Getting started . . .

OK, now that that is out of the way, lets talk about code.

I work in C# using Visual Studio.NET 2008 w/ReSharper. After working with ReSharper for the last year, I honestly can't imagine working without it, hence the inclusion as part of my IDE. Why don't I throw some buzzwords at you and then try to justify them: DDD, TDD, Agile, XP, IoC, RhinoMocks, nUnit, WatiN, Patterns, Patterns, Patterns... The list could go on. Years ago, I would have defined myself (as a coder) using the names of technologies (XML, HTML, T-SQL). Now I talk more about tools and methods than technologies.

I mostly work in ASP.NET targeting the .NET 3.5 framework these days at work, though at home, in my free time, I tend to be more desktop focused.

Well, this isn't a resume, now is it? I should just talk about the things that really interest me...

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Simpler Tests: What kind of test are you writing?

One common problem that I see in test suites is confusion about what each test should cover. This confusion often leads to tests that are either too broad or too focused to accomplish the goal of the author. When writing a test, it is important to think about what kind of test it will be and the constraints that make that type of test effective. There are a few broad categories of tests that I keep in mind to help focus my testing: Unit Tests Also called micro tests, unit tests form the foundation of any good testing strategy. These are tests that test a single class or method in isolation from it's dependencies. Mocks and stubs help us isolate the code under test and make our tests more focused and expressive. A test that touches any external resource such as the database, the file system, a web service, etc is never a unit test. The primary purpose of unit tests is to validate that the subject under test is functionally correct for the expected inputs and outputs. Additiona
Read more

Architecture at different levels of abstraction

Image
This week I am attending the O'Reilly Architecture Conference in NYC with my team and I had the pleasure of attending a two day training on Building Evolutionary Architectures presented by Neal Ford and Rebecca Parsons . During this session, on of the things we talked about extensively was coupling. We looked at dependency maps for different architectural styles including the big ball of mud . We saw something like the following and almost everyone agreed, "That is a bad architecture." Big Ball of Mud This reminded me of something I has seen elsewhere before, and after a quick search, I found it: Amazon and Netflix Death Star Architectures The ball of mud is considered obviously wrong by most architects, but the death star seems to be held up as an ideal by just as many and likely most of the same architects. Why is this? Are afferent coupling (inbound dependencies) and efferent coupling (outreaching dependencies) only important at a certain sc
Read more

Episode 019 - Sustaining Communities

There are many benefits to having communities of practice, so long as the community continues to exist. In this episode, special guests Jon Turner and Neil Sorensen discuss what they've learned over their many years attending and facilitating the Utah Software Craftsmanship group ( http://utahsc.org/ ). Listen here:  https://crafting-code-podcast.github.io/episodes/019-sustaining-communities.html
Read more