Andy Balaam from Andy Balaam's Blog
Slides: Snake in KotlinJS slides
Andy Balaam from Andy Balaam's Blog
Slides: Snake in KotlinJS slides
Timo Geusch from The Lone C++ Coder's Blog
I’ve blogged about setting up a WireGuard VPN server earlier this year. It’s been running well since, but I needed to take care of some overdue maintenance tasks. Trying to log into the server this morning and I am greeted with “no route to host”. Eh? A quick check on my Vultr UI showed that […]
The post Looks like I get to redo my WireGuard VPN server appeared first on The Lone C++ Coder's Blog.
The Lone C++ Coder's Blog from The Lone C++ Coder's BlogI’ve blogged about setting up a WireGuard VPN server earlier this year. It’s been running well since, but I needed to take care of some overdue maintenance tasks. Trying to log into the server this morning and I am greeted with “no route to host”. Eh? A quick check on my Vultr UI showed that the VPS had trouble booting. The error suggests a corrupted boot drive. Oops. Guess what the maintenance task I was looking at was?
Derek Jones from The Shape of Code
tldr; A paper makes various claims based on suspect data. A replication finds serious problems with the data extraction and analysis. A rebuttal paper spins the replication issues as being nothing serious, and actually validating the original results, i.e., the rebuttal is all smoke and mirrors.
When I first saw the paper: A Large-Scale Study of Programming Languages and Code Quality in Github, the pdf almost got deleted as soon as I started scanning the paper; it uses number of reported defects as a proxy for code quality. The number of reported defects in a program depends on the number of people using the program, more users will generate more defect reports. Unfortunately data on the number of people using a program is extremely hard to come by (I only know of one study that tried to estimate number of users); studies of Java have also found that around 40% of reported faults are requests for enhancement. Most fault report data is useless for the model building purposes to which it is put.
Two things caught my eye, and I did not delete the pdf. The authors have done good work in the past, and they were using a zero-truncated negative binomial distribution; I thought I was the only person using zero-truncated negative binomial distributions to analyze software engineering data. My data analysis alter-ego was intrigued.
Spending a bit more time on the paper confirmed my original view, it’s conclusions were not believable. The authors had done a lot of work, this was no paper written over a long weekend, but lots of silly mistakes had been made.
Lots of nonsense software engineering papers get published, nothing to write home about. Everybody gets writes a nonsense paper at some point in their career, hopefully they get caught by reviewers and are not published (the statistical analysis in this paper was probably above the level familiar to most software engineering reviewers). So, move along.
At the start of this year, the paper: On the Impact of Programming Languages on Code Quality: A Reproduction Study appeared, published in TOPLAS (the first was in CACM, both journals of the ACM).
This replication paper gave a detailed analysis of the mistakes in data extraction, and the sloppy data analyse performed in the original work. Large chunks of the first study were cut to pieces (finding many more issues than I did, but not pointing out the missing usage data). Reading this paper now, in more detail, I found it a careful, well argued, solid piece of work.
This publication is an interesting event. Replications are rare in software engineering, and this is the first time I have seen a take-down (of an empirical paper) like this published in a major journal. Ok, there have been previous published disagreements, but this is machine learning nonsense.
The Papers We Love meetup group ran a mini-workshop over the summer, and Jan Vitek gave a talk on the replication work (unfortunately a problem with the AV system means the videos are not available on the Papers We Love YouTube channel). I asked Jan why they had gone to so much trouble writing up a replication, when they had plenty of other nonsense papers to choose from. His reasoning was that the conclusions from the original work were starting to be widely cited, i.e., new, incorrect, community-wide beliefs were being created. The finding from the original paper, that has been catching on, is that programs written in some languages are more/less likely to contain defects than programs written in other languages. What I think is actually being measured is number of users of the programs written in particular languages (a factor not present in the data).
Yesterday, the paper Rebuttal to Berger et al., TOPLAS 2019 appeared, along with a Medium post by two of the original authors.
The sequence: publication, replication, rebuttal is how science is supposed to work. Scientists disagree about published work and it all gets thrashed out in a series of published papers. I’m pleased to see this is starting to happen in software engineering, it shows that researchers care and are willing to spend time analyzing each others work (rather than publishing another paper on the latest trendy topic).
From time to time I had considered writing a post about the first two articles, but an independent analysis of the data meant some serious thinking, and I was not that keen (since I did not think the data went anywhere interesting).
In the academic world, reputation and citations are the currency. When one set of academics publishes a list of mistakes, errors, oversights, blunders, etc in the published work of another set of academics, both reputation and citations are on the line.
I have not read many academic rebuttals, but one recurring pattern has been a pointed literary style. The style of this Rebuttal paper is somewhat breezy and cheerful (the odd pointed phrase pops out every now and again), attempting to wave off what the authors call general agreement with some minor differences. I have had some trouble understanding how the rebuttal points discussed are related to the problems highlighted in the replication paper. The tone of the medium post is that there is nothing to see here, let’s all move on and be friends.
An academic’s work is judged by the number of citations it has received. Citations are used to help decide whether someone should be promoted, or awarded a grant. As I write this post, Google Scholar listed 234 citations to the original paper (which is a lot, most papers have one or none). The abstract of the Rebuttal paper ends with “…and our paper is eminently citable.”
The claimed “Point-by-Point Rebuttal” takes the form of nine alleged claims made by the replication authors. In four cases the Claim paragraph ends with: “Hence the results may be wrong!”, in two cases with: “Hence, FSE14 and CACM17 canâ€™t be right.” (these are references to the original conference and journal papers, respectively), and once with: “Thus, other problems may exist!”
The rebuttal points have a tenuous connection to the major issues raised by the replication paper, and many of them are trivial issues (compared to the real issues raised).
Summary bullet points (six of them) at the start of the Rebuttal discuss issues not covered by the rebuttal points. My favourite is the objection bullet point claiming a preference, in the replication, for the use of the Bonferroni correction rather than FDR (False Discovery Rate). The original analysis failed to use either technique, when it should have used one or the other, a serious oversight; the replication is careful and does the analysis using both.
I would be very surprised if the Rebuttal paper, in its current form, gets published in any serious journal; it’s currently on a preprint server. It is not a serious piece of work.
Somebody who has only read the Rebuttal paper would take away a strong impression that the criticisms in the replication paper were trivial, and that the paper was not a serious piece of work.
What happens next? Will the ACM appoint a committee of the great and the good to decide whether the CACM article should be retracted? We are not talking about fraud or deception, but a bunch of silly mistakes that invalidate the claimed findings. Researchers are supposed to care about the integrity of published work, but will anybody be willing to invest the effort needed to get this paper retracted? The authors will not want to give up those 234, and counting, citations.
Chris Oldwood from The OldWood Thing
Like many other programmers Iâ€™ve probably added my fair share of caches to systems over the years, and as we know from the old joke, one of the two hardest problems in computer science is knowing when to invalidate them. Itâ€™s a hard question, to be sure, but a really annoying behaviour you can run into as a maintainer is when the invalidation appears to be done arbitrarily, usually by specifying some timeout seemingly plucked out of thin air and maybe even changed equally arbitrarily. (It may not be, but documenting such decisions is usually way down the list of important things to do.)
If there is a need for a cache in production, and letâ€™s face it thatâ€™s the usual driver, then any automatic invalidation is likely to be based on doing it as infrequently as possible to ensure the highest hit ratio. The problem is that that value can often be hard-coded and mask cache invalidation bugs because it rarely kicks in. The knee-jerk reaction to â€œthings behaving weirdlyâ€ in production is to switch everything off-and-on again thereby implicitly invalidating any caches, but this doesnâ€™t help us find those bugs.
The most recent impetus for this post was just such a bug which surfaced because the cache invalidation logic never ran in practice. The cache timeout was set arbitrarily large, which seemed odd, but I eventually discovered it was supposed to be irrelevant because the service hosting it should have been rebooted at midnight every day! Due to the password for the account used to run the reboot task expiring it never happened and the invalidated items then got upset when they were requested again. Instead of simply fetching the item from the upstream source and caching it again, the cache had some remnants of the stale items and failed the request instead. Being an infrequent code path it didnâ€™t obviously ring any bells so took longer to diagnose.
Design for Testability
While itâ€™s useful to avoid throwing away data unnecessarily in production we know that the live environment rarely needs the most flexibility when it comes to configuration (see â€œTesting Drives the Need for Flexible Configurationâ€). On the contrary, Iâ€™d expect to have any cache being cycled reasonably quickly in a test environment to try and flush out any issues as Iâ€™d expect more side-effects from cache misses than hits.
If you are writing any automated tests around the caching behaviour that is often a good time to consider the other non-functional requirements, such as monitoring and support. For example, does the service or tool hosting the cache expose some means to flush it manually? While rebooting a service may do the trick it does nothing to help you track down issues around residual state and often ends up wreaking havoc with any connected clients if theyâ€™re not written with a proper distributed system mindset.
Another scenario to consider is if the cache gets poisoned; if there is no easy way to eject the bad data youâ€™re looking at the sledgehammer approach again. If your cache is HA (highly available) and backed by some persistent storage getting bad data out could be a real challenge when youâ€™re under the cosh. One system I worked on had random caches poisoned with bad data due to a threading serialization bug in an external library.
The monitoring side is probably equally important. If you generate no instrumentation data how do you know if your cache is even having the desired effect? One team I was on added a new cache to a service and we were bewildered to discover that it was never used. It turned out the WCF service settings were configured to create a new service instance for every request and therefore a new cache was created every time! This was despite the fact that we had unit tests for the cache and they were happily passing .
Itâ€™s also important to realise that a cache without an eviction policy is just another name for a memory leak. You cannot keep caching data forever unless you know there is a hard upper bound. Hence youâ€™re going to need to use the instrumentation data to help find the sweet spot that gives you the right balance between time and space.
We also shouldnâ€™t blindly assume that caches will continue to provide the same performance in future as they do now; our metrics will allow us to see any change in trends over time which might highlight a change in data thatâ€™s causing it to be less efficient. For example one cache I saw would see its efficiency plummet for a while because a large bunch of single use items got requested, cached, and then discarded as the common data got requested again. Once identified we disabled caching for those kinds of items, not so much for the performance benefit but to avoid blurring the monitoring data with unnecessary â€œglitchesâ€ .
 See â€œMan Cannot Live by Unit Testing Aloneâ€ for other tales of the perils of that mindset.
 This is a topic I covered more extensively in my Overload article â€œMonitoring: Turning Noise Into Signalâ€.
Timo Geusch from The Lone C++ Coder's Blog
MongoDB has a handy command to rename a collection, db.collectionName.renameCollection(). There is currently no equivalent to rename a database. Now if we accept that from time to time, one positively, absolutely just has to rename a database in MongoDB, well, there are a couple of options. Unfortunately they aren’t quite as straight forward as single […]
The post How to rename a database in MongoDB appeared first on The Lone C++ Coder's Blog.
The Lone C++ Coder's Blog from The Lone C++ Coder's Blog
MongoDB has a handy command to rename a collection, db.collectionName.renameCollection(). There is currently no equivalent to rename a database. Now if we accept that from time to time, one positively, absolutely just has to rename a database in MongoDB, well, there are a couple of options. Unfortunately they arenâ€™t quite as straight forward as single MongoDB command. All methods for renaming a database in MongoDB also take a fair amount of time and/or disk space to complete. Keep this in mind when you try to use any of them.
Derek Jones from The Shape of Code
A very interesting article discussing SpaceX’s dramatically lower launch costs has convinced me that, in a decade or two, it will become economically viable to send people to Mars. Whether lots of people will be willing to go is another matter, but let’s assume that a non-trivial number of people decide to spend many years living in a colony on Mars; what computing hardware and software should they take with them?
Reliability and repairability are crucial. Same-day delivery of replacement parts is not an option; the opportunity for Earth/Mars travel occurs every 2-years (when both planets are on the same side of the Sun), and the journey takes 4-10 months.
Given the much higher radiation levels on Mars (200 mS/year; on Earth background radiation is around 3 mS/year), modern microelectronics will experience frequent bit-flips and have a low survival rate. Miniaturization is great for packing billions of transistors into a device, but increases the likelihood that a high energy particle traveling through the device will create a permanent short-circuit; Moore’s law has a much shorter useful life on Mars, compared to Earth. The lesser high energy particles can flip the current value of one or more bits.
Reliability and repairability of electronics, compared to other compute and control options, dictates minimizing the use of electronics (pneumatics is a viable replacement for many tasks; think World War II submarines), and simple calculation can be made using a slide rule or mechanical calculator (both are reliable, and possible to repair with simple tools). Some of the issues that need to be addressed when electronic devices are a proposed solution include:
There are lots of benefits from using the same cpu for everything, with ARM being the obvious choice. Some might suggest RISC-V, and perhaps this will be a better choice many years from now, when a Mars colony is being seriously planned.
Commercially available electronic storage devices have lifetimes measured in years, with a few passive media having lifetimes measured in decades (e.g., optical media); some early electronic storage devices had lifetimes likely to be measured in decades. Perhaps it is possible to produce hard discs with expected lifetimes measured in decades, research is needed (or computing on Mars will have to function without hard discs).
The media on which the source is held will degrade over time. Engraving important source code on the walls of colony housing is one long term storage technique; rather like the hieroglyphs on ancient Egyptian buildings.
What about displays? Have lots of small, same size, flat-screens, and fit them together for greater surface area. I don’t know much about displays, so won’t say more.
Computers built from discrete components consume lots of power (much lower power consumption is a benefit of fabricating smaller devices). No problem, they can double as heating systems. Switching power supplies can be very reliable.
Radio communications require electronics. The radios on the Voyager spacecraft have been operating for 42 years, which suggests to me that reliable communication equipment can be built (I know very little about radio electronics).
What about the software?
Repairability requires that software be open source, or some kind of Mars-use only source license.
The computer language of choice is obviously C, whose advantages include:
The operating system of choice may not be Linux. With memory at a premium, operating systems requiring many megabytes are bad news. Computers with 64k of storage (yes, kilobytes) used to be used to do lots of useful work; see the source code of various 1980’s operating systems.
Applications can be written before departure. Maintainability and readability are marketing terms, i.e., we don’t really know how to do this stuff. Extensive testing is a good technique for gaining confidence that software behaves as expected, and the test suite can be shipped with the software.
Allan Kelly from Allan Kelly Associates
I feel compelled to write this blog because I keep coming across the wrong type of Product Owner. I feel bad about writing this blog because a) Iâ€™ve made these points before in other forums so Iâ€™m repeating myself, and b) at the end of the day you, your team, and your organization, is free to define and use any title you like for any role you like, you are free to define any given role as you like.
So let me set out my model of a Product Owner and then at least there is a model to compare any other definition with.
Our old friend the Triangle of Constraints can help here – also know as â€œThe Iron Triangleâ€ and pictured above (I like to call it the FRT triangle). Now notice the version I use is slightly different from the more common model:
Now the number of people you have is fixed in the short term, or to be more accurate: it is upward fixed. People can get ill or resign at anytime but adding people takes time. So in the short run one can consider that dimension fixed.
Time is also fixed. There is usually a business deadline, or rather a business benefit which is time elastic so you have a date to aim for. And on agile teams there are sprint deadlines (two-weeks, two-weeks, two weeks). So a large part time is fixed.
The final side of the triangle is labelled features or functionality, but might be labelled â€œrequirementsâ€, â€œthe whatâ€ or â€œwhat are we buildingâ€ – I like to think of it as the demand side.
With me so far? – so far that should be uncontroversial.
Now the traditional Project Manager role, and to a lesser degree the newer Delivery Manager role, tend to regard the third side – the what side – as fixed. There is a thing to be delivered. It is a known thing. It has been decided on and the managerâ€™s job is to get it delivered.
To this end Project Managers are trained to regard the â€œthing to be builtâ€ as a given, preferably fixed, thing. Their training centres on the other sides: cost and time. They are trained both in rationing these commodities and allocating them in an efficient way. When things go wrong these managers ask for more time (which means more money because the same people need paying) or more people (which both costs more and makes things worse because of Brookâ€™s Law).
So to summarise: traditional Project Managers focus on â€œwhenâ€ and the input variables: people/resources and money.
Can you guess what Iâ€™m going to say next?
Product Owners – plus Product Managers and Business Analysts – focus on the â€œwhatâ€. What do we need to build next? What has the most benefit? What should we be building for the future?
For Product Owners the time and people are fixed. (This is most obvious in an agile environment but is actually true everywhere sooner or later.)
The thing being built is negotiable, the desired outcome may be achieved by different routes, different technologies and different solutions – the different time and cost will be a consideration but outcome is the primary focus.
In other words: Product Owners are all about the what.
In order to operate in the what-space product owners need authority and legitimacy to flex what they are building. When they donâ€™t have that they are reduced to backlog administrators simply ordering the backlog and feeding it to technical teams. That turns the role into a type of Project or Delivery Manager.
So if you need to tell a real Product Owner from all the other misinterpretations of the role ask:
Real product owners can answer Yes to all three.
(Notice Iâ€™m deliberately being careful in what I say about â€œDelivery Managers.â€ This role is still emerging and as such its wrong to generalise about it too much. In so much as a Delivery Manager brings management skills, communication and organization to an effort it can be a positive role. When a Delivery Manager is relabelling of the Project Manager role it can be damaging.)
Now that said, the fact that some organizations choose to define the â€œProduct Ownerâ€ role as a role closer to â€œProject Managerâ€ or â€œDelivery Managerâ€ rather than a role closer to â€œProduct Managerâ€, â€œBusiness Analystâ€ or (heaven forbid) business owner causes a lot of confusion.
Perhaps Iâ€™m wrong here, perhaps the â€œProduct Ownerâ€ is a type of â€œdelivery managerâ€ but I think the majority of writers, thinkers and practitioners agree with me.
Even if you disagree with me I hope we can agree on one thing: because there are different interpretations and implementations of the role there is room for confusion; and that confusion makes it harder to fill the role and harder to be seen as a successful Product Owner.
Like this post? – Like to receive these posts by e-mail?
Subscribe to my newsletter & receive a free eBook â€œXanpan: Team Centric Agile Software Developmentâ€
New book: The Art of Agile Product Ownership
The post Product Owner: all about the what appeared first on Allan Kelly Associates.
baron m. from thus spake a.k.