What type of a developer are you?

It has been a while since my last post.
I've been busy in lots of stuff like: new job, new baby... you know, the usual stuff :)

Anyway, Just wanted to share this cool link that presents the developer types as he sees them. I must say, I tend to agree with most of them and I see some of myself in each and every one of them (in a positive way of course).

I think I have known at least some of the described characters in real life and may have interviewed some of the rest.

The SWAT member, he will make it happen no matter what. on the way he will fall and climb out of every possible trap a decent developer will avoid.

The bullshit artist :), he knows the right words and when to say them but once you scrap the surface you discover the bright color of nothing.

Learn SCRUM in under 10 minutes

I've just watched a great video on the Agile Community and thought I'd share it. The video claims to explain what SCRUM is in under 10 minutes.
Well, it does actually. it presents all of the key concepts of SCRUM in a light & funny way. However, my guess is that if you are not a SCRUM savvy you might get overdosed from all of that "This is best served in a 3 days course along with 6 months practice stuffed in 8 minutes" new buzzwords.

Enjoy!

Useful Extension methods

I've posted in the past about the hazards in extension methods and how they can be easily abused. there are plenty of links out there specifying the cons of using this feature.
However, since the title got you in here, I'm assuming you are still interested.
I wanted to share some of the most common extension methods I use when writing code.

IsNullOrEmpty - I think we all know this method from the String class. Why not have the same capability on collections?
I did see plenty of samples on the web showing how to add this method to collections or arrays.
things like:

public static bool IsNullOrEmpty(this ICollection collection)

{

    return collection == null || collection.Count == 0;

}

This is all fine and will return True if the collection/Array are null or empty.
But hey, what about some other, non "ICollection" objects that implements IEnumerable like XmlNodeList?
For that purpose, we can't use the Length or Count properties since we don't have them.
So, let's work with the IEnumerator.
Initially, the enumerator is positioned before the first element in the collection so calling Current will throw an exception. By calling MoveNext we move the enumerator to the first element and the bool value will tell us if it is empty or not. Complicated?

public static bool IsNullOrEmpty(this IEnumerable iEnumerable)

{

    if (iEnumerable != null)

    {

        return !iEnumerable.GetEnumerator().MoveNext();

    }

    return true;

}

Now, since collections and arrays implements IEnumerable we are clear to go.

static void Main(string[] args)

{                        

    List<string> list = new List<string>();

    Console.WriteLine(list.IsNullOrEmpty());//This will print True

    list.Add("Some text");

    Console.WriteLine(list.IsNullOrEmpty());//This will print False

}

But wait, didn't I say "some" extension methods?
Another one I use when I'm writing console applications is:

public static void Print(this Object obj)

{

    Console.WriteLine(obj);

}

I use this trick when I need to change the output target according to configuration or command line input.
The result will look this:

static void Main(string[] args)

{                        

    List<string> list = new List<string>();

    list.IsNullOrEmpty().Print();//This will print True

    list.Add("Some text");

    list.IsNullOrEmpty().Print();//This will print False

}

Bad names

I've recently done code review for someone and stumbled on a GeneralUtils.cs file I didn't see before.
"OMG!!!" I said "it is general for sure, and provides some utils right? what kind of utils?"

Him: Grinning as if his hand was caught in the cookie jar. "A bunch of things related to X,Y and Z objects"
Me: "Well, X Y and Z handles 3 different things right?"
Him: "Yes but I didn't think they deserve an independent class"

The name is bad for sure and I got no objection on that. the thing is, it hides a much bigger problem. The object is doing too many things instead of focusing on just one. This means that the Single responsibility principle was violated.
I usually have a small question that clears the issue in a second. ask yourself what does the class/method is doing. if the answer is "It does x AND y" then a re-factor session should visit your code.

Him: "I see your point. I'll split them to 3. I thought of calling the first one XHelper"
Me: "Sounds good. this means that XHelper will help the X class right?"
Him: "No, I don't have an X class"
Me: "Let's suppose you have an X class, X will call XHelper right?"
Him: "Yes. and?"
Me: "So, if the helper is doing all the work it would make more sense to move it into X. if it doesn't, please give a more descriptive name"
Him: "But I don't have an X class!!!"
Me: "Even better! who are you helping?"