Scott's inability to explain almost anything he talks about in writing is legendary. So is his penchant for questioning the integrity and ethics of ANYONE who doesn't agree with him. Which is funny, given his own ethical status.
He should go back to Twitter and stick to one-liners.
jdn
Elitism in its own right can often be a more subtle form of duplicitous ethics, given that we grok together the significance of achieving community which is much more robust when serialized via human forms.
That said, I find myself questioning the veracity of the arguments when alt.net has conceived such a conundrum as we have discovered here.
Sorry...just had to say a bunch of words to make sure you know I am smarter than you.
I personally like Typemock. In recent times, i read around blog and heard from people that Typemock is too powerful to go at wrong hands. But i think tools should be such that even a little baby can play around it to learn new things and thats where Typemock is good and others are faling to do and making typemock look like useless. Also, support of Typemock is more than that other tools can even provide.
It's disappointing how quickly pragmatic solutions are derided and discarded in favour of vague "principles."
It would seem to me that the more principled approach would be to embrace pragmatic means and heuristics that get things done effectively.
@Scott. So is it Twitter a higher bandwidth (and higher availability, too :D) medium?