Last weekend was Developer Day Scotland. Much like the original Developer Days that I’ve been along to many of based on the Microsoft Campus that relaunched with a new team running them, this was a relaunch by the Scottish Developers. As there were some interesting sessions on the agenda, and since I fancied an excuse to take the West Coast Main Line over Shap and through the Southern Uplands – something I usually only glimpse whilst driving the M6 and A74(M), I grabbed myself a ticket and headed north.
The conference was held at the Paisley Campus of the University of the West of Scotland. The Reading Developer Day’s are relatively unusual being held at a company site, but then few companies have the kind of setup Microsoft have that is suitable. Having said that the experience of attending a DDD at a University showed up several advantaged, not least that they have much more space, and in particular the main hall is large enough to take all the attendees – at Microsoft the prize giving at the end of the day ends up being done with all the attendees stood in the foyer and the organisers stood on the stairs!
This conference I was very much picking sessions to tie in with upcoming work, rather than just sessions that piqued my interest as I have done at other DDD events.
Filip started off with a quick recap of the history of C# as a language – enough to make me feel a little old as I can remember my first experiences with the early versions of C# back with Visual Studio 2003. This was to highlight that the way developers worked with C# hasn’t changed much over the years, which is why the new Roslyn compiler is such a game changer.
He started off with a simple feature,
dotnet watch that allows you to run a specific command as soon as a source file changes. This needs the VS2017 project format, but allows a great deal of flexibility in how you work with code.
From there he moved on to Edit and Continue. Edit and Continue has been around for longer than C# – it was an often used feature of VB6 that was demanded in .Net as people moved across. It has however been problematic, as a general rule of thumb tending to support a version behind the current cutting edge C#. There have also always been a number of limitations, in particular not being able to change lambda functions at all. Roslyn has changed that. Finally it has now caught up with the current C# 7.
For the next part of his talk Filip talked about C# REPL, what is known in VS2017 as the C# Interactive Shell.
The C# REPL didn’t exist before Roslyn, because as a compiled language the kind of interactive functionality just wasn’t possible. With Roslyn, Microsoft has introduced a special mode that relaxes some of the parsing rules to make interactive development possible, including the ability to use syntax that normal C# code would reject as illegal.
Interestingly as Filip explained, each line is still compiled, which does give the interactive window some interesting advantages over interpreted interactive languages, allowing developers to interactively step back through compilation. It also integrates in with the current open solution allowing developers to manipulate and explore the current solution in more complex ways than previously.
C# REPL exists in several forms. It can be run directly from the command line, whilst the C# Interactive window in Visual Studio is a WPF wrapper around the C# REPL that leverages extra functionality. There is also an “Execute in Interactive” right click menu option to immediately run the code under the cursor. The final variation of it is Xamarin Workbooks which uses Markdown format text, and uses the C# REPL to execute any code blocks in the document. Output can also be sent to the iOS or Android emulators as well as running locally.
Filip finished off by discussing Live Unit Testing, something I’ve already been using in VS2017. This runs tests as they are actually being coded – it doesn’t wait for code to be saved. It does this by hooking in as a Roslyn analyser. It’s straightforward to write a custom analyser ourselves perhaps to enforce coding standards, or guide other developers in the way to use a library – indeed some third party library developers are already including analysers to do just this.
Jonathan started by talking about a project he had worked on where speed had been an issue, and they had tracked the problem down to the large numbers of dependencies being inserted using dependency injection. The issue being that the inversion of control mechanism used to insert the dependencies was using reflection.
The issue is with the way we do SOLID in ASP.Net, so Jonathan used a series of examples showing how we can go from a solution heavily dependent on injecting dependencies and using mocking frameworks for testing, to something that uses no dependency injection or mocking frameworks at all. He has his examples for the talk online in a GitHub repository.
What is perhaps most interesting about his final solution is that the technology he is using has been around since the earliest days of C# – using delegates and static methods, along with his own Botwin library to simplify building an API going to a much more functional programming style model than is used in traditional ASP.Net.
Jonathan also highlighted a number of other blogs and videos. Mike Hadlow blogs on much the same technique highlighting how much less code using a functional style produces. Posts from Mark Seeman and Brian Geihsler also talk about how SOLID principles lead to a profusion of dependencies making codebases difficult to navigate.
Given that so much software these days follows the SOLID principles, this was a challenging different view on how systems should be developed, one of those “everything you think you know is wrong” type sessions.
The next session I attended was Paul Aikman talking about React.js and friends, which was one of my must attend talks as I was due to start working with React.js the following week for the first time. Paul has posted his slides on his website.
Paul started by taking us through how his company has eventually arrived at using React.js, starting out with Webforms augmented by JQuery, through Knockout and Angular 1, before settling on and sticking with React.
He also highlighted how there has been a gradual shift from performing a lot of processing on the server side with minimal client side functionality to the current situation where customers are expecting a rich and responsive experience interacting with websites that mean clients are now a lot fatter. He also discussed why having started with Angular 1, his company took the decision to shift to React, which effectively came down to the significant changes between Angular 1 and 2 meaning that they would effectively have to learn a new framework with Angular 2, so they went out to what they regarded as the best at the time, and changed to React.
He then gave a rapid overview of how React worked, which I found really useful coming to React for the first time during the following week. He highlighted that given the years of being told to separate logic and presentation with the MVC pattern, one of the biggest surprises with React is that it mixes logic and presentation together.
Paul also highlighted that React only focuses on UI logic, following the principle of doing one thing, and doing it well. There are additional libraries such as Redux and React Router that provide the additional functionality needed to build a web application.
After lunch, I decided to head along to Gary Fleming’s talk on API’s on the Scale of Decades which was on the problems with API’s, and how developers can write and API that can evolve over time rather than lock you in to poor early decisions. Once again Gary has his talk notes online which are well worth taking a look at. As a side note Gary was using an app called Deckset to run his presentation, that takes presentations written in Markdown syntax – considering the amount of time I spent reworking Markdown notes into a Keynote presentation recently, I’ve noted it down as something to look at further.
Gary’s talk was the one that promoted the most heated discussion of any I attended, both at the session, and also when I came back to the office. He started from the point that designing API’s is hard, but that what most developers want in an API is something that is both machine and human readable, changeable, testable and documented.
Gary started with a crash course in the concept of affordance, using Mario, and animals in a tree as examples! Gary was highlighting that in both the case of the game, and different animals using a tree in different ways it was through their knowledge and experience that they were interacting with the tree or we were playing the game, API’s should be similar. He used further examples where knowledge and experience allow us to interact with something – save buttons that look like floppy disks, even though many people now have never even used a floppy disk.
Applying this to our API’s the mechanisms for controlling them should be included in the information returned by the API, you shouldn’t separate them out.
Looking at a common affordance on an API, if there is a large dataset to return, generally we will page this, and there is a common set of affordances for stepping through the dataset. Going back to the days of the text adventure games from the early days of computer games, once again there was a common set of verbs with which to interact with the game.
A good tip Gary gave for thinking about the verbs and nouns to describe these affordances was to think about how you would ask voice assistants like Alexa or Siri to do what you want to do. He also suggested that well designed affordances are effective documentation for an API – if it is clear how to use an API you don’t need extensive documentation.
Gary then moved onto the problem of changing an API.
He used the example of the Ship of Theseus. In this thought experiment a ship over a long life has ongoing repairs such that eventually every single plank of wood and component of the ship has been replaced – is it the same ship? If we use this lens on an API, if over time we are changing our API, is it the same API, when do our changes take it from version 1 to version 2?
Gary’s suggestion was that we shouldn’t be versioning our API at all. To respond to the surprise from the audience he highlighted that we cope with this every day using websites, all of which change their API that we as users interact with. We apply our knowledge of the website and cope with the changes.
Gary then moved on to testing. His first example was asking the question of why we need brakes on a car? The obvious answer is to enable us to stop, but they also allow us to go faster. For the same reason we need tests on an API to allow us to change them faster.
Fundamentally, if we know that an API will inevitably change, we need to plan for those changes. He suggested that we should be using Consumer Driven Contracts, where the consumers of the API gives detailed expectations of how the API should behave, and then these form the basis of the tests against the API. He also highlighted the important of using fuzzers to ensure the API responds and handles unexpected data.
His final point provoked the most discussion, looking back at what he had been discussing he highlighted that JSON, which is what many APIs currently use is limited, and suggested that it is something we use by convention, rather than because it is the best tool for the job. He suggested that using HTML5 was a better option as it offered a richer interface that gave greater affordance to the users of the API. There was a good deal of incredulity from members of the audience, and indeed a similar level from our architect back at the office after the conference. Gary has subsequently said that there are limitations with using HTML5 also, but it was as much about getting people to question why they use JSON as proposing HTML5 as the solution.
My next session was also run by Gary, as I decided to pay a visit to the community room where he was running a Lean Coffee session.
The group came up with a mixed selection of topics to discuss. First off was a topic proposed by Becca Liddle who is the organiser for Women in Tech Scotland who asked about perceptions of women in technology companies. The discussion was wide ranging and covered a number of common issues around how women are treated both by company culture, and male colleagues, and also how male dominated tech culture can be off-putting to women and minorities. Becca had talked to a number of other women attending the conference earlier in the day and shared some horror stories of their experiences. Certainly food for thought as to how we encourage a more diverse workforce in IT. We also discussed what we were currently learning and broader issues around training, and also had a discussion about the impending changes being brought by GDPR which was in some ways a bit of a relief as it seems everybody is as concerned about it, and nobody feels they will be ready.
Next I went along to a session on Building APIs with Azure Functions by Kevin Smith. Again this was a session I attended because as a team we’re using Azure Functions in order to try and break up large bits of processing into horizontally scalable functions.
Kevin gave a good overview of the functionality available, highlighting the rapid development and simplified integrations, and also how they can be developed using Visual Studio. Kevin also has a good introduction on his website.
He also gave some good insight into the issues, including issues debugging them, and in particular problems with Microsoft breaking Azure functions. Ironically his final demo was also one that failed on the day I’m not sure whether it was because of a Microsoft breaking change!
My final talk of the day was Peter Shaw giving an Introduction to Typescript for C# Developers – once again it was a session I attended because we’re using Typescript for the upcoming work and the talk served as a good introduction.
First though a moan, Peter refused to use the microphone in the hall on the basis that he “had a loud voice”. Now he certainly did speak loud enough that I with good hearing could hear him without a problem, however experience looking after the sound at church is that if somebody does that there may well be people in the audience who have hearing difficulties, but nine times out of ten when challenged like this, they won’t feel comfortable in drawing attention to themselves as being unable to hear. At church the reason we ask people to use microphones is because however loud peoples voices are they can’t speak loud enough to drive the induction loop that many people with hearing difficulties will use, and speakers refusing to use the microphone leaves those people feeling discriminated against. Sometimes they will suffer in silence, other times they will complain to the sound crew, almost never will they complain to the speaker, who carries on in blissful ignorance thinking they have a loud voice and everything is fine. I hate working with a microphone too, so do many other people, but they are there for a reason, so if you’re a speaker, and there is a microphone, please use it!
As an introduction it was a useful talk giving me as a C# developer taking first steps into Typescript confidence that it won’t be a difficult transition.
After that we had the closing section of the Developer Day with the traditional raffle and prize giving, and as is traditional (and much to the disappointment of the kids because an Xbox X was one of the prizes) I didn’t actually win anything in the raffle. Was no bad thing however as I’m not quite sure how I would have got an Xbox back to Reading on the train…
Also published on Medium.