The question of ‘do testers need to code’ is a little tired at this point. Alberto Savoia’s opening keynote for GTAC 2011 titled Test is Dead made a clear prediction of what he viewed was the future of testing. Elisabeth Hendrickson wrote this piece in 2010 based on data from job advertisements, not about the question of whether or not testers should code or not, but about what the market is demanding.
My opinion for a long time was that testers do not need to know how to program to be hired, or to be effective in their work. That was based on my experiences in the software industry from 2005 till today. My opinion is starting to change, but that isn’t because of dark foreboding keynotes or data from job advertisements. Most job advertisements are bad descriptions of what happens when someone gets to the keyboard.
So, I think that testers do need to learn some programming skills now. Let me tell you why.
I have been a cable cutter for more than a year now. Over that time we went from nothing but what comes over the antenna, to using ChromeCast to watch Netflix sometimes, to an Apple TV, and just a week ago we added the Amazon Fire Stick to the line up. Originally, we canceled cable as a way to save a few dollars a month on something that wasn’t really adding value to the household. With the variety of options outside of cable now, we might be nickle and dimeing that savings away.
Apple TV and the Fire Stick are the most recent, and most comparable products in our anti-cable TV arsenal. Having some time to use the Fire Stick now, I wanted to make a short review of the product and compare it to Apple TV for any of you out there that are thinking of canceling cable.
The software landscape has change, and somewhere along the way map designers messed things up for introverts.
I mean the literal landscape. Walk in a modern, with-it, software company and take a look around. Things are not like they were 10 years ago. Modern offices are built around forced, radical collaboration. The best examples of this are separate offices and cube farms being replaced by large rooms filled with long tables. Every one on the technical team now live and do their work in the same space.
This sounds like a productivity dream on the surface. Meetings disappear because everyone is already there, problems are solved fast because the people you need are just a table away. The reality is more like a dystopian future — noise, turf wars, and a general mess. Some people thrive on this, they like being around people and in the mix all of the time. Others though, people that are more introverted, tend to struggle because there is no refuge, nowhere to escape the constant murmur.
Let’s take a deeper look at why this new office topography may not last for every, and why it is hard for some people to work with.
Over the years I’ve done a fair amount of writing on #NoEstimates. Here on uncharted waters, then again, over at CIO.com, and again, and a few other places, here or there. I organized a couple of discussions at the Agile conference, one of them on the formal program.
Then, somewhere along there, I just … stopped. Perhaps it was because of the vitriol in the discussions. Two sides entrenched, not listening to each other, is not my idea of a fun time. Perhaps it was because of how little actual change I saw happening, the vast distance between the idyllic business novels and my clients. I saw some benefit to the predictive modeling work of Troy Magennis and Steve Rogalsky, and had some success myself in that area, but found myself slowly abandoning the hashtag.
After thinking deeply for a few years on the topic, and taking a couple years off, an idea or two has started to bubble in my mind.
I’d like to tell you about it. Continued »
A friend of mine gave a keynote at a conference a few years ago. I was there, and really enjoyed it, most people I talked with felt the same way. But, as always there were a few people that weren’t into it. Give talk to a large enough crowd, and there will be a few people that aren’t super excited about it. The interesting part wasn’t so much that a few people didn’t like the talk, but the kind of feedback he got. When asked, one person said “It just wasn’t that good” and didn’t offer anything else.
I was surprised that someone would give feedback in that way. Why would someone be so dismissive?
I have had my fair share of “it’s just not that good” and have been thinking a lot about it. Vague feedback is poison, so let’s find a little antidote.
In January I read a news report about the DeepSpec project that is being developed by a few universities through a NSF grant. The press release had some bold claims, specifically that this project might be the answer to many people’s dream of bug free software. I had as emotional reaction to that. Ever since software was a thing, people have been trying to make it bug free. But, no matter how detailed the specification is, or how much *DD the programmers use, or how good the testers are, there are bugs in prod. It’s just the way of the world.
Bug free software may not exist, but that doesn’t mean the DeepSpec research project isn’t interesting or potentially important. Princeton University in New Jersey announced a workshop on the project, so I put some skin in the game and went. Here is a little bit about what I found there.
For years we have been told that tomorrow’s CIO role will not be able to be just a technologist; the role will also require business skills. Of course, most of those articles were written by journalists, executives, and others who were less technical — “people people.”
In other words, tomorrow’s CIO will be more like the authors of the articles.
I always found it odd that the rhetoric continued, even when Larry Page and Sergey Brin turned out to do just fine at Google, or when companies like MySpace and Yahoo were destroyed by “business people.”
Most of the literature focuses on how people need to have business and communications skills to be successful in those roles. Today I would like to suggest something a little different – that system forces tend to pick people with those attributes, regardless of whether or not those things make them successful. In particular, the CTO’s role, which was designed to be technical from the beginning, ends up tugging any CTO to turn into a businessperson.
That might be good. It might be bad. I suspect, at the very least, it is what it is.
Let’s talk about why. Continued »
This morning I awoke to a notice that Justin Rohrman, my fellow writer on this blog, had posted a piece trying to explain where startup founders come from. Justin’s not “wrong”, in as far these things can be right and wrong – but as as a former worker at Socialtext, a once-silicon valley darling funded by DFJ, I thought my experiences might add a little flavor to the piece.
So here goes – Matt thoughts on where founders come from, and what that might mean for me, you, and society. Continued »
The American Dream is dead. But, only in the Princess Bride sense. The American Dream is mostly dead.
I have been spent the last year focusing on what it looks like to start a business and the question of where startup founders come from. The American dream says that anyone can come here with a buck and a dream and become a millionaire. There is also a cute saying that there are no poor people in America, only temporarily embarrassed millionaires. There is a touch of truth to both of those. If someone is ambitious enough, and not put off by risk, they might be able to take an idea and turn it into a business.
I am seeing a pattern in technology startups that is startling, though.
Last time I introduced my negotiation strategy, which shifts the work from in the moment haggling to research. It works well when both sides are honest …
What do you do when the other side is not honest, hiding information at best or actively misleading you?
Let’s talk about it.