Archive

Archive for the ‘Videos’ Category

RailsEnvy: Funny Geeky Videos on MVC and HTML

July 10th, 2009
Author: Adam Kahtava Categories: Videos, Web Standards Tags:

Cross Language Naming Conventions: Avoiding Verbosity In The Presentation Layer

August 29th, 2008

Most languages and technologies used in web applications come with their own unique naming conventions – which is unfortunate, but necessary, because diversity is important. Languages like JavaScript and PHP use camelCase, CSS uses-hyphenated-delimiters, and ASP.NET / Java / and the like adhere to the conventions used in their respective libraries and frameworks. Managing the different naming conventions in a web application can be difficult, but with discipline, embracing each language’s conventions can provide some great benefits.

A common mistake I’ve made in the past, was trying to make all languages adhere to a single convention. As a budding PHP / ASP developer I took the-single-convention-for-all-languages approach. In retrospect, I used this approach because I didn’t completely understand the language I was using, and in order to compensate for this lack of knowledge, I’d try to meld the languages into the mental model I understood best. This was a mistake.

Today, I find that working with the conventions of the language facilitates re-use (experts in the language understand what I’m doing), promotes portability (modules can be used across projects regardless of server-side technologies), encourages global collaboration (open source modules and plug-ins can be easily consumed and contributed to), and helps to a nurture a more maintainable application (developers from other language domains can easily maintain the application with a relatively small learning curve). Like a carpenter working with fine material, I embrace working with the grain of each language. It’s also fair to mention that breaking free from the monocultured (one-size-fits-all) approach to naming conventions provides a broader perspective, and also makes your development skills more universal – it might even open the door to different development domains in the future.

Then there’s the discussion on name length, verbosity, and using meaningful names. Steve McConnell suggests that the optimum name size for a variable or function is between 8 and 20 characters (Chapter 11, Code Complete), but with tools like ReSharper (for renaming / refactoring etc…) I find myself using names well over 30 characters. So names like GetApproveeTotalFromNamedBasket are a common occurrence in my code. However, like most things, verbosity does need balance (everything in moderation right?). In the business layer, descriptive names are a godsend – they jog my memory as I rediscover what the module I wrote last month was supposed to do. But… in the presentation layer languages (like JavaScript, CSS,  ASP.NET, or XHTML) you may want to reconsider using long descriptive names. Since verbose, long running descriptive names in the presentation layer are passed over the network and can degrade performance. Often times these verbose names are combined together – throw in ASP.NET name mangeling, start hooking in verbose CSS definitions, and then start inserting JavaScript events. All this compounds quickly and result in large page payloads filled with elements like the following:

<div id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolderForAllTheBestImprotantContent
 _PanelForTheBestReviews"
<a onclick="LinkButtonClick_ThankYouForTakingTheTimeToReadThis();" 
 id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolderForAllTheBestImprotantContent_
 RepeaterForAllMyFavoriteBookReiews_ctl00_
 LinkButtonMarkReviewAsFavorite"
 class="LinkFormatingCssClass SelectedLinkFormatingCssClass" 
 href="javascript:__doPostBack( 
 ctl00$ContentPlaceHolderForAllTheBestImprotantContent$ 
 RepeaterForAllMyFavoriteBookReiews$ctl00$LinkButtonMarkReviewAsFavorite'
 ,'')">Mark As Favorite </a> 

Note: That mess of code above would fire a JavaScript event then an ASP.NET event. It’s the result of placing an ASP.NET LinkButton, inside a Repeater, inside a Panel, inside a Masterpage, and adding a JavaScript event along with some CSS. We can see that using long names in the presentation layers results in a mess of text. It’s also fair to mention that the ASP.NET MVC Framework lets developers write cleaner presentation code.
Sure, everyone cites premature optimization as the root of all evil, and we do live in a world of gzip file compression and JavaScript minifiers. But… keeping names short in CSS, ASP.NET, and XHTML isn’t hard as long as you’re mindful of the final goal. Smaller names in the presentation layer will reduce the amount of data transferred over the network which increase the performance of the application.

Joseph Smarr of Plaxo.com once said:

Web applications are only slow if you let them get slow – Douglas Crockford, Alex Russell and Joseph Smarr: On the Past, Present and Future of JavaScript [30:00]

My preference (project requirements warranting) is to keep things short and concise in the presentation languages while using longer descriptive names outside the presentation languages. What’s your preference?

Living The High-tech Illusion: Software Development is Not Rocket Surgery

June 15th, 2008

#CalgaryBarCamp was swell. It was refreshing to meet such a diverse group of like minded people that all essentially do the same thing (create software), but do it in different ways using different tools, platforms, and languages. The ad-hoc discussions both in the bar and between sessions were my highlight. A reoccurring theme in our conversations was that technology, tools, and platforms don’t matter that much. What really matters is: people, communication, ideas, taking risks, and motivation.

The topic of our discussions reminded me of something David Heinemeier Hansson said when talking about software development:

You don’t need to be a f***ing genius to make any of this stuff work, it’s not rocket surgery! – David Heinemeier Hansson at Startup School 08

DeMarco and Lister also echoed this outlook back in the 80′s, and publicized: the High-Tech Illusion:

the High-Tech Illusion: [is] the widely held conviction among people who deal with any aspect of new technology … that they are in … high-tech business. [These people] are indulging in this illusion whenever they find themselves explaining at a … party, say, that that they are “in computers” … The implication is that they are part of the high-tech world. [These people] usually aren’t. The researchers who made the fundamental breakthroughs in those areas are in the high-tech business. The rest of us are appliers of their work.Peopleware : Productive Projects and Teams

If we were in the High-Tech business, then we’d be the bottom feeders (the parasites, the grunts), because our daily activities revolve around consuming other peoples research and work (programming languages, platforms, frameworks and the like). We are consumers, we’re not on the cutting edge nor are we in the high-tech world.

Perhaps building software could be much like outfitting yourself for a day in the snow. You head off to the local shopping mall, you acquire the functional items to keep yourself warm, but brands and store choice don’t really matter. Whether we’re buying winter boots or choosing a programming language, technology doesn’t really matter. There are an infinite number of ways to solve any problem, as well as an infinite number of technical permutations to form a solution. If we can solve the problem within the constraints of our problem domain then we’ve succeeded.

The High-Tech Illusion often permeates my world – I work as a Web Developer in the Microsoft realm. I continually see the High-Tech Illusion manifests itself in these situations:

  • Colleagues talking in vague opaque high-level metaphors that patronizingly shield you from the inter working of what they assume is beyond your comprehension
  • Fixations on specific tools, hardware, platforms, and methodologies while the problem that needs to be solved is diluted and any combination of these items could solve the problem
  • Colleagues that assume superiority and can’t acknowledge that knowledge is acquired through research and a continual efforts to improve

Pretentiousness in the software realm (in teams, organization, and so on) is usually the byproduct of someone that’s living the High-Tech Illusion.

I’ve been guilty of subscribing to the High-Tech Illusion. How does the High-Tech Illusion permeate your world? How can we get back to reality?

How Well Do You Know JavaScript?

January 13th, 2008

JavaScript is probably the world’s most popular and misunderstood programming languages and for good reason.
When a developer claims to know JavaScript this generally equates to one or all of the following:

  • “I know what JavaScript is, I can learn JavaScript in 30 minutes
  • “JavaScript is for kids, it’s a toy language, it’s easy”
  • “I just copy and paste my JavaScript snippets / scripts from the internet”
  • “JavaScript is just another programming language like C++, C#, VB.NET, or Java”

If thoughts similar to these have crossed your mind when sizing up your JavaScript knowledge, then you probably don’t know JavaScript.

I would argue that if you’ve never programmed in a functional programming language (like: Lisp, Scheme, F#), never read a GOOD book on JavaScript, or never watched a video on JavaScript, then you probably don’t understand JavaScript at all. JavaScript is starkly different than any other mainstream programming language.

When it comes to JavaScript, if you don’t understand the fundamentals then you’re only punishing yourself.

Here are some things every JavaScript developer should probably understand:

  • JavaScript, Mocha, LiveScript, JScript, and ECMAScript are all essentially the same.
  • JavaScript is a prototypically inherited (prototype-based programming) language which is very different than the classically inherited (class-based programming) languages like C++, Java, and most of the .NET languages – you know the difference between a prototype-based programming and class-based programming language.
  • JavaScript is a loosely typed language – you know the difference between strongly-typed programming languages and weak-typed or loosely typed languages.
  • JavaScript is a functional lambda language – you understand lambdas and that functions in JavaScript can be lambdas.
  • JavaScript functions can be defined inside functions, inside functions, inside functions, and so on – you can demonstrate this.
  • JavaScript uses function scope, has no curly brace ‘{}’ block scope – you understand that this is common attribute of most functional programming languages.
  • JavaScript has no private, public, protected assessors, no classes, no enums, no structs – you understand that all these language features can be achieved through objects and function closures.
  • JavaScript is classless, but instead it uses objects as general containers.
  • JavaScript makes use of garbage collection.
  • JavaScript uses truthy and falsy values – you understand which values are truth and falsy.
  • JavaScript makes use of the ‘nan’ (not a number) and ‘undefined’ values – you understand the difference between these values.
  • JavaScript has pretty good debuggers – you understand how to debug JavaScript from both IE (link) and Firefox (link).
  • You appreciate recursion, and understand that recursion is a useful technique in JavaScript.
  • You understand that JavaScript Namespaces should be used – you understand the importance of namespaces, and know how to create one (Namespacing Your JavaScript).
  • You know how to avoid the JavaScript pseudo-protocol (<a href=”Javascript:alert(‘hello’);”), and appreciate avoiding it.
  • You know how to avoid embedding DOM Level 0 JavaScript events (<a onclick=”alert(‘hello’);”) in your mark-up / document structure, and appreciate this technique.
  • You know that JavaScript can make use of two different event models (event capturing and bubbling), but we should only ever make use of bubbling.
  • You understand what JSON is and how it’s used.
  • You know how to keep you JavaScript, CSS, document structure separate, and appreciate non obtrusive JavaScript.

If any of these points seem foreign, then it may be time to learn JavaScript. With all the hype and buzz around Web 2.0 and AJAX it could be a great way to augment your career while broadening your programming language vocabulary.

Great resources for learning more about JavaScript:

Videos:

Books:

Links:

Author: Adam Kahtava Categories: .NET, AJAX, ASP.NET, CSS, DOM, Firefox, IE, JavaScript, Software, Videos Tags:

JavaScript is awesome: I want to work with Douglas Crockford!

September 16th, 2007

Watch these amazing videos on JavaScript by Douglas Crockford (a senior JavaScript Architect at Yahoo!). I wish I could program in JavaScript all day.

Links to Crockford's great JavaScript videos:

You might want to download YSlow for Firebug while your at it too… :)

Author: Adam Kahtava Categories: Firebug, JavaScript, Videos Tags: