This post is a departure from my typical software related topics, but I think you’ll find parallels with management and dealing with software developers.

In some recent talks I make a reference to Conway’s Law named after Melvin Conway (not to be confused with British Mathematician John Horton Conway famous for Conway’s Game of Life nor to be confused with Conway Twitty) which states:

In a recent post, Test Better, I suggested that developers can and ought do a better job of testing their own code. If you haven’t read it, I recommend you read that post first. I’m totally not biased in saying this at all. GO DO IT ALREADY!

Someone recently emailed me to ask if I’m speaking at any upcoming conferences this year. Good question!

Developers take pride in speaking their mind and not shying away from touchy subjects. Yet there is one subject makes many developers uncomfortable.

How can you trust anything you install from NuGet? It’s a simple question, but the answer is complicated. Trust is not some binary value. There are degrees of trust. I trust my friends to warn me before they contact the authorities and maybe suggest a lawyer, but I trust my wife to help me dispose of the body and uphold the conspiracy of silence (Honey, it was in the fine print of our wedding vows in case you’re wondering).

The other day I needed a simple JSON parser for a thing I worked on. Sure, I’m familiar with JSON.NET, but I wanted something I could just compile into my project. The reason why is not important for this discussion (but it has to do with world domination, butterflies, and minotaurs).

Today I learned something new and I love that!

Back in March of last year, Stephen Wolfram wrote a blog post, The Personal Analytics of My Life. It’s a fascinating look at the data he’s accumulated over years about his own personal activities and habits such as daily incoming and outgoing email.

I love automation. I’m pretty lazy by nature and the more I can offload to my little programmatic or robotic helpers the better. I’ll be sad the day they become self-aware and decide that it’s payback time and enslave us all.

Tony Hoare, the computer scientist who implemented null references in ALGOL calls it his “billion-dollar mistake.”

I wasn’t prepared to write an end-of-year blog post given the impending destruction of the world via a Mayan prophesied cataclysmic fury. But since that didn’t pan out I figured I’d better get typing.

Merry Christmas!

I have a confession to make.

As of today, I’ve been a GitHub employee for one year and I gotta tell you…

Once again, those crazy fools Richard Campbell and Carl Franklin are touring around this great country of ours in a big ass RV as part of their .NET Rocks Road Trip. Last time it was for the launch of Visual Studio 2010. This time it coincides with Visual Studio 2012.

The recent elections remind me of interesting paradoxes when you study the mathematics of voting. I first learned of this class of paradoxes as an undergraduate at Occidental College in Los Angeles (well technically Eagle Rock, emphasis always on the Rock!). As a student, I spent a couple of summers as an instructor for OPTIMO, a science and math enrichment program for kids about to enter high school. You know, that age when young men and women’s minds are keenly focused on mathematics and science. What could go wrong?!

In my last post, I talked about the MonkeySpace conference conference and how it reflects positive trends in the future of open source in .NET. But getting to a better future is going to take some work on our part. And a key component of that is making NuGet better.

At the end of last year, I wrote a blurb about the Open Source Fest event at Mix 2011. Imagine the typical exhibition hall, but filled with around 50 open source projects. Each project had a station in a large room where project members presented what they were working on to others. You could see the gleam of inspiration in the smiles of developers as they exchanged ideas and suggestions. I left this event completely fired up.

With Reactive Extensions you sometimes need one observable sequence to run after another observable sequence completes. Perhaps the first one has side effects the second one depends on. Egads! I know, side effects are evil in this functional world, but it happens.