f3yourmind

I just upgraded to Snow Leopard and installed buildr which failed miserably.

/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/rjb-1.1.9/lib/rjbcore.bundle: dlopen(/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/rjb-1.1.9/lib/rjbcore.bundle, 9): no suitable image found. Did find: (LoadError)
/Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/rjb-1.1.9/lib/rjbcore.bundle: no matching architecture in universal wrapper - /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/rjb-1.1.9/lib/rjbcore.bundle

It turns out that I needed to rebuild rjb, the ruby-java bridge, but that failed too.

extconf.rb:48: JAVA_HOME is not set. (RuntimeError)

I was certain that JAVA_HOME was definitely set and it was pointing to the 64-bit Apple 1.6 JDK.  Digging in extconf.rb, it finds JAVA_HOME from the ENV hash

javahome = ENV['JAVA_HOME']

So, nothing weird about that too!  What’s going on?  I was installing buildr like this

sudo gem install buildr

The problem is that once you sudo, you are running with another environment, one without the JAVA_HOME variable.  So, the quick fix is simply

sudo env JAVA_HOME=$JAVA_HOME gem install '1.1.9' rjb
sudo env JAVA_HOME=$JAVA_HOME gem install buildr

I completely forgot about this side-effect.  Like all side-effects, it was painful – it just cost me an hour of  digging around looking at all sorts of other things.  But, more importantly, breaking fundamental assumptions (e.g. my environment is the sudo‘s environment) and zoning in on the root cause of the problem resulted in a very simple solution.

I am amazed, yet again, that people try to force others to comply to a process, standard, or whatever.  The traditional justification is to ” have governance otherwise everything will fall apart”. Surely, we have learned enough from spectacular failures that governance that does not give people an opportunity to exercise self discipline.  When you give a person a chance to develop personal discipline, then forced compliance is unnecessary.  With forced compliance, we force people into ignoring their own discipline because the system will “sort” it out for you.  It breeds an attitude of “the system failed me and it’s not my fault”.

This discipline I am talking about is a personal attitude to everything.  Some things may be the discipline to

• not check in code that is broken
• fix your own or someone else’s broken code
• find options for looming failure
• be accountable when you’ve accepted responsibility
• admit error when you make a bad judgement
• commit to learn in the face of ignorance
• share because you just should anyway

Of course, I am being deliberately idealistic.  But wouldn’t it be really nice if everyone just accepted discipline as something that needs to be developed personally.  Imagine it for a moment … so many XP values and principles seem a lot easier to adopt.  Just imagine it.

A forced compliance style of governance is a lot about trying to compensate for lack of trust and admitting that we are more likely to fail than succeed.  On the other hand, discipline is not pain, suffering and anguish.  It’s only sadistic if you implement discipline for nothing.

In ubuntu coding, discipline is a necessary quality.

Last week on the factor10 DDD course in Cape Town, the question of reusability came up again.  It’s the same old object orientation promise of “Just do OO and you get phenomenal reuse for free”.  Today, I was refactoring some code with another developer at a client and I extracted some lines into a few private methods just to clean up a really fat loop.  The initial reaction from the other developer was “That’s an overkill because you won’t reuse that method”.  My spontaneous reaction was “Readability is the real reusability”.

It’s true, the method won’t be reused.  It’s also true that most us were taught in some Programming 101 course that you should create a method, function, procedure only if you are going to call it more than once, otherwise just leave it all inline.  I value ubuntu coding, and so I have learned to unlearn that naive rule.  When I make my code more readable, I get more reuse out of it.  The reuse I value is not really about the number of repeated method calls or number of inherited classes.  I value the increased reusability that is achieved when more developers are able to read my code and walk away understanding my intention, clearly and unambiguously.

Let me put it another way.  Your code is a representation of your model.  Your model should be used to drive all collaborative discussions about the solution.  That’s where you get the real reuse in your model.  If people can’t understand your model, then your model can’t be re-used for further discussions.