The article expresses the author's frustration with GraphQL, highlighting issues such as unnecessary complexity and over-engineering, and advocating for a simpler, more maintainable solution like REST.

With striking honesty, Eisenberg reveals how anxiety, self-doubt, and fear have been unlikely catalysts in his multifaceted career as an actor, writer, and director. Beyond the glare of Hollywood, he shares personal anecdotes that shed light on the complexities of navigating public perception, criticism, and the relentless pursuit of excellence.

A brief and very well illustrated story of server-side rendering

Code complexity comes in two different shapes. We can have implementations where a class or file is hard to understand in isolation due to its excess accidental complexity. Or, a piece of code can look superficially simple, yet the emerging system behavior is anything but simple due to complex dependencies. While these two types of complexity are orthogonal, in practice you'll often find both in the same parts of the codebase.

Object oriented development turns 50 this year. During that time, hundreds of 00 languages have come and gone. And yet, with the exception of Smalltalk and a few research languages, none of them were actually object-oriented. I think we might now be seeing a revival of the spirit of 00, but it is coming from the functional world. I want to show you how to write 00 in Elixir, and how liberating this can be.

We’re diving into a massive migration project by Khan Academy, involving moving one million lines of Python code and splitting them across more than 40 services, mostly in Go, as part of a migration that took 3.5 years and involved around 100 software engineers.

When a large implementation is required, other members of your team will still need to continue some ongoing work on related areas of the codebase. Avoid long-lived branches with feature flags.

The goal of a code review is to have the code pass the review, and make it into production. Code under review is usually code that’s not being used, and code that’s not being used is not adding any value to the application or the users.

“Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write code that humans can understand.” - Martin Fowler

It documents the high-level implementation strategy and critical design decisions, emphasizing the trade-offs considered at the time.

Less DevOps (additional overhead); Anticorruption and caching layers; Data transformation; REST APIs can benefit from under-fetching; Scalable user experience per client.

Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing; You will never regret good work once It is done; There have been days when it was damn hard to start, but it was always worth finishing.

Awesome list of design patterns and component patterns for building powerful web apps.

Great reference material summing up differences between static, server-side, and client-side rendering on the Web.

“Technology organizations trying to stay relevant by simply adopting every next hyped fad out there, rather than stepping back to get a bigger picture of what the front-end space actually needs”

This drab sublime unites flat-pack furniture and home electronics, municipal infrastructure and commercial graphic design: an ocean of stuff so homogenous and underthought that the world it has inundated can feel like a digital rendering — of a slightly duller, worse world.

Good design is innovative; Good design makes a product useful; Good design is aesthetic; Good design makes a product understandable; Good design is unobtrusive; Good design is honest; Good design is long-lasting; Good design is thorough down to the last detail; Good design is environmentally-friendly; Good design is as little design as possible.

The ultimate purpose of any product is the ability to solve the problem effectively. As long as it happens, the product doesn't need to have unique details that make it stand out from the crowd.

People hire a product to do a job. A job is not a task, it is progress toward a goal that a person is trying to achieve. JTBD helps product designers understand why the user do what they do.

Yuhki Yamashita, Chief Product Officer at Figma, shares lessons learned, plug-and-play templates, and fresh insights into how Figma builds product

Design crits are intended to be very generative, and are explicitly 

Every time we make a change we are actually paying some of the technical debt.

Stephanie is back with a book recommendation: "Thinking in Systems" by Donella Meadows. This book has helped to bolster her understanding of complex systems in environmental, organizational, and software contexts, particularly through user interactions and system changes. Joël describes his transformative experience watching last week's total solar eclipse. Together, they explore how systems thinking influences software development and team dynamics by delving into practical applications in writing and reading code, suggesting that understanding complex systems can aid developers in navigating and optimizing codebases and team interactions. Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows (https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/thinking-in-systems/) Notetaking for developers episode (https://bikeshed.thoughtbot.com/357?t=0) Call Graphs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_graph) Flame Graphs (https://www.brendangregg.com/flamegraphs.html) mermaid.live (https://mermaid.live/edit) Obsidian (https://obsidian.md/) rails-erd gem (https://github.com/voormedia/rails-erd) Decision tables (https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/decision-table-patterns/) Transcript:  JOËL: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Joël Quenneville. STEPHANIE: And I'm Stephanie Minn, and together, we're here to share a bit of what we've learned along the way. JOËL: So, Stephanie, what's new in your world? STEPHANIE: I have a book recommendation today [laughs]. JOËL: Oh, I love book recommendations. STEPHANIE: It's been a little while, so I wanted to share what I've been reading that I think might be interesting to this audience. I'm reading Thinking in Systems by Donella Meadows. Joël, are you familiar with systems thinking theory at all? JOËL: Very superficially. Hearing people talk about it on, I guess, X, now Twitter. STEPHANIE: Yeah. Well, what I like about this book is the subtitle is A Primer on Thinking in Systems [chuckles], which is perfect for me as someone who also just kind of understood it very loosely, as just like, oh, like, I dunno, you look at things holistically and look at the stuff, not just its parts but from a higher perspective. JOËL: Yeah. Is that accurate sort of your pre-book reading overview? Or do you think there's a bigger thing, a bigger idea there that the book unpacks? STEPHANIE: Yeah. I think I'm only, like, a third of the way through so far. But what I have enjoyed about it is that, you know, in some ways, like, intuitively, that makes a lot of sense about, like, oh yeah, you want to make sure that you see the forest for the trees, right? But one thing I've been surprised by is how it's also teaching me more technical language to talk about complex systems. And, in this case, she is talking about, essentially, living systems or systems that change over time where things are happening. I think that can be a little bit confusing when we also are, you know, talking about computer systems, but, in this case, you know, systems like environments, or communities, or even, you know, companies or organizations, which is actually where I'm finding a lot of the content really valuable. But some of the language that I've learned that I am now trying to integrate a little bit more into how I view a lot of just, like, daily problems or experiences involve things like feedback loops that might be reinforcing or balancing and different, like, inputs and output flows and what is driving those things. So, I've appreciated just having more precise language for things that I think I kind of intuited but didn't exactly know how to, like, wrap up in a way to communicate to someone. JOËL: Do you think the idea of thinking in terms of things like self-balancing versus sort of diverging input loops is something that's useful when actually writing code? Or do you think of it a little bit more in terms of, like, teams and how they organize general problem-solving approaches, things like that? STEPHANIE: I think the answer is both. I actually gave this quite a bit of thought because I was trying to wrap my head around her definition of a system and how we talk about systems sometimes, like, a codebase, for example. And the conclusion I came to is that, really, it's not just the code static by itself that we care about. It's how it gets exercised, how users use it, how developers change it, how we interact with it when we, like, run tests, for example. So, that was really helpful in kind of thinking about some of the problems we see in engineering organizations as a result of software being a thing that is used and written by humans, as opposed to it just existing in memories [chuckles] or, like, it's in a storage system somewhere. Like, that means it's kind of lifeless, and it's not changing anymore. But the point of kind of this framework is trying to understand it as it changes. JOËL: So, kind of that blurry line between humans and computers and where those two overlap is where a lot of that systems thinking almost, like, mental model or vocabulary has been most helpful for you. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I would say so. So, Joël, what's new in your world? JOËL: So, I did the thing. I traveled to see the total solar eclipse this past weekend. It was mind-blowing. It was incredibly cool. I really loved it. For any of our listeners who have never seen a solar eclipse, in the coming years, have an opportunity to see one. I'd say it's worth traveling to see because it is really impressive. STEPHANIE: Cool. What did it look like when it happened, when it was 100% eclipsed? JOËL: So, what really impressed me was the fact that, like, most of the cool stuff happens in that, like, last half a percent. So, like, 95% eclipsed, still not that impressive. If that's all I'd seen, I would be disappointed. And then, in that last little bit, all of a sudden, everything goes dark. It's sort of, like, that twilight past sunset. You've got a glow on the horizon. The stars are out. STEPHANIE: Wow. JOËL: The animals are behaving like it's past sunset. They're getting ready to go to sleep. STEPHANIE: Whoa. JOËL: The sun itself is just a black dot with this, like, big fiery ring around it. Like all those pictures, icons, photos you see online, or drawings that look over the top, those things are real. That's what it looks like. STEPHANIE: Wow, that's really neat. Could you see it without looking through the eclipse viewers? JOËL: So, when you hit totality, you can look at it with a naked eye, and it is, yeah, magnificent. STEPHANIE: Oh, that's so cool. How long did it last? JOËL: So, it depends where you are in the path of totality. I was pretty much dead center. And it lasts, I think, three and a half minutes is what we had. STEPHANIE: That's so cool. So, for me, here in Chicago, we did not have complete totality. It was about, like, 95%. So, I was watching it, just from that perspective. And I would say, yeah, it was not nearly as cool as what you described. It kind of just was like, oh, it got dark. It almost looked like I was viewing the world through sunglasses. I did have one of those viewers that I used to, like, look at the sun and see how much of it had been covered. But yeah, it was cool. But what you said, I think now I feel like, wow, I really should have [laughter] traveled. I could have traveled just a few hours, you know, to, like, Indianapolis or something to have been on the path. That would have been really neat. And I don't think the next one will be until 2044 or something like that. JOËL: Yeah. And that's the thing, right? I think if you're within a few hours of the path of a total eclipse, it is absolutely worth traveling to totality. The downside of that is that everybody else has the same idea. And so, you will be fighting traffic and a lot of things, especially if it goes through some, like, populated areas, like it did this time. STEPHANIE: Yeah. Well, that's really neat that you got to see that. That's, I don't know, it sounds like not exactly once in a lifetime, but definitely very rare. JOËL: For sure. I think with this experience now; I would definitely consider traveling again if there's one, like, anywhere near where I live, or, you know, maybe even, like, planning a vacation around going somewhere else to see one because it's short. You know, you're there for three minutes, and you see something cool. But that was really impressive. So, something that really struck me when you were talking earlier about systems thinking is that you mentioned that it gave you a sort of a new vocabulary to talk about things. It almost gave you a sort of different way of thinking or some other mental models that you could use to apply when you are interacting in that sort of fussy boundary between people and code. And I think that this idea of having language and having mental models is something that is incredibly valuable for us as programmers in a few different areas. And I'd be curious to see particularly for when we're reading other code, reading code that someone else has written or, you know, yourself from six months ago, do you have any sort of mental models that you like to reach for or techniques that you like to use to sort of give yourself that almost vocabulary to understand what somebody else is trying to do with their code? STEPHANIE: Yeah, I would say so. You know, as you were talking about, like, how do you read code? I was thinking about how I read code is different from how I would read a book [laughs]. I almost rarely just read everything line by line and, like, file by file, you know, in some order that has been presented to me. I am usually a lot more involved. It's almost, like, more like a choose your own adventure kind of book [chuckles], where it's like, oh, go to this page to check if you want to check out what happened down this code path [chuckles]. JOËL: Right, right. Oh, if you're reading a novel, are you the kind of person that will read the ending first? STEPHANIE: Absolutely not. [laughter] JOËL: You have strong opinions here. STEPHANIE: Even when I, like, really want to... okay, sometimes I will, like, maybe just kind of flip to the back and just see, like, oh, how many more pages or chapters do I have [laughs] left? If I am itching to know what might happen. But I definitely don't start a book by reading the end. I think there are people who do that, and maybe that works for them, but I don't understand it. [laughter] JOËL: But maybe that's the thing that you do with your code. STEPHANIE: Yeah. When I read code, it's almost always with some kind of intention to understand a particular behavior, usually kind of kicked off by some action, like, done by the user or something automated. And I want to understand that process from start to finish. So, I'm less likely to read a whole class file [chuckles], as opposed to just following method and the messages that are sent along the way in a process. JOËL: That makes sense. Do you tend to sort of go from kind of the origin point and then follow it down, or sort of the opposite, find some, like, terminal node and then work your way back? STEPHANIE: Oh. JOËL: And I could imagine this in a more concrete sense in a Rails app. You find, like, the route that you're going to hit because you know it's a URL, and then you find the controller, and then you read through the action. And then, you maybe follow a service and something like that or look into the view. Or maybe the opposite: there's a particular page that gets rendered. You look at a method, a helper method that gets called in a view, and then you sort of, like, follow a backtrace from there. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I think both. It depends on what information I have available to me, I think. I can think of, recently, I was trying to figure out the process for which, like, a user in this application I'm working on can downgrade the tier of their account, and I didn't know what to grep for. And so, I asked, like, "Hey, like, what are the entry points for a user being able to do this?" And someone gave me a couple of routes, and that was great because then I got to see, oh, that this is possible in multiple ways. Like, the user can do it themselves, or the admin can do it, and that was really helpful. Other times, I think I have been able to find a keyword on a page and start from, like, a view or a component, or something like that, and then work upwards. JOËL: I love that question that you asked, "What are the entry points for this thing?" I feel like that's a fantastic question to sort of ask yourself when you're feeling stuck, but it's also a great question to ask other people that might know. Do you find that you read code differently when you're just trying to, like, maybe understand a broader subsystem? Maybe you're sort of new to this area and you have to add a feature, as opposed to maybe you're debugging something and trying to understand why things went wrong. Are those two different kinds of reading? STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's also a great point because I do think there's another time when I've just scanned the file structure of an app and looked at the model's directory and just kind of been like, okay, like, maybe some things are namespaced. And that helps me just know what the main concepts that I have to be dealing with or that I will be dealing with are. But I find that sometimes less fruitful because of kind of what I mentioned earlier about thinking in systems, where I'm not sure how important those things will be yet because I don't know how they're used. They could not be used at all [laughs]. And then, I think I'm potentially, like, storing information that is not actually relevant in my brain. JOËL: That's tough, right? Because systems are so big, we can't hold them entirely in our brain. So, sometimes, selectively deciding what will not be loaded in there is just as important as what will. STEPHANIE: Yes. And I think that is actually advice that I would give to devs who are trying to get better at reading code. And this one's hard because when I am working with more early-career developers, it's hard to figure out, like, what are they seeing? How are they interpreting the code on the page? Because oftentimes, I see that they are getting stuck on the details, whereas I would like to encourage them to just be like, you don't really need to know what's going on in that method right now. Does the method name kind of communicate enough to you, like, what this thing is doing without having to understand all of the details? But my advice would be to start figuring out what to ignore [laughs] because, like you said, it's impossible to, like, hold all of that information at one time. What do you think about that advice and, like, how do you teach that to someone? JOËL: I think you're sort of hinting at two different ways of reducing the amount you have to load in your mind. The way I think about it, I think of it sort of spatially, so you can reduce the breadth of things you have to load into your head, so, realize, wait, there's all of these methods, and I don't need to know all of the methods in the file. There's only this one entry point I care about and everything downstream of that, and you just sort of prune everything off to the side, ignore it. That's not relevant right now. But there's also sort of a depth. How deep of implementation do you really need to have? Maybe you only need to know about the high-level concepts. And then, you sort of, like, do this pruning where you say, "I'm not going to go deeper than this level," because the implementation is not really relevant to what I'm trying to understand right now. I mostly need to know what are these classes and how do they interact with each other? Or something along those lines. And, ideally, you're may be doing a little bit of both. You probably don't need to go all the way to the deep implementation of every method, but you also don't necessarily need to know all of the high-level concepts and all of the objects in the system that interact. So, being able to prune in sort of both dimensions, breadth and depth, helps you to, I think, narrow the window of what you need to learn. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's a really great point. I have a couple more strategies that I just thought about as you were talking about that. One is kind of on the journey to let go of some things that I can't understand in the moment. If they seem important, I will write them down and, like, put them somewhere in a list to come back to later and be like, "This is a thing I don't fully understand yet," and just be okay with that. I think, for me, there is some anxiety of like, oh, like, what if I'll need to know about it later? And at least putting it down somewhere as like, okay, like, I've done something with that anxious [laughs] energy of, like, recognizing that I don't understand this right now, and that's okay. But I can revisit it later. And then, another one is almost the opposite, where it's like, what are my landmarks as I'm navigating through a codebase? Like, what are the files that I'm consistently opening? Because so many of the roads lead to this object. Even when I'm kind of going through different paths, it's like, I can hook into, like, the behavior that I'm looking for from these landmark objects or models because they are really important in this domain. So, it's like, I don't necessarily need to remember every step of the way, but if I can recall some of the more important methods, then I can kind of find my way back. JOËL: Do you just try to, like, memorize those, or do you write them down? Like, how do you make a method or an object a landmark for you? STEPHANIE: That has felt a little more, like, it becomes more, like, muscle memory, I think, because I'm revisiting them pretty frequently. I don't know, it's somehow the act of repeating, like, going through those files just gets encoded somewhere in my brain [laughs], and I don't have to worry as much about forgetting them. JOËL: Strengthening that neural pathway. STEPHANIE: Yeah, exactly. JOËL: Or whatever is happening in the brain there. STEPHANIE: [laughs] JOËL: I like what you were saying earlier, though, about taking notes and sort of almost, like, a breadcrumbs approach. We did an episode almost two years ago where we talked about note-taking for various purposes and note-taking as an exploration exercise, and then note-taking when debugging, where we went deeper into that topic. And I think that would be really relevant to any of our listeners. We'll link that in the show notes. STEPHANIE: Yeah. Leaving breadcrumbs. That's a great metaphor or just a way to describe it. Because I have a little shorthand for if I am leaving myself notes in a codebase as I'm trying to understand what's happening, and it's just, like, putting my initials in a comment and, like, including some observation or commentary about what I'm seeing or a question. JOËL: Also, just a kind of meta observation here, but in the last, you know, 10-15 minutes we've been talking about this, we're already creating our own set of metaphors, and language, and mental models around understanding code. We're talking about breadcrumbs, and landmarks, and looking at code through a broad versus deep lens. That's exactly what we're talking about. STEPHANIE: Joël, do you have any mental models that you use that we haven't really gotten into yet? JOËL: I don't know if they're mental models per se, but I lean very heavily into diagramming as a form of understanding code. And maybe that's a way of sort of reducing the number of concepts because instead of now sort of thinking in terms of, like, lines of code, I'm thinking in terms of maybe some boxes and arrows, and that's a much higher-level way of looking at a system and can give me some really interesting insights. And there are a ton of different diagrams you can use for different things, and I guess all of them are based on a different maybe mental model of what a system is. So, for example, I might actually write out the method call graph starting from some endpoint and just sort of saying, "Hey, when I call this method, what are all of the methods downstream that get called? And is there anything interesting at any of those steps?" Variation on that if you're looking at, let's say, some kind of performance thing would be, like, a flame graph where you have sort of that but then it also shows you the amount of time spent in each of the methods. And that can give you a sense of where your bottlenecks are. Another one that I really like is thinking in terms of a finite state machine. So, sort of following data, how does it change in response to different events that can come into the system? And I'm not talking about, oh, you're using one of the, like, state machine gems out there for your Rails app. This is more of a way of thinking about programs and how they act. You can have just a plain, old Rails app, and you're thinking about, okay, well, how does a cart turn into an order, turn into a fulfillment request at the warehouse, turns into a tracking number for shipping? Modeling that as a state machine. And also, you know, can it move back along that path, or is it only linear move forward? Any kind of multi-state form a wizard often has paths where you move back. It's not linear. That very easily can be drawn out as a state machine. So, that is something that I really like to pull out when I'm trying to understand a, like, complex workflow. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I think we've talked about this before a little bit, or maybe not even a little bit, a lot [laughs]. But I know that you're a big fan of Mermaid.js for creating diagrams in markdown that can be embedded in a pull request description or even in a commit message. When I was hearing you talk about state machines and just all the different paths that can lead to different states, I was like, I bet that's something that you would create using a diagram and stick for yourself and others when sharing code. JOËL: Yes, Mermaid does support state machines as a graph type, which is really cool. Another thing that you can do is embed those in tools like Obsidian, which is my current note-taking tool. So, if I'm doing some sort of notes as a sort of exploratory tool, I will often start writing a Mermaid graph directly in line, and it will render and everything. That's really nice. If I'm not in Obsidian and I just need some sort of one-off graph, I'll often lean on Mermaid.live, which just gives you an editor where you can write up some Mermaid code. It will render it, and then you can copy the PNG into somewhere else and share that with other people. So, if I just need a one-off thing to share in Slack or something like that, I like to lean on that. Another type of diagram that I use pretty frequently is an entity-relationship diagram, so sort of what database tables are related to what others. On larger apps, there's just so many tables, and maybe a bunch of JOINS and things like that, and it's sometimes difficult to get the picture of what is happening, so I'll often draw out a graph of those. Now, it's not worth doing the entire database because that will be huge and overwhelming. So, I'll find, like, five or six tables that are relevant to me and then try to answer the question: How are they related to each other? STEPHANIE: Yeah, I like that. I was going to ask if you do it manually or if you use a tool because I've worked in various apps that have used the Rails ERD gem that will generate an entity-relationship diagram for you every time the schema changes. But there's something very compelling, to me, about the idea of trying to just figure out if you know the relationships, if you could draw them out, as opposed to having a tool do it for you. JOËL: Exactly. STEPHANIE: And I think, like, also, you do have information that might not be encoded in the system. Like, you actually know, oh, these two tables are related, even if no one has defined an association on them. I think that is important in understanding actually how the system is working in real life, I guess. JOËL: Agreed. So, we've been talking a lot about how we can use different tools, different mental models to take code that somebody else has written and kind of, like, almost read it from disk and load it into our brains. But what about the opposite? We're faced with a business problem, and we want to sort of write it to disk, turn it into code that somebody else will then read or that a machine will execute. I hear that happens occasionally. Are there sort of mental models or ways of approaching tackling a more, like, amorphous problem in the real world and turning that into code? Like, are they just the inverse of what we do when we read code, or are they, like, totally different set of skills? STEPHANIE: For me personally, I don't follow this framework very strictly, but I think more intuitively how I like to go about it is more behavior-driven where...because that is the language of maybe our cross-functional partners. They're saying like, "Hey, like, when this happens, I want to be able to do this," and I kind of start there. Maybe I'll pick up some of the keywords that they're repeating pretty frequently as like, oh, like, this is a concept. Actually, lately, the past couple of weeks, I've been test-driving almost all of my code as I work on a totally, like, greenfield feature. And that has been working really well for me, I think, because we did explore more granular, both, like, granular and abstract concepts when we were spiking this feature. And so, we had come up with some domain models. I had kind of thought about, like, how they might interact with each other. But when you then have to actually, like, code that, there are so many little nuances and things to keep track of that I found test driving things from, like, behavior and user stories. Those are really helpful in keeping me, like, on track to making sure that I didn't just have all these little pieces of domain concepts that then didn't really interact in a meaningful way. JOËL: Yeah, the sort of very, like, user or customer-centric approach to thinking about what is this app doing? Is a great way to think about it. And I guess the sort of translation of that, that first step of translation into code is some sort of, like, system spec. STEPHANIE: Yeah, exactly. JOËL: I like that because, you know, we have all these other abstractions that we use as developers. But at the end of the day, our customers and even, you know, our product people aren't thinking in terms of, like, objects and classes and all these other fun abstractions that we have. They're thinking in terms of behaviors and, you know, maybe subsystems, workflows, things like that. And then it's up to us to translate that into whatever paradigm of our language that we're using. STEPHANIE: Do you do things differently from me? JOËL: I don't think that I do it necessarily differently. I think it's one of several tools I have in my tool belt. Something that is similar but from a slightly different angle is inspiring myself with a lot of the ideas from domain-driven design. You know, we've been talking a lot about this idea of, like, mental models and having a vocabulary, things like that, about sort of the way that we work, but that exists at the product level as well. And what if we could encode a lot of that into our application itself? So, is there a distinction between a subscriber and a payer in our system? Is there specialized vocabulary around different other concepts in the app? Maybe instead of just having those be things that product people talk about, what if we made them actual named entities in the system and have maybe our object graph, at least in some way, reflect the sort of idealized model of what our business actually does? That often means that you're thinking of things at a higher level because you're thinking of things at the level that our product people are thinking about them. You might be thinking of things in terms of user journeys, or product workflows, or things like that, because you say, "Oh, well, a new payer has been added to this group account. And that has started a subscription, which then means that a user has access to these corporate features that they didn't have when they were in a solo account." Like, I've just thrown ten different sort of product terms out there that, you know, if there are concepts in our code can help us think about less of the implementation. What does the app do, or how does the app do it? And more in terms of, like, product terms, what does the app do? How do people experience the behavior, or maybe how does data change over the life cycle of the app? So, those perspectives, I think, have helped me distill down sort of more vague product ideas into things that I can then start turning into code. STEPHANIE: Absolutely. I think one way that this framework ends up falling short, at least for me a little bit sometimes, is making connections between behaviors that are similar but not exactly the same. Or when you think about them in more isolated ways, like, it's easy to miss that, like, they are the same idea and that there is, like, something a bit higher level that you can connect them, that you can create a more abstract class for, even though that's not actually how people talk about the things. One example I can think of is things like concerns that are both related to domain language but then also, like, kind of specific to how things work in the code as a system because you might not necessarily call something a subscribable from a product perspective. Do you have any thoughts about identifying those pieces? JOËL: So, what's interesting is I think there's a little bit of, like, layers above and below, the sort of domain layer where you're talking in terms of, like, what the product team would use. When you're doing a lot of the implementation, there will be things that are just, like, that's how we implemented them. They're in the nitty gritty, and they're not terms that the product team would necessarily use. Things like array and string they're low-level details. We have to use them. That's not really relevant to the world of payers, and subscribers, and things like that. So, they're sort of lower layer. And I think that's totally fine to have things where we sort of have things that are sort of programmer only, as long as they're sort of contained within this higher-level layer because that allows people new to the app to sort of see what are the different things in the application to think about things in a higher level. It also allows for smoother communication with the product team. So, ideally, you don't have a concept in the app that is the same as something that the product team, but you just both gave it different names, and then that's really annoying. Or maybe the dev team created something that's, like, almost exactly the same as what the product team talks about, but with some, like, slight variations. Now, you're just going to be talking past each other in every planning meeting, and that will be incredibly annoying. STEPHANIE: Yeah. At one point, when I was trying to communicate, like, async about how a feature works, and there was like the product word for it and then the dev word for it, I would have to type out both [chuckles] because I wanted to make sure that no one was confused about what we were talking about, which was the same thing that just had two names. And yeah, I don't know how many seconds of my life I'll never get back as a result [chuckles]. JOËL: Were these concepts that were identical and had just different names, or was this like, oh, well, our internal subscribed user is almost the same as when product talks about and, I don't know, employee, but our subscribed user has a couple of other extra behaviors that employees don't have, and now there's, like, this weird, like, overlap? STEPHANIE: Yeah, both situations I have found myself in, but I think this one they were virtually identical. Like, they could be used interchangeably to mean the same thing by people who understand both of those definitions, but the problem was that we still had two words [laughs]. JOËL: Yeah, yeah. I'm a big fan of, where possible, converging on the product team's definition. Although because code forces you to be more precise, sometimes that can then force some conversations with the product team about, like, "Hey, so we've been hand waving around this concept of a subscriber. Turns out we think there's actually two different kinds of concepts at work here: the person who's consuming the content and the person who's paying for it. And are they really the same thing, or should we sort of think about these as two different entities? And, in that case, what should the name be?" And that can force a really, I think, healthy conversation between development and product. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I like that. You mentioned there was, like, a higher level and a lower level, but I don't think we've gotten to the higher one yet. JOËL: Yeah. Sometimes, you want to build abstraction sort of over. You're talking about the idea of, like, subscribable things. I think that's where I'm a lot fuzzier. It's much more case-by-case. Where possible, I'd like to introduce some of those things as domain vocabulary so that we'd say, "Well, look, we have a, like, family of products, and they're all subscribable." And maybe, like, the adjective doesn't matter quite as much to our product people, but, you know, because we're using a module in Ruby, we want to lean into the adjective form, and that's fine. But I would at least want some loose connection there. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that makes sense because I think that ultimately makes for a better product. If we're thinking about, like, how to present a hierarchy of information to a user, like a navigation menu, we would want to group those things that are under that family together, ideally, so that they know how to interact with it. JOËL: Another thing that I think falls maybe under, like, this higher-level umbrella are things like design patterns. So, maybe because we want to be able to sort of, like, swap things in and out, we're using some form of strategy pattern. That feels like maybe it's a little bit higher level. It interacts with a lot of the domain concepts, but our product team doesn't really need to think in terms of, like, oh, strategies, and swappable things, and, like, flex points in your architecture. So, those would not necessarily be domain vocabulary. Although I could see, like, maybe there's a way where they do get a domain name, and that's great. STEPHANIE: Oh, I think maybe this is where I disagree with you a little bit. Well, actually, I agreed with what you said at the end [laughs] in terms of how maybe they should be part of the domain vocabulary because I think...I've seen product not fully understand the complexity of the application as it grows over time. And that can lead to sometimes, like, not as great product experience or experience for the user, like, interacting with this product. And maybe that is something we want to, as developers, if we're starting to see and feel and have maybe even introduced a pattern for...I can't claim to have done this too much, but it's definitely a skill I want to hone in on. But, like, how do I communicate to product folks so that we understand, oh, like, where is it possible for these different types of a subscriber to diverge? Because that is important, I think, in determining the future of a product and, like, where we want to invest in it and where we should focus, like, new features. JOËL: And oftentimes, when there is that kind of divergence, there probably will be some sort of product-level thinking that needs to happen there. Are we saying, "Hey, we have one of three types of subscribers, and we want to think about that"? Or maybe we want to say, "We have three different ways of processing an application." Maybe it's derived automatically. Maybe it's a dropdown that you have to pick. But let's say it's a dropdown. What do we name that dropdown with the, like, kind of processing that we want to do to an application? The thing that we want to name that dropdown that's probably a good name for that, like, group of strategies, assuming we implement with a strategy pattern. Maybe we're doing it differently. STEPHANIE: Yeah. The more you talk about that, the more I'm convinced that that's, like, the way I want to be working at least, because you have to know what's there in order to, like, name it. You know, you have to face it, essentially [laughs]. Whereas I think a lot of applications I've worked on fall into the trap of all of those things are obscured way down in the depths of the user flow, where it's like, oh, suddenly, for some reason, you can, like, have a dropdown here that totally changes the behavior, even though you've gotten this far in either the stack trace or even just, like the user journey, as I know you like to branch early in your code. JOËL: [laughs]. STEPHANIE: But you should also branch early from a user's experience [laughs]. JOËL: In general, I'm just a big fan of having a communication loop between development and product, not only sort of receiving a lot of useful information from the product team about what we want to build. But then because we're encountering this more, like, technical spec that we're writing, have those conversations bubble back to product and say, "Hey, so we talked about a dropdown where there are sort of three different ways of processing an application. Let's talk a little bit more about what it means to have three different ways of processing. And what do we want to name that? Is that accessible to everyone, or are they sort of one-to-one tied with a type of user?" And all of a sudden, that has just generated probably a lot of questions that product never even thought to ask because they're working on an infinite canvas of possibilities. And it's really helped you as a developer to have better names to write your code and sort of better sketch out the boundaries of the problem you're trying to solve. So, I think it's a really healthy loop to have. I strongly encourage it. So, we've spent a lot of time talking about thinking about behavior and things like the domain-driven design movement. But a few other things I want to shout out as being really helpful, one is an exercise where you take a problem statement and just underline all of the nouns. That is a great way to get a sense of, like, what is going on here. More generally, I think a lot of what we're talking about falls under the umbrella of what you might call analysis. And so, digging into different analytic techniques can be a great way to better understand the problem that you're working through. One such tool would be decision tables. So, you have a problem, and you say, "Well, given these inputs, what should the outputs be?" STEPHANIE: Cool. If there were any techniques or tools that we missed in terms of how you load code in your brain or generate code from your brain [laughs], we would love to know. You can write in to us at hosts@bikeshed.fm. JOËL: On that note, shall we wrap up? STEPHANIE: Let's wrap up. STEPHANIE: Show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. JOËL: This show has been produced and edited by Mandy Moore. STEPHANIE: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review in iTunes. It really helps other folks find the show. JOËL: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us @_bikeshed, or you can reach me @joelquen on Twitter. STEPHANIE: Or reach both of us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email. JOËL: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. ALL: Byeeeeeeee!!!!!!! AD: Did you know thoughtbot has a referral program? If you introduce us to someone looking for a design or development partner, we will compensate you if they decide to work with us. More info on our website at: tbot.io/referral. Or you can email us at: referrals@thoughtbot.com with any questions.

Joël has a fascinating discovery! He learned a new nuance around working with dependency graphs. Stephanie just finished playing a 100-hour video game on Nintendo Switch: a Japanese role-playing game called Octopath Traveler II. On the work front, she is struggling with a lot of churn in acceptance criteria and ideas about how features should work. How do these get documented? What happens when they change? What happens when people lose this context over time? Strangler Fig Pattern (https://shopify.engineering/refactoring-legacy-code-strangler-fig-pattern) Octopath Traveler 2 (https://octopathtraveler2.square-enix-games.com/en-us/) Empowering other departments (https://www.bikeshed.fm/388) Transcript: JOËL: You're the one who controls the pacing here. STEPHANIE: Oh, I am. Okay, great. Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Stephanie Minn. JOËL: And I'm Joël Quenneville. And together, we're here to share a bit of what we've learned along the way. STEPHANIE: So, Joël, what's new in your world? JOËL: So long-time Bike Shed listeners will know that I'm a huge fan of dependency graphs for modeling all sorts of problems and particularly when trying to figure out how to work in an iterative fashion where you can do a bunch of small chunks of work that are independent, that can be shipped one at a time without having your software be in a breaking state in all of these intermediate steps. And I recently made a really exciting discovery, or I learned a new nuance around working with dependency graphs. So the idea is that if you have a series of entities that have dependencies on each other, so maybe you're trying to build, let's say, some kind of object model or maybe a series of database tables that will reference each other, that kind of thing, if you draw a dependency graph where each bubble on your graph points to other bubbles that it depends on, that means that it can't be created without those other things already existing. Then, in order to create all of those entities for the first time, let's say they're database tables, you need to work your way from kind of the outside in. You start with any bubbles on your graph that have no arrows going out from them. That means they have no dependencies. They can be safely built on their own, and then you kind of work your way backwards up the arrows. And that's how I've sort of thought about working with dependency graphs for a long time. Recently, I've been doing some work that involves deleting entities in such a graph. So, again, let's say we're talking about database tables. What I came to realize is that deleting works in the opposite order. So, if you have a table that have other tables that depend on it, but it doesn't depend on anything, that's the first one you want to create. But it's also the last one you want to delete. So, when you're deleting, you want to start with the table that maybe has dependencies on other tables, but no other tables depend on it. It is going to be kind of like the root node of your dependency graph. So I guess the short guideline here is when you're creating, work from the bottom up or work from the leaves inward, and when you're deleting, work from the top-down or work from the root outward or roots because a graph can have multiple roots; it's not a tree. STEPHANIE: That is interesting. I'm wondering, did you have a mental model for managing deleting of dependencies prior? JOËL: No. I've always worked with creating new things. And I went into this task thinking that deleting would be just like creating and then was like, wait a minute, that doesn't work. And then, you know, a few cycles later, realized, oh, wait, deleting is the opposite of creating when you're navigating the graph. And, all of a sudden, I feel like I've got a much clearer mental model or just another way of thinking about how to work with something like this. STEPHANIE: Cool. That actually got me thinking about a case where you might have a circular dependency. Is that something you've considered yet? JOËL: Yes. So, when you have a dependency graph, and you've got a circular dependency, that's a big problem because...so, in the creating model, there is no leaf node, if you will, because they both reference each other. So that means that each of these entities cannot be created on its own, the entire cycle. And maybe you've got only two, but maybe your cycle is, you know, ten entities big. The entire cycle is going to be shipped as one massive change. So something that I often try to do is if I draw a dependency graph out and notice, wait a minute, I do have cyclical dependencies, the question then becomes, can I break that cycle to allow myself to work iteratively? Because otherwise, I know that there's a big chunk that can't be done iteratively. It just has to be done all at once. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's really interesting because I've certainly been in that situation where I don't realize until it's too late, where I've started going down the path thinking that, you know, I could just remove this one thing, or make this one change, and then find myself suddenly, you know, coming to the realization, oh, this other thing is now going to have to change. And then, at that point, there's almost kind of like the sunken cost fallacy [laughs] a little bit where you're like, well, I'm already in it. So, why don't I keep going? But your strategy of trying to find a way to break that cyclica...that is two words combined. [laughs] I meant to say circular dependency [laughs] is the right way to avoid just having to do it all in one go. Have you had to break up a cycle like that before? JOËL: Yes. I do it on a semi-frequent basis. The fancy term here for what I'm looking for when I'm building out a dependency graph is a directed acyclic graph. That's a graph theory or a computer science term that you'll hear thrown around a lot, DAG. I often like to...when building out a series of tasks that might also form a graph because you don't just model entities in your system; you might model a series of tasks as a graph. If there's a cycle in the graph, typically, I can break that using something like the strangler fig pattern, which is a way to kind of have some intermediate steps that are non-breaking that then lead you to the refactor that you want. And I've used the strangler fig pattern for a long time, never realizing until later that, oh, what I'm actually doing is breaking cycles in my task dependency graph. STEPHANIE: Hmm. I'm curious if you have noticed how these cycles come to be because I almost imagine that they get introduced over time, where you maybe did start with a parent and then you, you know, had dependencies. But then, over time, somehow, that circular dependency gets introduced. And I'm wondering if part of figuring out how to break that cycle is determining how things were introduced, like, over time. JOËL: In my experience, this happens in a lot of different ways because I'm using dependency graphs like this to give myself a mental model for a lot of different kinds of things. So maybe I'm thinking in terms of database tables. And so those might get a circular dependency that gets added over time as the system grows. But I'm also using it sometimes to model maybe a series of tasks. So I take a large task, and I break it down into subtasks that are all connected to each other. And that doesn't tend to sort of evolve over time in the same way that a series of database tables do. So I think it's very context-dependent. But there are definitely situations where it will be like you said, something that kind of evolves over time. STEPHANIE: That makes sense. Well, I'm excited for you to get to deleting some potential code or database tables that are no longer in use. That sounds like a developer's dream [laughs] to clean up all that stuff. JOËL: It's interesting because it's...a move operation is effectively what's happening. So I'm recreating tables in another system, pointing the ActiveRecord to this new system, and then deleting the existing ones in the local database. So, in a sense, I'm kind of traveling up this dependency graph from the leaf nodes into the root and then back down from the root to the leaves as I'm creating and then deleting everything or creating in one system, and then going back and deleting in the other system. STEPHANIE: Got it. Okay, so not necessarily a net negative but, like you said, a move or just having to gradually replace to use a new system. JOËL: That's right. And we're trying not to do this as, you know, okay, we're going to take the system down and move 50 tables from one system to another. But instead, saying, like, you know, one at a time, we're going to move these things over. And it's going to be small, incremental change over the course of a couple of weeks. And they're all pretty safe to deploy, and we feel good about them. STEPHANIE: That's good. I'm glad you feel good. [laughs] We should all be able to feel good when we make changes like that. JOËL: It's going to make my Fridays just so much more low-key just, like, yeah, hit that deploy button. It's okay. So, Stephanie, what is new in your world? STEPHANIE: So this is not work-related at all. But I just finished playing a 100-hour video game on my Nintendo Switch. [laughs] I finished a Japanese role-playing game called Octopath Traveler II. And I have never really played a game like this before. I've not, you know, put in many, many hours into something that then had an end, like, a completion. So, at the end of this very long game that had a very, you know, compelling and engaging story and I was invested in all of these characters, and by the time the credits were rolling, I felt a little sad to be leaving this world that I have been in many evenings over the last couple of months. Yeah, I don't know, I'm feeling both a little sad because, you know like I said, I got really invested in this game, but now I'm also kind of glad to have some free time back in [laughs] my life because that has definitely been the primary, like, evening activity that I've been doing to relax. JOËL: It sounds like this game had a very, like, a particularly immersive world that really pulled you in. STEPHANIE: It did. It did. It has these eight, like, different characters that you follow, like, different chapters and all of their stories, and then they all kind of come together as well. And the world was huge in this game. There were so many little towns to explore. And I didn't realize I was a completionist type. But I found myself running around opening every chest, talking to every NPC, and making sure that I, you know, collected all of my items [chuckles] before moving on. I also finished all of the side quests, which is, I think, you know, how I managed to put in over 100 hours into it. But yeah, it was very immersive, and I really enjoyed it. I don't know if this will become a norm for me. I know there are some people who are, you know, JRPG diehards and play a lot of these kinds of games, but they're a real, like, time investment for sure. JOËL: Are there achievements for completing everything? STEPHANIE: Not that I can tell on the Switch. I do know that, like, on other systems, you can see your progress on having done all of the things there are to do. But I think it's actually kind of better for me to just play [laughs] to just, like, think that I've done it all but not really, like, have something that tells me whether or not I've done it because then I would feel a lot more neurotic, I think, about being able to let it go where I am now. [laughs] JOËL: Right. If we've got, like, an explicit checklist of things or a progress bar, then it feels like you got to get to all the things. STEPHANIE: Yeah, exactly. I think there are still, you know, a couple more things that I wrote down on my little checklist of tasks that I would want to do once I feel like I want to come back to the game. But for now, like I said, I watched the credits roll. I teared up a little bit, you know, thinking about and reminiscing on my adventure with these characters, and I'm ready to put it down for a bit. JOËL: Did I hear correctly that you made a checklist for this game of things you wanted to do? STEPHANIE: Yes, [laughs] I did. JOËL: That's amazing. I love that. STEPHANIE: Yeah, you know, there are just so many things almost kind of like work where I had to, like, break down some of my goals. I wanted to, like, hit a certain level. I wanted to, you know, make sure I defeat these bosses that would help me get to those levels. And yeah, I got very into it. It was definitely a big part of my life for a couple of months. I got it originally because I needed a game to play on my flight to Asia back when I went to Japan. And I'm like, oh, like, this looks, you know, fun and engaging, and it will distract me for my, you know, over 10-hour flight. Turns out it distracted me for many, many more hours over several months [laughs] since then. But I had a great time. So yeah, that's what's new for me. Again, it's something I'd never really done before. I will say though I am very behind on my reading goal as a result. [chuckles] JOËL: I feel like this is a classic developer thing to do is, like, use the tools that we're used to in our job and then apply them to other parts of our life. And now it's just like, okay, well, I made a Kanban board to track my progress in this video game. You know, or, in my case, I'm definitely guilty of having drawn a dependency graph for the crafting tree for some video game. So I feel you really strongly there. STEPHANIE: Yes, I'm nodding heavily in agreement. I think it just scratches the same kind of itch of, you know, achieving, like, little things and then achieving one big thing. JOËL: So, speaking of places that are nice to have checklists and, like, well-defined requirements, you and I were talking earlier, and you have recently found some frustration around having user stories be defined well on your current project. STEPHANIE: Yes. So I've been reflecting a little bit about my current project and noticing what I think I might call product smells; I'm not quite sure, just some things I'm seeing in our day-to-day workflow that is getting me thinking. And I'm curious to hear if you've experienced something similar. But I find myself being tasked with a ticket that is quite vague. And maybe this was written by a product owner, or maybe it was written by another developer. And it is not quite actionable yet, so I have to go through the process of figuring out what I'm really needing to do here. I think another thing that has been quite frustrating is, you know, maybe we do find out what we want to do. And, like, I'll go back into the ticket, write down the requirements that I gathered, and do the ticket. I'll ship whatever change was required, and then I'll hear back from someone in a meeting or either as a one-off request in Slack. And it'll be like, "Hey, like, actually, you know, we want this to be different." And maybe you previously said that "Oh, the value for something would be 30. But now we found out more information; it should be 20. And so could you, like, make that change?" And then I'm not really sure what the best way to document a change like that is because it, you know, maybe existed in the previous ticket, but now it has changed. And do I create a new ticket for this, or do I just go ahead and make the code change? Like, who would know this information that we're now carrying about 20 being the value for, let's say, like, days or not meaning something in the code that we're writing? And I guess I've just been really curious about how to make sure that this doesn't become the norm where a lot of these conversations are just happening, and, you know, the people who happen to be in them know that this change happened. But then later on, someone is asking questions about, like, hey, like, when did this change? Or I expected this to be 30. But is this, you know, behaving as expected? So that was [laughs] a bit of a nebulous way of describing just, like, this churn that I feel with being the executor of work. But then, like, a lot of these things changing above me or separate from me and figuring out how to manage that. JOËL: When you were describing this scenario where you've done the work, and then someone's like, "Oh, could we change this value from, like, 30 to 20?" I'm thinking in my mind of the sort of beam that a lot of our designers face where it's like, you know, they have a design. They work on it; they do it. And then show it to a client, and the client is like, "I love this design. But could we just shift this box over, like, one pixel?" Like, they're, like, tiny, tiny, little changes that are kind of requested for change after you've done, like, this big thing. And, oftentimes, those pile-up. It's like, you shift it one pixel. It's like, oh, actually, you know what? Why don't we do it two pixels? And then it's like never-ending cycles, sometimes of, like, minute little changes. STEPHANIE: Yeah. But the minute changes really add up into, I think, really different behavior than what you maybe had decided as a team originally. And in the process of changing and evolving, I don't really know where documentation fits in. I've been working on this project that had a pretty comprehensive product design doc, where they had decided upfront on, you know, how the application is going to behave in many different scenarios. But again, like, that has changed over time. And when I recently had to onboard someone new to this project, you know, we sent over this document, and we're like, yeah, you can, you know, feel free to peruse it. But it's actually quite outdated. And then, similarly, right now, since the features that I'm working on are going through QA, there's been a lot of back and forth about, I'm seeing this, but the doc said that Y is supposed to happen, and I'm not sure if that's a bug or not. And I or someone else has to respond with that context that we were holding in our head about when that change happened. JOËL: That's really interesting. And I think it varies a lot based off the size of the organization. In a smaller organization, you're probably doing a lot of the requirements gathering yourself. You're talking to all the stakeholders. You're probably doing the QA yourself, or you're walking somebody else through QA. Versus a large organization, there might be an entirely separate product team, and a separate QA team, and a separate dev team. And a danger that I've often seen is where all of these teams are just kind of tossing work over the fence. And all you're given is a, you know, a ticket of, like, execute on this. Basically, turn these specs into code. And then you do that, and then you toss it over the fence to the QA team. And they check does the code do these things? And there's so much context that can easily get lost from one step to another. That being said, I think a lot of devs find it frustrating to do some of the requirements gathering work. How do you feel in general about scoping out a ticket or doing follow-up conversations with the product team about, like, "Hey, your idea for the ticket is this. How do you feel about doing these things? Or what if we cut these things?" Are those conversations that you enjoy having? Is that a fun part of the developer role for you? Or do you kind of wish that, like, somebody else did all of that so that you could, like, go heads down just writing code? STEPHANIE: I think it depends. That's a great question. Actually, I have so many thoughts in response. So let me try to figure out where I want to go from here. But I think I used to not like it. I used to be stressed out by it, and sometimes I still am. But when I thought my role was purely executing, to receive a ticket that is a bit vague, you know, I might have been left feeling, like, stuck, like, not knowing where to go from there. But now that has changed a bit because I received some really helpful feedback from an old manager of mine who was kind of invested in my growth. And she really suggested learning to become more comfortable with ambiguity because that just becomes more and more your job, I think, as you progress in your career. And so now I at least know what information I need to go get and have, you know, strategies for doing so. And also knowing that it's my job, like, knowing that no one else might be doing it, and it might just be me so that I can therefore get this ticket done. Because, like you said, that problem of throwing the work over the fence to someone else, at some point, that doesn't work because everyone has too much on their plates. And you have to just decide to be the one to seek the information that you need. JOËL: I think one way that, as developers, we bring a lot of value is that we help to cut through a lot of that ambiguity. I think if we see our role as merely translating a requirements document into code, that's a very simplistic point of view of what a talented developer does. So, like you said, as we grow in our careers, we start dealing with less and less defined things. We often have to start defining the problems that we're given. And we have to have these conversations with other teams to figure out what exactly we want to do. And maybe better understand why is it that we want to do this thing. What is the purpose of it? How are we going to get there? And my favorite: Do we have to do all of these things to hit the minimum value of this goal? Can I split this into multiple tickets? I love breaking down work. If I can make the ticket smaller, I'm all about that. STEPHANIE: Yes. I'm well aware. It's interesting about what you said, though, is that, like, yes, that becomes, in some ways, our superpower. But, for me, where the pain comes in is when that's not part of the expectations, where I am maybe tasked with something that is not clear enough, and yet, the time that I need to find that clarity is not given the respect that it, I think, deserves to build a good product because the expectation is that I should already be making progress on this ticket and that it will be delivered soon. You know, in that situation, I wish I had been in the room earlier. I wish I had been part of the process for developing the product strategy, or even just, like, have come in earlier to be able to ask, you know, why are we building this? And, like, what are some of the limitations on the technical side that we have? Because often, I find that it is a little too...not necessarily too late, but it is quite down the road that we then have to have these conversations, and it doesn't feel good. JOËL: I think that's one of the powerful things that came out of the agile movement was the idea that you have these cross-functional teams, that you don't have a separate product team, a separate dev team, a separate QA team, a separate design team that are all these isolated islands. But instead, you say, okay, we have a cross-functional team that is working on this aspect of the product. And it will be some product people, some dev people, some designers kind of all working together and communicating with each other. I know, shocking concept. And even depending on the context, a big idea is that the client or the customer is a part of that team. So, when we at thoughtbot work with a client, especially when they are maybe a smaller client like a startup founder, we make sure that they feel like they are a part of the team. They are involved in various meetings where we decide things. They have input. You know, they're part of that feedback cycle that we build. But that can also be the case for a larger company where your internal stakeholders are kind of built-in to be sort of part of your team. STEPHANIE: I've seen so many different flavors of trying to do Agile [laughs] that it has lost a little bit of meaning for me these days. And maybe we've incorporated some aspects of it. But then that idea of the tight feedback loops and then a cross-functional team where everyone is communicating that part has gotten a little bit lost, at least on my project. And I imagine that this is common, and our listeners might be finding themselves in a similar situation where things are starting to feel a little more like handing off and a little more like waterfall. [laughs] I'm curious, though, if you found yourself being requested to make a change from what the original decision was, how would you go about documenting that or not documenting it? Where do you think the best place for that information about how this feature now is supposed to work where should that live? JOËL: Are you talking about where do we document that a decision was made to change the original requirements of a task? STEPHANIE: Yes. JOËL: In general, I think that should live on the ticket just because as long as the ticket is live, I think it's good to have all the context on that ticket for whoever's working on it to have access at a glance. Sometimes it's worth it to say, you know what? We don't want to just keep this ticket live for weeks or maybe months on end. Let's ship this ticket, and create a follow-up to make a change later, especially if it's a change that's less important where it's like, you know what? It would be nice to have if...but, again, like, scope creep is a real danger. And so, again, me with the aggressive breaking up of tickets, I love to say, "That's a great idea. It would make a great change, not part of this ticket." So oftentimes, those changes I will push them into another ticket. STEPHANIE: That's interesting. What about documentation beyond the current work? So I'm thinking about once, you know, a feature is delivered, how do people in the organization then know how this feature is supposed to work? Like moving forward as something that is customer-facing. JOËL: That can vary a lot by organization, I think because there's a couple of different aspects to this. You have maybe some internal-facing documentation; maybe some customer support people need to know about the way the interface has changed. And then you also have customer-facing documentation where maybe you want some sort of, you know, you want a blog post talking about the new feature or some kind of release notes or something like that to be shared with your customers. And compiling that might look very different than what you do for your internal service reps. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I like that. It's true that the customer documentation is really helpful. At least for, the product that I'm working on, it has very comprehensive documentation about how to use that for its customers. And that has been really helpful because, hopefully, that should be the truest [laughs] information out there. But sometimes, you know, I find myself in meetings where none of us really know what happens. For example, a question that was asked recently is our product has a free trial capability. But it was unclear what happens to all of the data that the customer is getting access to as a feature. Like, what happens to that data after the free trial ends? Like, if they then have purchased a license, do they still have access to their free trial data? If, you know, there's a lapse between then, does it just get deleted, or will it show up again? And no one really knew the answer to that. And I think that was another area that got my spidey senses tingling a little bit; I think because it reminded me of...there was a definition I read somewhere of legacy code that is basically when the person who has the most context about how a piece of code works and then they leave the company and that institutional knowledge no longer exists, like, that is legacy code. And I almost think that that also applies to product a little bit where a legacy product is something where no one quite knows what is supposed to happen, but it's still being used by users. JOËL: That's a really fun definition there. I think there's sort of two related questions that are slightly different here, which is, one, how does the code behave? So, what happens when someone's trial period expires? And it's quite possible that no one on the team knows what actually happens when that time expires. And then the second question is, what should happen when a trial expires? And it's possible, again, that the product team didn't think through any of the edge cases. They only went for the happy path. And so it's possible if that is also fully undefined and no one knows. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I like that distinction you made a lot because they definitely go hand in hand, where someone realizes that some weird edge case happened, and then suddenly, they're asking those questions. And, you know, we realized, like, oh, like, that just didn't have enough, like, intention or thought behind how it was coded. So, like, it really is; who knows, right? Just whatever seems to happen. And I think that this actually kind of reminds me of a previous episode we did about empowering other departments in the company because, ultimately, a lot of those questions about, like, how does this work? What happens? Ends up going to a developer who has to go and read the code and report back. And while, you know, we do have that power, it can also be a bit of a curse, I think. [laughs] JOËL: I think this is an area where, as developers, we're maybe particularly skilled. Because of the work that we do, our brains are kind of wired to think about all of the edge cases, and sometimes they can be really annoying. But I think there's a lot of value sometimes when maybe the product team comes to us with a maybe somewhat nebulously scoped ticket or a series of tickets for, let's say, a free trial period feature that only goes through the happy path. And then sometimes it's up to us to push back or to follow up and say, "Okay, great. We've got a bunch of tickets for a free trial period. Have you thought about what happens after a trial expires but the person hasn't converted to a paying customer?" And then, oftentimes, the answer is like, "Oh, no, we didn't think about that." And I think oftentimes, as developers, our job is to kind of, like, seek out a lot of those edge cases. And we have a lot of techniques and methodologies that we use to try to find edge cases, things like test-driven development, various modeling tools that we'll try to use to make sure that we don't just crash or do something bad in our code. But what should the actual behavior be? That's a conversation that we need to have. And hopefully, that's one that maybe the product team has already had on their own. But oftentimes, the benefit of having that cross-functional team is the ability to kind of have that back and forth and say, "Hey, what about this edge case? Have we thought about that? How do we want that to behave?" STEPHANIE: Yeah, that actually made me think about the idea of tech debt but almost at a product level, where, hey, it turns out that we have all of these things that we didn't quite think through, and it's now causing problems. But how much do we invest in revisiting it? Because, you know, maybe this feature is several years old, and it was working just okay enough for it to, you know, be valuable. But we're now discovering these things and, you know, like, do we invest in them? Or are we more focused on, you know, coming up with new things and new features for our customers? JOËL: That's a classic prioritization problem. It also kind of reminds me of the idea of an MVP. What are the actual, like, minimum set of features that you need in order to try out something or to ship something to customers? And, you know, maybe we don't need some special behavior if your trial account doesn't convert. Maybe we're okay [laughs] that you log in, and the app just crashes. Probably not, because we would probably want you to convert to a paying customer at some point. But maybe we're okay if you just get a screen that says, "You have no projects," when, in fact, you did have projects. It's just that you're no longer on the free trial. Again, for business reasons, probably we want a call to action there that says, "You have five projects. They are not available to you. Please pay to unlock your projects again." That probably converts better. But, again, now that is a business decision. And that becomes a prioritization question that the team as a whole gets to address. Sometimes it can also be some really fun prioritization things where if you're on a really tight schedule, you might ship some features live knowing that you have a time limit, but you don't have to necessarily ship other things. So let's say you've got a 30-day trial, and maybe you ship that before you've even implemented what the dashboard will look like after your free trial has expired, and that's fine because no one's going to hit that condition for 30 days. So now you've got 30 days to go out and handle that condition. And maybe that's okay because it allowed you to get to market a little bit faster, allowed you to cut scope, break those tickets, yes, and just move that much faster. But it does require discipline because now you're on the clock. You've got 30 days to fix that edge case or potentially face some unhappy customers. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I think that's quite a funny way to handle it. It's really ruthless prioritization [laughs] there. But what you said was very interesting to me because I was thinking about how there is such a focus on new feature development and that being the thing that will attract customers or generate more money. But there is something to be said about investigating some of our old features of our existing system and finding opportunities there. And oftentimes, revisiting them will reduce the amount of pain [chuckles] that, you know, developers feel having to kind of keep track or have an eye on, like, where things are airing out, but then don't have the time to really invest in making it better or making that part of the product better. JOËL: I think that's a great opportunity then to have a conversation with other parts of the team. Typically, I think you have to convert some of those into more of a business case. So the business people in the company or the product people might not care about the sort of raw metrics that you see as a developer. Oh, we got an exception with a stack trace in this part of our app. What does that even mean? But if you say, hey, people who signed up for a free trial and then didn't immediately convert within 30 days who want to come back a month later and convert are unable to do so. And we've seen that that's about 10% of the people who signed up for a free trial. Well, now that's an interesting business question. Are we losing out on potentially 10% of customer acquisition? I'll bet the sales and marketing people care a lot about that. I'll bet the business people care a lot about that. The product people probably care a lot about that. And now we can have a conversation about should we prioritize this thing? Are these metrics that we should improve? Is this a part of our code that's worth investing in? STEPHANIE: Yeah, I like that because, in some ways, asking those questions about how does it work? Like, that is really an opportunity because then you can find out, and then you can make decisions about whether it's currently providing enough value as is or if there is something hiding under there to leverage. JOËL: And I think that's one of the other places where, as developers, we provide value to clients is that we can sort of talk both languages. We can talk product language. We can talk business language. But we can also talk code. And so when we see things like that in code, sort of translate that into, like, what are the business impacts of this code change? Which then allows everyone to make the best possible decisions for the mission of the organization that you're a part of. So we've talked about a variety of sort of patterns and anti-patterns that surround working through some of this churn on a product. I'm curious, Stephanie, for you, what's maybe one concrete thing that you've done recently that you've found has really helped you navigate this and maybe help reduce some of the stress that you feel as you navigate through this? STEPHANIE: Yeah, I think, for me, one of the worst things is when that discussion is had in a meeting or a [inaudible 35:45] and then is not put anywhere. And so, one thing I've been making sure to do is either asking the person who made the request to write it down, either on the ticket or in Slack. Or I will write it down, you know, I will document the outcomes of what we talked about and putting it in a public space so that people are aware. I think that small action has been helpful because we hold so much of this in our heads. And I've been finding that it ends up being hard for people to rotate onto different projects and, you know, get onboarded and up to speed effectively because there's so much knowledge and context transfer happening. But even just putting it in a place where maybe it's not relevant to everyone, but at least they see it. And then the next time that they're asked or maybe, like, do come around to working on this, they, like, have some fragment of a memory that they saw something about this. So that has been really helpful. It actually dovetails really nicely into what we were talking about with opportunities, too, because once it's out there, like, maybe someone else will see it and have an idea about how it could be better or that change not being what they expected, and they can weigh in a little more. So that's what I'm trying to do. And I think it's also nice to see how often that happens, right? If we're constantly seeing things changing because we have a written record of it, that could be helpful in bringing up and investigating further as to, like, why is this happening? Like, why do we experience this churn? And is that something we want to address? JOËL: Yeah, because an element that we haven't talked at all about is any sort of feedback cycle or retrospective, where we can talk about these things and having that written trail and saying, "Oh, we changed this decision five times in the past week, like, really churned there." Now maybe that prioritizes it to be an important thing to talk about and to improve for the next cycle. STEPHANIE: What I feel really strongly about is when, you know, each individual on a team is feeling this pain, but it not being known that it's actually a collective issue. Because maybe these things are happening in one-on-one conversations, and we don't realize that, like, oh, maybe there is something bigger here that we could improve on. And so the more eyes on it there are, the more visible it is, I think, that the easier it is to address. JOËL: I love that, the power of writing things down. On that note, shall we wrap up? STEPHANIE: Let's wrap up. Show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. JOËL: This show has been produced and edited by Mandy Moore. STEPHANIE: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review in iTunes. It really helps other folks find the show. JOËL: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us @_bikeshed, or you can reach me @joelquen on Twitter. STEPHANIE: Or reach both of us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email. JOËL: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. ALL: Byeeeeee!!!!!! ANNOUNCER: This podcast is brought to you by thoughtbot, your expert strategy, design, development, and product management partner. We bring digital products from idea to success and teach you how because we care. Learn more at thoughtbot.com.

Being a better listener has a lot to do with silence, says Collins Dobbs, a lecturer in management at Stanford Graduate School of Business. “A lot of people are uncomfortable with the smallest modicum of silence, but learning often happens when we create distance for useful reflection.”In this episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Dobbs talks with host Matt Abrahams about the importance of “space, pace, and grace” when you’re receiving others’ feedback and handling the emotions that come out during tough discussions.“There’s often a lot more focus on the skill set on delivering emotion than receiving emotion, but if the receiver of emotion can put themselves in a place of curiosity, agency, and openness … it opens up a whole new world of possibilities.”Dobbs is an executive coach and teaches several courses, including Interpersonal Dynamics and Leadership Labs. Connect:Email Questions & Feedback >>> hello@fastersmarter.ioEpisode Transcripts >>> Think Fast Talk Smart WebsiteNewsletter Signup + English Language Learning >>> FasterSmarter.ioThink Fast Talk Smart >>> LinkedIn,  Instagram, YouTubeMatt Abrahams >>> LinkedIn

Send us a textAre you always looking for the lazy solution? Do you try to find “one and done” solutions to the problems in your life? Today I want to talk about how most progress is not just about knowing what to do, but about doing it consistently.“How do you move forward? One step at a time. How do you lose weight? One kilo at a time. How do you write a book? One page at a time. How do you build a relationship? One day at a time. In a world obsessed with speed, never forget things of real worth and value take time.”— ThibautVisit the Stoic Coffee Break website for more episodes, transcripts, and merch.Watch episodes on YouTube!Find me on linkedIn, instagram, twitter, or threads.Thanks again for listening!

Whether you’re trying to build a romantic or professional connection, Rachel Greenwald’s advice is exactly the same. “Focus on how you make someone feel more than you focus on the words that you're saying,” she says. As a professional coach, Greenwald helps people develop better communication skills, from executives in the business world to singles in the dating world. Building deep connections may at times be challenging, but as Greenwald says, it’s ultimately not complicated. “You're demonstrating that you're interested in someone and that you like them,” she says.In this episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Greenwald and host Matt Abrahams discuss relationship-building tactics like small talk, active listening, communication blindspots, and more.Connect:Email Questions & Feedback >>> hello@fastersmarter.ioEpisode Transcripts >>> Think Fast Talk Smart WebsiteNewsletter Signup + English Language Learning >>> FasterSmarter.ioThink Fast Talk Smart >>> LinkedIn,  Instagram, YouTubeMatt Abrahams >>> LinkedIn

In this conversation, Ben speaks to Kimeshan Naidoo, the CTO at BX, and former co-founder and CTO at UniBuddy. They explore stress, health, meditation, stoic beliefs, and the philosophies that guide Kimeshan’s working life.

WATCH THE VIDEO: https://youtu.be/TOHQvFEDr3gThe first "proper" episode of the year is here! 00:00 Intro00:20 Dagogo's got a stache 01:00 How we spent our holidays 3:40 Our accents06:30 10, 000! 08:30 Pizza Hut is failing14:35 Exploding Chairs 16:00 Bon Iver's debut album 20:38 Avatar's technology 24:20 Comments from Elon Musk's Twitter Circus video36:06 ChatGPT Introduces Paid Version 51:57 Getty Images to sue Stable Diffusion 57:05 Will FTX Return? 1:03:00 OutroFollow us on Twitter to engage with our work: https://twitter.com/throughthewebProduced by: Dagogo Altraide, Tawsif AkkasShot and edited by: Brayden Laffreyhttps://www.braydenlaffreymedia.com/

In this conversation, Ben speaks to Stefan Boronea, Co-founder and CTO of Proportunity.Stefan discusses why it’s now a commonplace thing in western society for people to want, and experience, several different careers over the course of their lives, and why the degree of choice afforded to us is both a blessing and a curse.They discuss the management of our most precious resource, time, and how doing it successfully amounts to fulfilment in our working life. Stefan explores the human tendency to over-estimate risk, and its implications on our choice of work. Finally, their conversation touches on why we should all aim to be an outlier, and how self-knowledge is a critical part of identifying the optimal path for ourselves.

In this conversation, Ben speaks to Olov Eriksson, Chief Product Officer at Pleo. Their conversation focuses on the intersection between relationships and decision-making.They discuss how Olov prioritises inputs over outputs. He explains how to use and understand your emotions to make big professional decisions. And they discuss the topic of fear; how it can drive us, hinder us, and help us navigate our working journey.

Diego Fernandes (CTO - Rocketseat) conversa com Bruno Silva (Magazine Luiza/Luizalabs) e Bruno Silva (Rocketseat) sobre todo o ecossistema prático e técnico do NextJS. Para além do hype da tecnologia, qual foi o impacto na prática que o Next proporcionou no desenvolvimento interno da Magalu e da comunidade em geral? O FALADEV é um podcast feito por devs, para devs. A conversa é técnica, composta por uma mesa experiente e diversa, com o propósito de trazer discussões importantes que possam contribuir para o seu aprendizado.  Passamos a maior parte do tempo escrevendo código. Agora chegou o momento de falar sobre isso.

In this conversation, Ben speaks to the Head of Engineering at WorldPay, Usman Bashir.The conversation predominantly centres on mentorship, with Usman sharing his route towards management and then on to leadership, detailling the role of mentors in that journey. He reveals his experiences in finding a mentor, why their seniority and experience matters, and why it’s helpful if you don’t work at the same company as them.Usman shares his insights on the key points throughout a mentoring process from both sides - how to know when your mentor might not be a fit for you, and how to run your first session as a mentor.He also details the importance of values in continually improving one’s decision-making, and what it really takes towards becoming a leader that truly generates change.

What does it take to be successful in the field of user experience? There isn't a single, clear-cut answer, but there are a number of different skills, traits, and perspectives that foster better workplace relationships and strengthen creative problem-solving. Anna Kaley and other fellow NN/g UX Specialists offer their insights on the commonalities that highly effective UX professionals seem to share, and how they can enable more human-centered outcomes. In this episode... Anna Kaley proposes "6 C's" list of characteristics that enable UX practitioners to succeed in the workplace. Maria Rosala shares some findings from our UX careers research, which prove have some timeless advice, despite frequent changes in the industry. Tanner Kohler highlights the importance of human-centered research versus feature-focused research in creating human-centered designs. Rachel Krause offers recommendations on how to evolve from being a designer in isolation into a designer with influence. Kim Salazar discusses the necessity to see ambiguity not as something to be feared, but as something to be explored. Finally, a featured clip from UX Certified community member, Katherine Joyce which celebrates habits and mindsets to which we all can aspire.

In this conversation, Ben speaks to David Heinemeier Hansson, the creator of Ruby on Rails - and Co-owner & CTO of 37signals - the company behind Basecamp and Hey.com.They explore David’s past and it’s influence on his work. Why he finds meaning by pushing himself harder. Stoicism and its continuing influence on David’s life. How to externalise factors beyond our control. How to work through adversity. The differences between loyalty and obligation. The meaning of legacy, and much more.It makes for the type of conversation Ben wishes he'd had years ago, and one he won’t forget.

 In the space of fewer than 100 years, fast food has fundamentally changed the global culinary landscape.In this episode, we explore how it has managed to grow so much and what it is doing to our societies, world and bodies, and ask ourselves whether we'll ever kick our fast-food addiction.1% of the world's population will eat at McDonald's todayThe entire population of Scotland is flipping burgers in the United StatesThe power of the fast-food lobbyHow the US government pays for Big MacsWhy the fast-food industry won't stop growingFast food during COVID-19Changing dining habits during the pandemicThe rise of "fast-casual"The rise of environmentally friendly fast foodHow fast-food restaurants are changing (or not changing) to accommodate changing tastesImpact of fast food on our bodies and healthFuture of the fast-food industryFull interactive transcript, subtitles and key vocabulary available on the website: https://www.leonardoenglish.com/podcasts/fast-food-3 ---You might like:🔓 Unlock bonus episodes, interactive transcripts, subtitles & vocabulary lists🧑‍💼 Demystifying Business English Course⚡️  How To Use Podcasts Like A Boss To Learn English 📧 Join the weekly newsletter✍️ Free English Grammar Checker---Keywords: Learn English, vocabulary, lessons, idioms, aprende inglés, idiomas, aprender inglês, apprendre l'anglais, imparare l’inglese, ingilizce öğren,英語を習う, تعلم الإنجليزية

Nick Schwaderer co-hosts with Brittany this week. They discuss Nick's new job at Shopify (!), the interview process and working with the Ruby/Rails core team. They wrap with Nick's promise to discuss Stimulus but that quickly evolves to Hotwire. Links for this episode:Careers and Jobs at ShopifyHow to use Hotwire in Rails (Example) | GoRailsSchwad4HD14 (@Schwad4HD14) | TwitterEpisode Introduction and Outro by Michael SpringerEpisode Music by Kevin MacLeodRandy Steele's LinkedInEmail Randy Steele at steelerx155@gmail.comBrought to you by: Raygun Save time, money, and sanity by visiting Raygun.com/ruby and join thousands of software teams who use Raygun every day to ship better quality code, faster. It takes just minutes to set up and starts from as little as $4 per month.

Rick Newman is a Director of Engineering at Salesforce Heroku. He's joined by Marco Faella, a professor of advanced programming and author of "Seriously Good Software." In Marco's view, there are of course several ways ways to characterize "good" software. Excellent software that goes above and beyond correct functionality includes code that is readable, robust, and performant. Each of these have different importance, depending on context. Robust software, for example, includes addressing issues with scalability, but only if one expects the software to be in such a high availability environment. It's important to address these requirements from the beginning, when the software architecture is being mapped out. Marco gives the example of developing software for an external client. This client might know all the business logic and how it ought to function, but addressing the code's future evolution and maintenance are just as important, and whose responsibility lands squarely in the hands of the developer. It can also be worthwhile to make an investment in education, learning about algorithms, data access, and other key concepts in the world of computer science. Such a foundation would allow one to adapt to the changing conditions of programming, whether those are caused by new hardware or modifications in the languages themselves. Links from this episode "Seriously Good Software" is Marco's book on the subject of writing strong code -- get a 40% discount with the code podish19

On the far side of a once-passionate romance, Cindy and Dean are married with a young daughter. Hoping to save their marriage, they steal away to a theme hotel, where they’re flooded with memories of when they met and fell in love—full of life and hope.

Paterson is a bus driver in the city of Paterson, New Jersey. Every day, Paterson adheres to a simple routine: he drives his bus, observing the city and overhearing fragments of conversation; he writes poetry; he walks his dog; he goes to the same bar to drink a beer; he goes home to his wife Laura.

Elise and Didier fall in love at first sight. They bond over their shared enthusiasm for American music and culture, and dive headfirst into a sweeping romance that plays out on and off stage—but when an unexpected tragedy hits their new family, everything they know and love is tested.

Water Underground

Rosemary

Watch The World

Oddity

Horrorison

Bandoleros

I Want

Wingspan

Я Так Устал / Ya Tak Ustal

Не Вдвоем / Ne Vdvoem

Hide

Like I Say (I runaway)

Black Rose Immortal

They Don't Know At The Beach

I'm Losing You - Remastered 2010

Waterfall

Tomorrow

Those Years Are Over

See Through

Tumble in the Wind (Version 1) (Bonus Track)