We have a list of recommended books at LeanAgileTraining.com, here.In addition, we can recommend the following: A Sense of Urgency by John Kotter Fearless Change: Patterns for Introducing New Ideas by Mary Lynn Manns and Linda Rising. Toyota Production System by Taiichi Ohno. The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Anniversary Edition (2nd Edition)by Frederick …
We spend a lot of time learning about programming. Unless you work on project management software, ahem, you probably don't spend a lot of time thinking about all the work around programming. We need to take this seriously, it surrounds and defines what we do on a daily basis.
"When people are talking about web performance, they may talk about different aspects of the subject depending on their role and the task on hand. The real life is rather messy, so we use abstractions that let us get away from details not important for the moment. The same reality may look quite differently depending on how we look at it. Adjusting our view for our specific needs, we probably may highlight four major angles to look at web performance."
Today I watched the Google I/O presentation about HTTPS everywhere and read a couple of articles, saying that Google is going to rank sites using HTTPS higher. Apart from that, SPDY has mandatory usage of TLS, and it’s very likely the same will be true for HTTP/2. Chromium proposes marking non-HTTPS sites as non-secure. And that’s perfect. Except, it’s not very nice for small site owners. In the presentation above, the speakers say “it’s very easy” multiple times. And it is, you just have to follow a dozen checklists with a dozen items, run your site through a couple of tools and pay a CA 30 bucks per year. I have run a couple of personal sites over HTTPS (non-commercial, so using a free StatCom certificate), and I still shiver at the thought of setting up a certificate. You may say that’s because I’m an Ops newbie, but it’s just a tedious process. But let’s say every site owner will have a webmaster on contract who will renew the certificate every year. What’s the point? The talk
In the tradition of considered harmful posts, this post’s title is intentionally misleading and designed to incite controversy — or at least grab your attention. Because of this, please take my exaggerations in this article for what they are :) In following tradition I will try to leave as many quotes and soundbytes as possible that can be easily taken terribly out of context and twisted. Anyways, I don’t mean that this IO Monad is something to be avoid. In fact, there’s a lot I rather like about it. What I mean is that the phrase IO Monad…it’s got to go. It has its usages, but 99.9% of times it is used, it is used improperly, with much damaging effects. So let’s go ahead with stopping this nonsense once and for all, okay? So I’ll say it here: The phrase IO monad considered harmful. Please do not use it. In most circumstances, the IO type is the more helpful and more correct answer. I’m going to say that this is probably the single most harmful and damaging thing in Haskell and the community, with regards to pedagogy, practice, public perception, and kittens. Not even kidding. It’s actually literally the worst and everyone in the world is worse off every time someone says it. Not only is this a problem in and of itself, but it is at the core root of 90% (+/- 80%) of Haskell’s problems.
Kanban talks about limiting work in progress (WIP) as a way to manage workflow. “Limiting WIP is hard enough, but selling it can be nearly impossible” said Jim Benson. At the Lean Kanban Central Europe 2014 Conference he talked about how to convince others to limit WIP.
Recently we polled a small group of InfoQ editors, consultants and trainers asking them for their thoughts on the state of Agile adoption and what ideas, practices or techniques are emerging or being recognised as useful at the end of 2014. This is not a scientific study, rather an informal collection of opinions.
J’ai lu voici quelques mois un billet qui s’intitule The Rise of Worse is Better par Richard P. Gabriel, développeur Lisp (qui a d’ailleurs monté une société autour de ce langage dans les années 80). Vieux billet puisqu’il date de 1989 dans sa version original. Il est, à l’origine, une section dans un essai nommé Lisp: Good News, Bad News, How to Win Big. Dans ce billet, Gabriel expose deux visions du développement logiciel qu’il appelle la conception «The Right Thing» (approche MIT) et la conception «Worse is Better» (approche Stanford).