From Newsgroup: uk.rec.waterways

<div>Lose Weight in 30 Days is designed for you to lose weight in a fast and safe way. Not only does it have systematic workouts, but it also provides diet plans at your disposal. It is scientifically proven to help improve your health and fitness. Your workout and calorie data can be synchronized on Google Fit. Stick with the program, and your body will be more beautiful than ever before you know it.</div><div></div><div></div><div>The "no duplication" is perhaps the most powerfully subtle of these rules. It's a notion expressed elsewhere as DRY or SPOT [2], Kent expressed it as saying everything should be said "Once and only Once." Many programmers have observed that the exercise of eliminating duplication is a powerful way to drive out good designs. [3]</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>simple pop design book pdf download</div><div></div><div>DOWNLOAD: https://t.co/pk2EtL4a8S </div><div></div><div></div><div>The last rule tells us that anything that doesn't serve the three prior rules should be removed. At the time these rules were formulated there was a lot of design advice around adding elements to an architecture in order to increase flexibility for future requirements. Ironically the extra complexity of all of these elements usually made the system harder to modify and thus less flexible in practice.</div><div></div><div></div><div>What I like about these rules is that they are very simple to remember, yet following them improves code in any language or programming paradigm that I've worked with. They are an example of Kent's skill in finding principles that are generally applicable and yet concrete enough to shape my actions.</div><div></div><div></div><div>From 2009 to 2014, I traveled the world working with software developers, both individually and in teams, to improve their craft. Primarily, I did this through a training workshop format called coderetreat. Over those years, I had the opportunity to watch 1000's of pairs of programmers work on exactly the same system, Conway's Game of Life. As time progressed, I began to see patterns arise. I noticed common techniques and designs that spanned languages and companies and crossed national borders.</div><div></div><div></div><div>As co-founder and a facilitator of coderetreat workshops, I had the unique opportunity to provide feedback, both direct and through questions, on improving the act of writing adaptable, simple code. Through the day, we worked on improving our ability to make good choices around the minute-by-minute decisions made while writing code.</div><div></div><div></div><div>This book is about those things I learned from watching these 1000's of pairs working on the same problem. It contains a large part of the feedback that I provide during a typical coderetreat. The primary focus is on the thought process behind refactoring, and how that is influenced by the 4 rules of simple design.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>This book is not about Conway's Game of Life. Instead, it uses its domain as a backdrop to discuss the thoughts and ideas behind the 4 rules of simple design. It focuses on the small decisions made while designing your code with the goal of building robust, adaptable codebases that can stand the test of time.</div><div></div><div></div><div>You can use Leanpub to easily write, publish and sell in-progress and completed ebooks and online courses!</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Leanpub is a powerful platform for serious authors, combining a simple, elegant writing and publishing workflow with a store focused on selling in-progress ebooks.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Leanpub is a magical typewriter for authors: just write in plain text, and to publish your ebook, just click a button. (Or, if you are producing your ebook your own way, you can even upload your own PDF and/or EPUB files and then publish with one click!) It really is that easy.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I had my fair share in designing and building large systems. I've taken part in rewriting Uber's distributed payment systems, designing and shipping Skype on Xbox One and open-sourcing RIBs, Uber's mobile architecture framework. All of these systems had thorough designs, going through multiple iterations and had lots of whiteboarding and discussion. The designs then boiled down to a design document that was circulated for more feedback before we started building.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Let me start with a few things that might sound surprising. First, none of these designs used any of the standard software architecture planning tools. We did not use UML, nor the 4+1 model, nor ADR, nor C4, nor dependency diagrams. We created plenty of diagrams, but none of them followed any strict rules. Just plain old boxes and arrows, similar this one describing information flow or this one outlining class structure and relationships between components. Two diagrams within the same design document often had a different layout and were often added and modified by different engineers.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Second, there were no architects on the teams that owned the design. No IT architects or enterprise architects. True, neither Uber nor Skype/Microsoft have hands-off software architect positions. Engineers at higher levels, like staff engineers, are expected to still regularly code. For all the projects, we did have experienced engineers involved. However, no one person owned the architecture or design. While these experienced developers drove the design process, even the most junior team members were involved, often challenging decisions and offering other alternatives to discuss.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Third, we had practically no references to the common architecture patterns and other jargon referenced in common software architecture literature, such as Martin Fowler's architecture guide. No mentions of microservices, serverless architecture, application boundaries, event-driven architecture, and the lot. Some of these did come up during brainstormings. However, there was no need to reference them in the design documents themselves.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I've had this discussion with peer engineers working at other tech companies, FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google), as well as at smaller startups. Most teams and projects - however large or small - all shared a similar approach to design and implementation:</div><div></div><div></div><div>Why was our approach different from what is commonly referred to in software architecture literature? Actually, our approach is not that different in principle, to most architecture guides. Almost all guides suggest starting with the business problem and outlining solutions and tradeoffs: which is also what we do. What we don't do is use many of the more complex tools that many architects or architecture books advocate for. We document the design as simple as we can, using the most straightforward tools: tools like Google Docs or Office365.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I assume that the main difference in our approach boils down to engineering culture at these companies. High autonomy and little hierarchy is a trait tech companies and startups share: something that is sometimes less true for more traditional companies. This is also a reason these places do a lot more "common sense-based design" over process-driven design, with stricter rules.</div><div></div><div></div><div>The goal of designing a system should be simplicity. The simpler the system, the simpler it is to understand, the simpler it is to find issues with it and the simpler it is to implement it. The more clear language it is described in, the more accessible that design is. Avoid using jargon that is not understood by every member of the team: the least experienced person should be able to understand things equally clearly.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Clean design is similar to clean code: it's easy to read and easy to comprehend. There are many great ways to write clean code. However, you will rarely hear anyone suggesting to start with applying the Gang of four design patterns to your code. Clean code starts with things like single responsibility, clear naming, and easy to understand conventions. These principles equally apply to clear architecture.</div><div></div><div></div><div>So what is the role of architecture patterns? I see them similarly in usefulness as coding design patterns. They can give you ideas on how to improve your code or architecture. For coding patterns, I notice a singleton pattern when I see one, and I raise my eyebrow and dig deeper when I see a class that acts as a facade, only doing call-throughs. But I've yet to think "this calls for an abstract factory pattern". In fact, it took me a lot of time to understand what this pattern does and had my "aha!" moment, after working with a lot of dependency injection - one of the few areas, where this pattern is actually pretty common and useful. I'll also admit that although I spent a lot of time reading and comprehending the Gang of four design patterns, they've had far less impact on becoming a better coder than the feedback I've gotten from other engineers on my code.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Similarly, knowing about common architecture patterns is a good thing: it helps shorten discussions with people, who understand them the same way as you do. But architecture patterns are not the goal, and they won't substitute for simpler system designs. When designing a system, you might find yourself having accidentally applied a well-known pattern: and this is a good thing. Later, you can reference your approach easier. But the last thing you want to do is taking one or more architecture pattern, using it as a hammer, looking for nails to use it on.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Architecture patterns were born after engineers observed how similar design choices were made in some cases, and those design choices were implemented similarly. These choices were then named, written down, and extensively talked about. Architecture patterns are tools that came after the solution was solved, in hopes of making the lives of others easier. As an engineer, your goal should be more about solving solutions and learning through them rather than picking a shiny architecture pattern, in hopes that that will solve your problem.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I've heard many people ask for tips on becoming better in architecting and designing systems. Several experienced people will recommend reading up on architecture patterns and reading books on software architecture. While I definitely do recommend reading - especially books, as they provide a lot more depth than a short post - I have a few suggestions, that are all more hands-on than just reading.</div><div></div><div> df19127ead</div>
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2