Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've noticed many questions on here from new programmers that can be solved using libraries. When a library is suggested, often times they respond "I don't want to use X library" Is it the learning curve? or ? Just curious!
A lot of new programmers are still working at a very low level of abstraction, learning the trade. That's something everyone has to go through. It takes a while to "move up the stack" so to speak.
Once programmers realise that they spend most of the time solving the same problems as someone else already did, and the goal is to realise "business value", then they can really appreciate the value a good library brings.
When you're still learning the ins and outs of a new language, also having to learn how to use a 3rd party library can look like too much work. Also, libraries tend to be badly documented - or at least have documentation that seems totally opaque to a new(er) programmer.
So, faced with trying to solve problem X, saying "use a library" can sound a lot like "solve problem Y THEN problem x".
(Also, their professors told them not to. I managed to get all the way though my undergrad in C++ without learning the STL existed. Boy, did THAT cook my noodle.)
Some people, when confronted with a
problem, think “I know, I'll use a
library.” Now they have two
problems.
Seriously - this is a reasonable way for a newbie, already overwhelmed by new language, programming environment, paradigms, keystrokes, etc. to react to the suggestion to use a library. If you've got a solution, but it's not working, there are many potential sources of error; sorting through them is a challenge. Adding to them can seem irrational.
"Use a library" means find the library, download it, install it in your project, and call the necessary function. Not hard, if you're used to it (and there aren't corporate policies against it, and you have reason to trust the vendor, and the library itself has minimal dependencies, etc.). But if it's all new to you, when you ask a programming question and get back a system configuration answer, it can seem unhelpful (even if it is not, in fact).
Almost always it's because their professor has told them that they can't.
Sometimes it's just because they want to learn it themselves, but I'd say that's rare.
It's the learning curve.
Using libraries is probably one of the worst things a learning programmer can do. Instead of learning how to code, they're learning how to use specific APIs that other people implemented. I'm not saying that every programmer has to understand every single thing that they use, but programmers who know the ins and outs of a computer (digital logic, assembling op-codes, etc) usually have an edge over people who've started with something like Java Swing and are just throwing together libraries.
In production, this is a different matter of course. But I think the best course of education is to 'make everything' once, at least. Writing my own web application framework from the ground up really improved my programming skills and abstract abilities. Doesn't mean I'll use that framework if someone hires me to build them an application, but I know the strengths, weaknesses, and reasons behind the things that the 'giant' frameworks use, and it can help me choose a particular framework for a particular situation.
I remember shying away from several libraries simply because I wanted to see if I could create my own algorithm. I didn't want to just give up and let someone do the work for me but rather I wanted to learn from my mistakes. Once I had come up with a solution I was happy with, I looked into the libraries.
So for me it was simply wanting to see if I could do it.
I always have this urge to do it myself, but sometimes I can see my own limitations.
Just recently downloaded a library to create PDF documents, but thats pretty much the only time I can remember.
At least for me, (trying to) do things myself, is my way of learning.
My impression is that many newbie programmers wouldn't consider it their own work if they were to use someone elses libraries.
I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. Using libraries is great; it saves time, effort, bugs, etc. However, you learn very little in the process, and for new programmers, learning is the goal. To answer the question, I think that they tend to shy way from libraries simply because they are not used to using them and perhaps they don't know that they exist.
For many poorly documented libraries that are either implemented loosely or in languages that don't allow you to control containment and visibility very well, it can be quite difficult to guess just how the library is supposed to be used.
After you've used it for a while, you've gotten used to the quirks or read other source code that taught you the right way; but until then it can be pretty irritating to use a poorly put-together/designed library. (or even a well designed one that isn't terribly well documented).
If you don't have the source code to the library, that's another problem--you have no control over the ability to keep your program working. This is much more rare these days, but still happens in the case of a purchased library.
Most of the points covered off (for me the main one is the learning curve) but one other I think plays a part:
Because learning about a library is less exciting than coding the same functionality yourself.
More libraries = less billable hours.
I think there's a lot of time that needs to be invested in understanding the library's purpose - yes, a learning curve, but it's more that newbie programmers probably don't know what they need until they have a lot more experience.
Because it's fun.
Because part of maturing as a developer is learning to quickly identify problems which can be solved by a library or existing solution and which need personal attention.
When you're trying to learn how to do things, anytime something is accomplished "magically" by calling AwesomeClass.doAwesomeStuff(), you end up giving away a portion of control. When you are "new" and don't know what you're giving away or why it can be unsettling. This was my primary knock against Rails when I was first learning it. So many things just "worked" and I didn't know why without digging through lots of Rails source (which I generally didn't have time to do).
At least, that's my take on it.
The same reason that more experienced developers do -
Because it can often be as difficult to learn how to use a library as to write the part of it you need yourself. And at least then you can understand how it works when it doesn't do what you expect.
An experienced developer just has experience at understanding how to use libraries so more likely to consider it. An inexperienced developer it's one more thing to learn...
I'm a programmer, not a psychologist! :)
It was a long, long time ago for me, but it was because I wanted to learn and experience. I didn't want to use something I did not understand, so if I didn't think I understood the library and could program it myself, I tried not to use it. There might have been a bit of fear too; programming gives you a feeling of control, and using a library is like giving away this control.
Answer from a noob -
"I am not sure how to use the libraries or even how to access them or how it works"
Libraries often come with the overhead of learning some API and it's paradigm. It can get complex fairly quickly, and I could easily understand that beginners would prefer something a bit more in their comfort zone. From my experience, I found most libraries & frameworks seem to do a great job abstracting some tedious routine, but when I need to either extend this functionality, or use it in a way that's not intended, it can be a handful.
I think it's one of those things where "practice makes perfect".
Well, the newbie's purpose might be more solving the problem than implementing a solution. Perhaps what they really want to do is figure out how to solve the problem. I mean, if they're still heavily in the learning phase, it's quite possible they don't want easy answers handed to them.
I think the professors want them to stick to the basics. When I graduated from under-grad school, I knew C++, Java and some other languages but had no clue about libraries and frameworks being used in companies. It was like do you know java..yes..can you write a servlet..no.
For speed demons they rarely use 3rd party libraries and new programmers are usually looking to squeeze every once of speed of of their code. I think if they don't have control over their code they can't get the performance that they are looking for. At least thats why i avoided libraries when I first started to program.
I remember programing my first DAL and avoided all the other free libraries out on the web because I wanted my code to perform at top speed. Later, I discovered that usually its not the code thats the bttleneck its actually the database.
Some open source libraries are buggy or not as efficient as others.
In my eyes another factor is that additional libraries add complexity. Programs tend to get harder to understand, harder to maintain and buggier when getting more complex. I think what makes especially new programmers shy away from libraries is that adding library code increases complexity more than adding your own code - simply because understanding how the library works is still out of their grasp. So it seems to be a problem of both skill and psychology.
I think more fundamental issues can be recognized as a deterrant to using existing libraries.
Part of this as "newbie programmers" is a lack of exposure to libraries. If you don't know they exist, how do you know to use them?
Number Of Options Available. Let's say I'm really interested in learning more about MVC, but if I have to choose between cakephp and smarty and zend and ... well you can quickly see the gears work to discover a way to achieve the goal without investing the time experimenting. Take a look at Freshmeat or SourceForge to get a better understanding at the daunting selection of libraries available.
Questionable support combined with sketchy/outdated documentation for the libraries. Do I want to use this tool that may no longer work or may be abandoned in the future? It is likely that a project will evolve, and so it will for the project of a library too. Will its usefulness last the lifetime of my project or will I be required to re-do this work again?
Using a library requires you to understand the relatively complex design of the library, something that new programmers might not have mastered because all they've ever written is simple/procedural/single-purpose code. For example, to an experienced programmer standard design patterns like template method, observer and command seem pretty obvious, but to a newbie it all just seems like magic and/or unnecessary complexity. For me the turning point was when I got good enough to grok design patterns and write some basic reusable code.
It's been a long time now, but when I came out of college, I knew nothing of libraries. This was in the days of mainframes and mini-computers. Our college had a VAX and the managers were paranoid about students hacking the system, so didn't allow us to even see the library manuals. So, when I first came out of college, I didn't even think of libraries being available.
I am sure there are a lot of reasons why the newbie doesn't want to use the new library. But wouldn't this be a good opportunity, if you have enough time, to show them what the advantage of using the library is? With the people I work with, I will usually provide an example of why something is better than their approach. It helps them learn and mature as a programmer.
Happens that noobs use Libs without knowing, but when they must import/add one that is fairly less documented, there is a fear of unknow. That happens mostly for compiled langs!
In the interpreted, (or compiled IRT), mainly when there is a console, such fear is almost non-existent; since you can require and see if it fails, call a method and see what it returns.
Consoles are tools of bravery !
Here's what I'm wondering. Every night that our 3 months old baby lets us sleep, I jump to my computer and start coding my hobby projects. I have about 20 different projects that I'm working on: different types of projects, from C++ games to web apps along with some contribution to open source projects. It's truly a passion and has been for a lot of years.
Yet, when I look back, I see that I haven't been able to fully complete one of my hobby projects. I've always done the prototypes and setup the most important features, but with time instead of finishing my project I end up switching to another project that seems "so much cooler" at the moment. Hence I usually end up with buggy and incomplete games that have no end nor story, 3D engines that have the fastest PolygonDraw routine ever, yet lack to implement anything else, etc... The list is long. I think I must have written unfinished Pong over a hundred times different!
I've been told that the remedy is to write specs for my hobby projects.
On one hand, I write a lot of specs at work. I know how crucial they are for defining a product's roadmap and staying within schedule. On the other hand, specs and hobby project just quite don't seem to go along! It seems to me that the learning curve to building a game is actually what makes it fun; not the game itself. Hence the fun of losing time restructuring an entire engine, the fun of creating the most useless features, and so on...
So here comes the question: Do you ever write specifications for your hobby projects? How are they different then the ones from work? How do you manage to complete your hobby projects?
I'd be glad to know while I work on my new project: a piano sonata generator :)
I don't think writing specs is the solution to your problem. Clearly, your "hobby projects" are things that you find fun. You write the fun parts but then avoid the not fun parts that would be necessary to complete something.
If you're just "programming for fun" then good, you're succeeding. I don't think writing specs is fun.
If you really want to "finish" something, the best way isn't to write a spec, it's to not jump to another project when the fun factor dips.
It is all about 'Self project management' ... even for fun.
I feel for you ... I used to have many repos that tended to all get stuck at around revision 200 or so.
Here is what used to happen, because I didn't do enough planning, after around 200 commits, things get messy and need a rewrite ... then interest disappears because it seems like too much hassle.
I learned to write my own specs for personal use
to
Give me focus to get the job done, and not go off into feature creep lane
Remind me what I am working towards
To have great ideas before I get coding
Keep thing more fun for a longer time
For me, writing my own specs is vital to getting anything done!
You wouldn't start a business without a plan would you?
For personal projects I have tons of moleskine books filled with rough specs and ideas. When they mature, they migrate from the note books into real documents and the coding begins.
BIG EDIT: On a drive for personal efficiency and, to get projects finished. I read "Getting Things Done" ... Despite all the hippy crap about 'psyche' and various levels of mind (which im sure is not based in any science) the tips are very good.
I don't get too complicated, but listing out all of the features and requirements that you want included in your application really does help. As with most hobby projects you often don't just sit down and code them straight through for 2 months and finish them. It's an hour here, two hours there, etc. Basically it's very common to forget what you were working on last and what the original purpose of this super great idea for an application was.
If you spend a few hours writing down specs and requirements it will be very valuable to you 6 months down the road when you get some free time or your ADD switches to that project and you try to remember what it is this was suppose to do.
I just found out recently that writing specs is really the thing I need to get my projects done.
I've been a bit like you, tons of projects, jumping from one to the other and never getting things finished. Until about 6 months ago, when I started to actually write specs and have a kind of roadmap for my projects.
All that I can say is that, it actually works, because you break your projects into smaller steps, just like a race with checkpoints, and when you start to mark the checkpoints as done, it feels good, addictive and your focus will be on the finish line.
This way, you get to keep only 1 or 2 projects at the same time, but actually finish them. And of course, you have the extra and pretty valuable bonus of keeping up with the project even if you don't touch it for about a month or more. The specs will always be there to remind you of the goals and purposes of your project.
This is just my personal experience, and I believe that you should give it a try. Hopefully it will workout for you too.
I've been able to do some hobby projects and finish some of them. I try to finish them all but some i just cant muster.
The reason i think is that the amount of details that are needed to finish a projects are so many that it goes from a passion project to a chore of a project.
What helped me finish most of mine is that they stayed a passion until the finishing touches were left. So i just plowed through them.
Will a spec help, to some degree yes. They get you further into the project but almost always there's a point where the passion fades and you look for the next shiny object.
It doesn't work for me! Infact whenever I'm writing up specs I'm generally making the projects even bigger, and less likely to be finished.
Sometimes the best way to do it is to just do it.
Ze Frank explains this much better than me:
http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/07/071106.html (video link with swearing)
EDIT: Just to add. If you are finding you want to leave your half-finished project for a new, grand idea... do it! Don't look back!
Completion is not a requirement for your own pet projects. Nobody will blame you for not finishing stuff that barely anyone else would even bother starting.
The reason you started was because of passion. That is very important. You should not force yourself to 'slog through' in your free time. You will drain your passion which is your most vital resource.
I usually write a first set of spec when I get started.
I'm also a big fan of paper thinking, so I'll draw screens, UML, diagrams, flow charts, design elements... It's just a matter of defining the scope of your project and be able to watch what you had in mind. It really helps me think.
These documents will be my specs for the whole project. I will add others as I go, but I'm not trying to maintain the old ones as much as I would have it it was a work project: I know where I'm going and I can keep track of the changes looking at my code.
Of course, some of my hobby projects are done collaboratively. In these cases, I write down more specs in order to have a better communication with my team and I try to keep documents such as DB Diagrams up to date.
I also have several hobby projects that I have not finished. I have about 10 and have written a specification for exactly one of them, the largest in scope (also a game).
I have not finished either the ones without specifications, nor the one with. I think this is because I never publish the work or show it to anyone so it remains full of bugs and never 'finished.
I suppose that this means that regardless of whether or not you have a spec, it will not affect the success of the project as much as other factors, like having the time, motivation, help, and having confidence.
The single best thing I've ever found to help move towards completion is to have someone else working on the project with you. Find a friend (or two) who is interested in the same thing and design/code it with them. Not only do you have someone to bounce ideas off of, but you've also got someone to motivate you, not to mention progress is twice as fast so you'll hopefully finish before you give up :)
Of course, it requires source control, but you were already using that for your projects, right? :)
Do you want to finish them?
I think it's reasonable to never finish a hobby project. You can just keep working on it as long as you live. Aciddose has been working on his virtual instrument xhip for years, stubbornly never getting to 1.0, making the instrument patches people program worthless from one release to the next. Yet he and the users of his softsynth seem to be having a grand time.
Maybe if you just aim for a "release" and not being "finished" you'll be more satisfied. Betas let you keep dreaming.
Yes and no. I write notes in a notebook as I'm thinking about it, and add to it as I implement it. It is a somewhat different process from work projects where someone else may have to see the spec.
I finish about half of what I start.
I've helped with development on a range of systems from safety critical avionics to throwaway personal projects like a Sudoku solver. Obviously with the avionics systems, specifications were critical to the safe operation of the system and to prevent killing somebody, but I've never bothered with my personal projects.
I think this is because specs are generally boring to read and write. Joel wrote an interesting article about this, and how to make them better if you do write them:
Painless Functional Specifications
Unfortunately I haven't had the guts to try making my specs more fun to read at work yet.
Maybe intead of writing specs you should try working on some projects for or with other people? That could provide some external motivation. I do some web devleopment for my cousin's drive in theater, and if they need a feature they won't stop asking me about it until I finish it.
The single biggest piece of advice I could give you would be to get something out there - make the spec for your first version small enough that you actually feel you can complete it, even though it won't have nearly all the features you want.
Once you get something out there, the pressure from users of your software will be enough to hopefully keep you going on it. It also ensures that the direction you take in development is the same direction your users want you to go.
If you don't actually get any users, then don't feel so bad about dropping the project - if nobody is interested, it probably isn't worth pursuing.
If pressure from your users isn't enough to keep you focused, then open source it. If there's enough interest in it, somebody else will pick it up where you left off, and you are free to move on to bigger and better things.
Unfortunately, after writing specs for the core of the DIFL engine (don't bother looking it up, as there's no trace of it outside my home systems), I still didn't finish it up.
Short answer: developing specifications for a hobby project is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee completion.
That being said...
I keep an engineering notebook for all of my personal projects. I use the notebook to capture all sorts of things about the projects on which I work. This includes project motivation, valuable resources leveraged during the project, things developed over the course of the project that might potentially be reused later, key insights gained, etc. etc. It also includes, more to your question, specifications for most of the projects. I employ an agile/lean approach to creating these specifications which, for me, is compelling from a cost/benefit perspective.
btw...I have many, many personal projects that did not culminate in a complete working system. Some of these I might get around to completing 'someday maybe'. I consciously chose to stop working on some of the others because they had served their purpose (e.g. introduced me to a new technology, helped me better understand a language feature, etc.) Continuing to crank away at projects like these would have led to diminishing returns so I chose to reallocate my time to projects I felt were higher leverage.
The real question is: what is your hobby? Is it finishing a project, or tinkering. If getting the last ten yards is a chore, you have to decide if it's worth it to you. Writing detailed specs will work; so will self-flagellation if you're into that sort of self-discipline. Nothing will make it easy if it's against your make-up, so you have to decide whether the end-goal is worth anything to you.
And, just to demonstrate that there is nothing programming-specific about this point, you might really like this guy. One of the main points in his work is that conceptual artists, such as Picasso and Da Vinci never really cared about the final execution--the idea was everything, and, having asserted it, they were strangely content with someone else finishing the actual work or leaving the sketch unfinished and unpublished.
I'm not sure that writing specs is the solution to your problems (or mine which seem similar) however in the case where I want to make something more than a throwaway experiment there are a few things that help me slightly without taking the fun out of it.
Specs really are quite tight and should be technical but for a hobby approach you could write up a little bit of something similar much more loose that outlines some of the things you would like to feature and shows how they fit together in a sort of design draft. Though not as detailed or restrictive as a proper spec it might help to keep the tinkering leading in the right direction.
Secondly you could break it down and depending on your time allowances maybe add a few goals in. If you focus on building one part of the project as a time breaking it into subprojects that can be linked together at the end, it gives a feeling of progress as you move from part to part rather than feeling like you have been working on the same thing for ages and can't be bothered any more. It works if you tick it off on a list, since usually it has to happen atleast mentally anyway.
In saying this if your goal is to play with certain concepts and not actually create a final product then you probably won't because you aren't working towards it. One way might be to take the above mentioned idea of breaking it up and then find a way of adding something personally interesting into each part that bores you, maybe trying to add a challenge into it or something.
I'm not particularly experienced still learning, but this is how I keep my tinkering together(sometimes unless I hit a total block cause by inexperience) and how I've approached many multimedia and web projects on a hobby basis in past years. Though the guy who said open-source it when you get bored and let someone else pick it up, that was a good idea if you want to see your code used but have satisfied your personal goals.
I have much the same problem. One thing I've noticed that HAS helped though, is lowering my ambitions. like WAY WAY low. Writing a spec is one way to reign in the ambitions, if you have some kind of limiting rule for the spec, like "The spec can only be one page", or "the spec can be no longer than 300 words long", or "Spec only something that I can get done in one day of coding". Getting the balance right can take some practice. If you go with the last limit, you can impose the rule of MANDATORY dismissal of the project if you can't finish it in one day.
The nice thing about this, is it limits you to achievable goals. This might sound really stupid or wrong at first. Or maybe it sounds reasonable, but you just can't help it, you wanna do amazing things, not ordinary things! Not small things that you can only get done in a few hours!
but keep this in mind:
“A complex system that works is
invariably found to have evolved from
a simple system that worked. The
inverse proposition also appears to be
true: A complex system designed from
scratch never works and cannot be made
to work. You have to start over,
beginning with a working simple
system.”
—John Gall
It is SO MUCH easier to make that ambitious project, if you already have a FINISHED and WORKING project to base it on. Then the "more complex thing" CAN be a project that fits in a day. This is the ideal and philosophy I'm working towards, because I think it has the best chance of succeeding. Looking at past successful projects, the vast majority of them evolved in this way, whether it was intentional or not.
What helps me a lot is to split a new feature into small tasks that could each be done in an evening hacksession. So if I have time, I simply pick one task from the list and just finish it. This is often enough to get "in the flow" and do "just one more".
I do this only for one feature at a time so I don't get distracted by all the other cool things I could add to my application.
I constantly write specs for my projects, in work, at university and outside in my free time. The biggest weakness of a programmer is his/her memory, so I find it good to keep myself busy during my thinking time by writing down my every thought into some sort of structured document. Before you know it you've written a full database schema or have a Requirements Specification.
At the moment I'm working on improving my SQL skills, and I've been spending a lot of this free time between writing queries writing down my experienced. After a couple of tweaks I had a decent document outlining what needed to be done.
I think the core problem is not the lack of specs, but rather that finishing something (anything) is hard.
It is hard work. It may seem as if your program is 90 % done. But doing those last 10 % (rooting out all bugs, getting the application to release quality, writing documentation, etc) requires as much work as the first 90 %. And if you want to be serious about marketing your program, answering support emails, fixing other people's bugs, that's more work still. And perhaps not the kind of work you are most interested in.
It is also hard mentally. An unfinished project has unlimited potential. It is an empty canvas where you can project your unbridled ambitions, lofty ideals and revolutionary thoughts. Once it is finished and made real you have to see it for what it is. Limited. Flawed. Never as pretty as the idea that spawned it.
That said, finishing something can also be very rewarding. You learn a lot, get a reality check on your ideas, the satisfaction of having completed something and you get to see what other people think of your work.
Some advice:
Make sure that you really want to finish the project. I.e., that the rewards are worth all the hard work. (If not, then accept that fact and remain a happy tinkerer.)
Find ways of motiviating yourself through the "boring" parts. Specs, maybe, if it keeps you focused. But find whatever works for you, whether it is ticking of todo-items, rewarding yourself with a cookie or dreaming of fame and fortune.
Release early, release often. The more you save for a "big release" the bigger is the chance that that release never happens.
First release, then rewrite. When you feel the urge to do a major rewrite, do a release first, then do the rewrite (if you are still up for it). Software is never perfect. If you strive for perfection without any pressure to release your half-baked (but existing) code, then you will never be done.
Most hobby projects of mine don't really get finished either. As long as I'm working on something and learning though I don't think thats a problem. Currently I'm not writing specs, but I am practicing/training TDD. I bring it up as I write tests that are the specs. Some days I'll sit down and just create a bunch of tests outlining what the software should do. Some days I make those tests pass. Its enjoyable in that I don't have to keep the code all in my head, and at any point I can sit down and make further progress by fixing the broken tests. Things just work, its kind of surreal.
Joel's article about the Evidence Based Scheduling works for me. Though I implemented it differently.
The idea is to break the project into small tasks and give estimates, then make a forecast when your project will finish based on the time the finished tasks took to finish them.
You may think your project will take years to finish, but actually from the estimate it's just two months or less. If you work more and finish tasks quickly, you will see the finish date coming earlier.
I think the most motivating thing to proceed forward is seeing the goal coming closer you run towards.
Plus: create something you will use later. Using stuff gives you incentive to improve it later.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
As a programmer I sometimes find myself in the position of being dealt a task which is utterly tedious and downright boring. This is not surprising, it would be odd if all aspects of programming were fantastically challenging and fun, but that doesn't change the fact that I wish I could live without these types of assignments.
For the most part, I manage to just power through by simply finishing the task as quickly as possible, but other times it's just not that easy. I find myself doing anything but finishing the boring assignment, taking on multiple other assignments if I have to, just so I get a reason for not finishing. This is of course affecting my professional life, as I'm constantly jumping from challenge to challenge, leaving a trail of unfinished blah behind me.
How do you cope with coders coma? Are there any tips on how to be more productive when it comes to finishing boring stuff?
I quite like Steve Pavlina's timeboxing method to get rid of tedious tasks. It applies whether you have boring code monkey work to be cracking on with or a pile of junk in the closet at home you need to sort through.
tl;dr of the link: Timeboxing means allocate a time slice, then work, cutting out what would put you behind. It is meant to get rid of the motivation for procrastination, by not making the tedious task take up more time than it is worth. Besides tedious tasks, timeboxing can be used to make a dent in something complicated enough that you don't know where to begin.
One thing that I do when I know I'm putting off doing something (either by doing other tasks or just slacking in general) is to write down a schedule on a piece of paper for what I'm going to do for that day. It sounds stupid, but try it. Just write down what you're going to do and in what time range. The feeling of crossing an item out on your list is great, but the feeling of throwing out that entire list is even better.
If the task is tedious because it is repetative, I write a program to do the task for me. ;-)
Pass it on to one of the Interns
I generally try to solve the problem in a new way. For example use something you've just learned. Obviously expects bug and longer development time, but at least it'll be still fun.
Or you can just hire some cheap programmers from the other end of the world to finish the job for you :)
Amp...lots and lots of Amp....a good sugar buzz is all the motivation I need sometimes...
Nobody mentioned the Pomodoro technique. Timebox 25 minutes where you want to be absolutely undisturbed, turn off email, phone, IM client, etc.
It's amazing how much you can actually get done when working only on one thing :)
More info on this page about the pomodoro technique
There's no one simple way. The worst thing to do is to start multitasking to avoid tackling the boring stuff. The best way by far is to just do it as soon as possible and as quickly as possible, to get it over with. This becomes a problem if the task is pretty huge, say a weeks or even months worth of work, since it's really difficult to motivate yourself to work with tedious crap day-in, day-out.
Then again, it's all part of the job. You could as well be working at a Kwik-e-mart or sweeping floors somewhere. Tedious tasks need to get done too, unfortunately and there's no quick and easy way out of it.
A). Try and do something new as part of the boring task. That could be writing it in a new language or using a different framework technology. Recently I tried scratch-writing a Restful-MVC framework into .NET 2.0 for example.
B). Split my time 50/50 with an interesting project, always deferring the interesting stuff to the afternoon (better to coincide the stimulating work with that lethargic mid-afternoon brain-fail cycle)
C). If you really just have to get through it, treat yourself with things outside of work so you don't get too depressed. Junk food, sleep, xbox time, whatever. Hopefully your partner is accommodating :)
I usually offer one of my daily prayers (salat) and after that I said to myself, "You not going home until you Finish that, Whatever the task, or for however long you need to stay at office."
Break the task into atomic pieces (as far as possible) and then follow ryeguy's advice of task lists. I like to use the 'Getting Things Done' approach (GTD), and just incorporate the pieces of that task into the rest of my work. Breaking it apart helps minimise the boredom and using a structured task methodology makes sure I still get it all done.
At the end of the crap task, reward yourself and use that as a driver for future tasks of the same ilk.
When I get like this, I think of what a Great man had to say: If not now, when? And I just do it. I find that waiting to get motivated to do things will get me nowhere. I also find that doing things, even when I don't want to, gets me motivated to keep going and to continue working on my project.
Break up the task into less-annoying chunks.
Occupy your brain as much as possible: if the task only requires 20% of your intellect, you can probably listen to CNN radio (in some other language that you've studied, for instance) in the background. If it requires your full concentration, listen to whatever music you can without getting distracted.
Avoid simple carbs (sugars especially). This is personal, but I find that they cause me to crash and need a nap. Which is good sometimes.
Fight with your husband/wife/friends/etc. beforehand. This will make it very hard to focus and then boring tasks are a godsend.
Many times, repetitive tasks are better coded than performed. I end up writing a huge amount of "code" in Excel/OpenOfficeSpreadsheetThinger (Excel writes Ruby, etc. perfectly :) and using global find and replace in Netbeans. This might take longer the first few times, but these are tools that you need to learn to use.
If it applies and is possible, I try to explore a technology or methodology to peek my interests. However, this is not always possible.
I too have also found that breaking some huge, boring, or daunting task into smaller, easier to swallow tasks works best.
I pour the green stuff from a glow stick into my Mountain Dew.
I don't get coder's coma. I get mismanaged paralysis, where I do nothing because I'm afraid that any move is wrong.
It may not be the answer people are looking for here, but I sometime write programs to automate these stuff!
I have become pretty fluent in a few different languages now, but I seem to have a hard time actually figuring out the best way to go about solving particular problems. What are some ways to go about getting better at the actual problem solving of programming.
Experience. Solving something completely new is hard. The best way to solve problems is to try and find a problem that you've solved before, and that is similar, and adapt you solution to the new problem. So until you have experience with many different kinds of problems, it's hard to solve new problems that you come across. Visiting sites like this and reading questions and theirs answers are a great way of learning how others solved problems that they encountered.
Basically, "just do it". When you have to make a choice, just make any choice (except flipping a coin).
Once you have something that works, then sit back and scratch your head about what you did wrong and how to do it better.
If you have absolutely no clue how to do even that, just solve a part of the problem completely and move on.
I suggest checking out this book. They aren't the best kid on the block, though they want us to think they are...but they did well with Basecamp.
When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.
So, make sure you're well versed in algorithms and data structures. When you study them, think hard about what sort of uses a particular algorithm is good for.
Ask someone else. Someone in your office, on Twitter or SO, or even your wife. People with no technical knowledge often come up with simpler solutions.
If you must solve it on your own, try one of these others:
Do a quick search for another person or project which has tried to solve your problem. If they have a blog, documentation or source code, you might be able to learn from their implementation.
Come up with at least TWO solutions and pick the best one.
Pretend you have 15 minutes to solve the problem before the civilized world is destroyed by Nuclear War / Skynet / Permanent endless re-runs of Seinfeld, you might think of something much simpler which gets 99% of the work done.
The book is a set of heuristics to go through when solving a problem. Read about it on Wikipedia. Buy it on Amazon.
By solving actual problems. Practice makes perfect.
If you have time to become fluent in multiple languages, my guess is that you haven't spent much time doing any actual work. If you have a job, it might be time for a new one. If you're still in school, do you have any interest in starting a project for yourself or contributing to one that you use regularly?
It might help to know what kinds of problems you're having difficulty solving.
Go find an open source or free project you can get excited about and contribute. I learned a lot by signing up to code for my favorite video game modification.
Experience.
Study really only goes so far. Find something fun and small. Do it.
One way that seems to work for a lot of people is to pick use a book like Programming Challenges as a guide, and focus on solving problems of a particular type. For example if you're weak in an area like graph problems or dynamic programming, find a set of problems on an online judge and work through them. You'll start to recognize patterns and be able to classify problems.
Google for an answer. Chances are someone else has solved the same problem or a similar problem before.
Ask on SO. :)
Read some textbooks or online articles about design patterns.
Problems may have many solutions, some simpler and some more complicated. Don't get stuck thinking there is only one solution. Just go with the simplest solution that makes the most sense in the context of your application.
After years of experience you'll be able to think of your own solutions to most problems. :)
Study Algorithms!
Search and get a hold on as many examples, books on the subject programming or otherwise, etc.
Problem solving skills can also be improved by playing tactical games.
These made me Enjoy problem solving and become better (not necessarily good) at problem solving:
Chess and igo
I like this general method:
List the possible solutions with their strengths and weaknesses
(This will push you to briefly taste all of them)
Chose the best one and make your design on it
(If you find any heavy obstacle, reconsider other options)
Implement
most importantly, on every step, learn
The best way is probably to learn form a master if that's an option. Especially if you can find someone familiar with the problems your addressing.
Generally the more tools we have at hand the more options we have for tackling a problem. I agree that's important to always code and to always deliver something that works (however inelegant it is). But I think we need to increase our skills/knowledge in many directions:
Language skills (know your language(s) in depth)
Programming paradigms (Imperative, Object, Functional)
Framework knowledge
Algorithms
Patterns
Date-Structures
Methodologies (Agile, DDD, BDD, ?DD)
Tools
etc
You can get a lot of skill through on the job just-in-time-learning, but I usually have a pet subject at any time that I'm trying to get a deeper understanding of, typically this means getting the book and reading it cover to cover.
Work your way through Project Euler, and look at other people's solutions to the problems. Almost every problem will have been solved in a way that wouldn't have occurred to you, and usually with greater efficiency.
I think that there is a lot more than raw experience involved in becoming a good problem solver - because I've seen poor problem solvers with lots of experience.
Here are a few tips but you can find many more around the web.
Look at a number of problems and
figure out what they have in
common. The greater the generality
with which you understand the
solution to a problem, the more you
can apply it to other problems.
Try to discover approaches which
good problem solvers use to solve problem. But don't assume anyone has monopoly on problem solving
If you read Richard Feynman's
books, you'll notice that he
considers many different routes to
get to his goal. Don't narrow your
approach prematurely
Be positive. Assume that you can find
the solution to anything. Your state of mind matters. Enjoying the process of problem solving makes it much easier
Don't beat your head against the wall. If you don't
seem to be making progress with one approach, try another approach
Always be looking for more ways of
solving problems and more insights
into the process of problem solving itself
Be willing to work. It still can take a lot of effort solve some problems
The more different fields of study you know, the more viewpoints you have. I have a strong math background and I find it very useful for many problems. Physics, music or any different viewpoint might be useful
Practice solving problems.
Take an algorithms or discrete math course.
Here some tools that I've used in the past to help me understand a particular problem and its solution. I don't always use them today, but they helped me to learn how to think about breaking down a problem and coming up with a solution.
Class-Responsibility-Collaboration (CRC) cards
One card per class, details the responsibility of the class and what other classes it collaborates with. Using cards you can layout your design for the solution and see where you have too much coupling or too much responsibility. They allow you to think about the design in a lightweight manner before committing to code.
Use cases
Either actual structured use cases that describe user interaction with the system or even briefer stories or story cards. I still use stories, though I capture them in a wiki instead. This allows you to capture the interaction with the system in an informal way. Stories are basically placeholders for conversations that you need to have with the customer about what is supposed to be done. Using the collected stories, you start getting a grasp on the overall intention of the code. You can also start seeing how things interact and what works with other things. This is really the beginning of design.
UML Diagrams - particularly interaction diagrams
For awhile I used these a lot. It really helped to see how things actually worked together under the hood. I will still diagram, informally, some complex interactions to make sure I don't miss anything important. Going through a lot of these really helped me to think about how my objects interacted and now it is sort of second nature to think in terms of interactions.
Class diagrams -- a really high level view of the code.
These allow you to see your code structurally, especially if you can break the diagram down into components or layers of architecture. Mostly I use these now to explain the code to other people when necessary. When starting out these provide a pretty good visualization, though, if you're struggling with the bird's-eye view of the code.
The best advice I can give you if you try these is to follow the "rules" until you really have a good grasp of what is going on. Once you feel like you have a better understanding of what they provide, you can use them or not, or modify how you use them to keep only what is helpful and let the other stuff go.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Lately, I've been going through a pretty weird phase. I feel the need to write/rewrite all the tools I use ( text editors,IDE's,libraries/modules ) and I don't know why . Even though this can be seen as a good thing ( because I learn alot of things in the process , and my software design skills are improving constantly ) ,
the weirdest part is that I throw away all the code after I'm done, so I kinda work in vain. I'm never satisfied with the code I write. Have you been experimenting this too? How did you get over it?
It sounds like you're driven by one of a couple different possible "syndromes" (or maybe more than one).
Not invented here syndrome (NIHS). This is where nobody's code is good enough, or does things in the way you want them done. So you think you can do it better.
How Does It Work? Syndrome (HDIWS). This where you are fascinated by a program and want to understand how it works, so you basically get down to writing it yourself.
Biting off more than you can chew syndrome (BOMTYCCS). This is where you think "That can't be too hard to do, so i'll just write it myself then I know what it's doing". Then, you get partway done with it, enough to make it kind of work, and you realize that your code sucks and that you made too many compromises to get it done quickly, so you throw it away.
Too cheap to buy it so you figure you can build it cheaper syndrome (TCTBISYFYCBICS). The name speaks for itself. The problem is that you get partway done, then you realize you've fallin into #3 above and think your time is worth more than whatever it is.
I have suffered from all of these, and more.. (Like the classic "Need to create an acroynm for everything syndrome (NTCAAFES)" ;)
I do this all the time (well, except for the throwing away part). Personally, I started to do this early in my programming learning (when I was a student); it got the point where I would examine the Java core source code and if I didn't like it, I would make my own/extend it. It got to the point where the running class joke was that I was going to reinvent Java.
Personally, I never got over it... Instead I found new ways to use the to my benefit. For example, rather than simply reinventing things, I found that there were things that I wanted that were/are not available anywhere else, so I would make them for myself. My first such project was a chat program. Sure many existed, but this was the only one my teacher didn't know about (hehe). Sure learned a lot about networking protocols through it, but once it was "done", my first action was to send it to all my buddies and we would chat while the teacher was lecturing... Soon enough he found out about it and has since then forced all his students to turn their monitors off while he is talking, but it was fun while it lasted.
Since then, I have been continuing to come up with my own projects that are useful to me, have at least one aspect that I will need to learn along the way, and one or more aspects of there not being a current program that solves the problem for me for free.
So in all, I recommend that rather than trying to reinvent the IDE and then throwing your code away, try to find some project or problem that you would like to solve on your own and use again. I believe that dogfooding (using your own programs) is the best any programmer can hope to achieve.
Put whatever code you write in a website and make it open source.
Let others discuss the code and make it better.
This helps you to improve your coding skills while you are giving back to the community.
Later you will be amazed to find that your code got better than what it was when you left it.
I think the nature of us as programming species is to want to control everything. We're total control freaks. Everyone has tons of reasons not to trust someone else's work. Any given day at the office can be proof of that.
However, in general, you'll be wrong. Chances are that tool/library/IDE/whatever was developed by a team that put a lot more time in to it than you'll be able to. Sure, it has it's flaws from the outside, but by the time you're done with your version, you'll probably find that yours has a few flaws of it's own.
It's just something you have to come to terms with.
In hindsight, it's not an entirely bad habit. It takes you out of your normal programming area and gives you exposure to other problems. Ultimately you'll be more versatile for it. If you continue doing it from that perspective, and mix it in with real productivity, I think it's perfectly healthy.
I commend you on this. You wouldn't be a good coder if you didn't obsess about the perfection of your tools, and also wonder how they were made, so:
Don't waste too much time,
make sure you release whatever you can open source,
but I look at it like a Padawan building his/her own light saber. It has to be done.
If you are just duplicating your existing tools, there is little value. But if have an idea on how to make it better, even in just one way, its worth it.
This way at the end of it you'll have a slightly better tool and you won't just throw it away.
I went though a similar phase with tools, but then I got more interested in other topics like graphics and games.
I only write tools when it's going to save me time (or, of course, achieve more in the same time).
There's plenty enough application code to be written without wanting to write tools as well.
If you're doing it in your spare time, then each to his own, I guess, but I find that the need to make money from the code I write kinda focuses my mind on what's important.
We programmers are flow-junkies. We enjoy the mental states associated with problem-solving and progress toward solution. Sometimes, when the projects at work get bogged down -- for a variety of reasons -- its tempting to turn to side projects as a way to get the flow-fix.
This isn't necessarily bad, as long as you're sharpening your tools or learning something, and it doesn't take time away from other responsibilities (work or relational).
You opted for the red pill didn't you? Somebody should have told you NOT to do that.
The problem is that if you really really like computers, and you spend way too much of your life thinking about them, you get to this point where the entire random/irrational state of software development -- that arbitrarily complex working mess -- seems to be clearly far more convoluted than necessary, even if you don't know what necessary is yet.
There is underneath it all, a fabulously amazing tool just waiting to be set free. It teases you from time to time, hiding in various programs, embedded along with various bits of data. Tantalizing functionality, that if only you could find a real way to join it all together to make one big super-cool system, you could ...
It's that purely mathematical sense that computers could in fact be something wonderful, if only they didn't suck so much.
Now take the blue pill, and get back to work ...
It also sounds like you might be really dissatisfied with the other work you are doing. I find that when I'm not enjoying my job, I tend to find anything else to do, and will get especially fixated on things that I can excuse as not being time-wasters because they are, on the surface, productive. Things like going back and cleaning up code that was really a one-time only ad-hoc, rewriting what already works, and making my own "improvements" on tools. If I'm right, it makes sense that you would then throw it out/walk away/find something else because if you are only doing that to avoid doing other work.
I've experienced it sometimes. For example, when preparing HTML documents for publication, I felt compelled to write my own tool to do it just the way I want. It's natural to want to make the world better. If you feel that urge - I suggest you go for it.
I think this is probably a good thing, if it's not getting in the way of getting things done.
But don't chuck it, even if it's rubbish, put it on the net somewhere, and when somebody else tries to do the same thing they can see yours and at the very least avoid making the same mistakes.