Credits : Techcrunch

Credits : Techcrunch

 

It’s happening. Bit by bit, little by little, I’m morphing from an engineer into some kind of…manager. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I still write code every day; but I find myself spending more and more time in analysis and discussion, in meetings and calls, making higher-level decisions, trying to organize teams, and worrying about strategy rather than tactics.

Of course this is no bad thing. Higher-level decisions tend to have far more impact than the nitty-gritty of individual classes and functions. Making a team more productive has much higher leverage than just making myself more productive. But I like to think I’ve learned a few lessons from my years of writing code. I hope they’ll mostly translate to managerdom. And I hope you’ll pardon the implicit arrogance of sharing them with you:

1. There are no rules; there are only koans

Let me give you an example: DRY, aka “Don’t Repeat Yourself.” It is so well understood as a fundamental rule of software that it often justifies decisions by itself; “I did X because DRY.” It makes sense, doesn’t it? If you have two or more pieces of code which do the same thing, you are being wasteful, and furthermore, if you need to change one of them, you probably need to change the other, and you might forget, and when they get out of sync you’ll get a weird bug, and… and… and it’s obvious that you don’t repeat yourself.

And yet. After some years of applying that rule one begins to wonder about its universal applicability. Suppose you have two methods which contain the same block of code, so you pull that block out into a separate function. All too often, those methods then begin to evolve in divergent ways … so you find yourself adding more arguments to that function, and perhaps more flags to its results … and the coder who comes along next has the cognitive overhead of that separate function, with all its caller-specific arguments and results … and you realize that if you had let yourself repeat yourself, and had let those two blocks naturally grow into separate things, your resulting code would have been vastly simpler and more intuitive.

Does this mean DRY is bad? Of course not! DRY is correct. …Usually. …Under the appropriate circumstances. …Well, maybe. My personal rule of thumb is: “repeating yourself once is OK, more than once is not OK … but that depends on the context.” Because everything depends on the context. The purpose of DRY is not to DRY. If that is what you believe, grasshopper, you still have much to learn. The purpose of DRY is to make you thinkabout DRY. There are no rules; there are only koans.

(Let me reiterate: I’m talking about software. Hardware rules, in my experience, tend to actually be yes-we-mean-it rules. That’s pretty much why I got out of electrical engineering and into software.)

Consider two of my favorite “laws” of computer science. First: “There is no problem in computer science that cannot be solved by adding another layer of abstraction!” Is this true? Well, no, not literally. Is this frequently phenomenologically true? Well, actually, yeah. Does this mean abstraction is the right way to solve any problem? No it does not. It’s a koan. Brood on it.

And my all-time favorite: “The first law of optimization: don’t do it. The second law of optimization (For Experts Only): don’t do it yet.” This of course is explicitly a koan, snarkily referring itself to a law. Is it time to make your code run faster? No. Is it time to make your code run faster? Not yet. What does this mean? It means consider the time, the complexity, the cognitive overhead, the tangible results, the overall goals, the meaning of life, the purpose of human existence. It means: meditate on it, grasshopper. But not for too long. We have work to do.

2. Earn trust by trusting

This doesn’t just apply to managers, although it especially applies to managers, as trust is really the only thing of value that you have; if your fairness, your judgement, your understanding, your good faith, etc., are not trusted, then the rest of your organization will treat you as damage and route around you. Whereas if you’re a capable but untrustworthy developer, you might still have some value, although it’ll be much undercut by the effort spent riding herd on every decision you make.

The larger point is, though: a team needs to trust one another. When Natascia says, “I’ll take care of that ticket,” you have to trust that she will. When you say, “Peter can cut the build before the deadline,” you have to trust that this is true. When someone says, “Listen, I have a crazy idea,” they have to trust that they will be taken seriously and treated with respect, even if the idea is kinda crazy.

How do you build and earn trust? The answer is simplicity itself: you trust. You trust the person who says they can learn this new library and get it integrated by Monday. You trust the person who says they need to leave early and miss tomorrow’s standup because of a family thing. You trust the person who wants to take a week’s vacation a month before the hard deadline because they feel like they’re beginning to burn out. You trust the junior developer who says they’d like to take a crack at the hard problem.

You won’t always be right. Sometimes people do in fact operate in bad faith, and you need to unveil those people and let them go as soon as possible. And sometimes you will trust people who will try in good faith to succeed… and they will fail. But — counterintuitively — this is usually a win, in the long run. Because those people will remember your trust, and they will do everything they can to pay it back with interest.

3. Simplicity is much more important than elegance

I mean, I get it. I love tight, elegant code too. And I love flexible frameworks with so many levels of abstraction that they’re ready to handle, out of the box, whatever change request might be thrown at them. I like using bit vectors and bit shifts and slightly abstruse data structures and that quirky little language feature that isn’t widely known but is so useful under these particular circumstances.

But you’re not writing this code for yourself. Not even if it’s “just a prototype.” (I’ve lost track of how many of my “prototypes” have wound up in production under a few layers of paint and polish.) And you’re not just writing it to solve the current problem. You’re writing it so the next developer who comes along can use it to solve the next problem. If those five lines of code would be understood more readily if they were ten lines of code, you know what, maybe fifteen would be better.

You can try and solve it for them in advance, with a flexible framework full of abstraction! …But maybe prophecy is not your strong suit; maybe your notion of what the next problem is is completely off base. Maybe the best thing is just to make your code dead simple, with a naming convention and a coding style that makes it read almost like English. Maybe instead of adding another class, another file that the next developer has to keep open while trying to follow your flow of control, you should just do things the dumb way, the inelegant way, the simple way.

4. Momentum matters more than most things

We’ve all seen it happen. One week everyone’s checking in code, the build is visibly taking shape, features are being added every day, test coverage keeps mounting higher and higher, Slack is alive with productive ideas and solutions. And the next week … somehow … things seem to have slowed down. A decision is needed on Issue A, which has knock-on effects on Issues B, C, and D, and while people can work on D, E, and F, they aren’t part of the logical sequence of development; more assumptions have to be made, the cognitive load is higher, you have to mock out a bunch of things to get any non-mock code written at all. Somebody needs to make that decision.

Or maybe it’s not decision paralysis. Maybe all that progress you made last week was built on a false foundation of quick-hit technical debt, and you need to stop everything and go back and refactor it, and you need to do it now because the longer you wait, the worse things will get. Nobody wants to hear that. But they’ll like hearing that now better than hearing that next month. Go tell them.

Or maybe last week was too much like crunch and now everybody’s just a little burnt out. You know what? Give them a day off. A whole day off. Each. It’ll save you time in the long run, I promise.

It’s hard to define; it’s hard to measure; it’s hard to talk about. But momentum is a very real thing in software development, and its loss is a leading indicator of some kind of root trouble that needs to be addressed. Don’t ignore it, and don’t hope or pretend it will magically come back. Know the warning signs and act soon.

5. Work with people who complement you, not with people who are like you

Every time I see something about people hiring for “cultural fit,” I roll my eyes violently. You know what happens to most monocultures? They encounter a pathogen they don’t know how to deal with, and they die.

You don’t want all your developers and your designers and your QA people and your product people and your sales people and your executives to be clones of one another. You really, really don’t. Everyone has strengths and relative weaknesses. Everyone has virtues and flaws. You want to hire people for their chief strengths, and let other people’s strengths counteract their relative weaknesses.

Take me. I write code fast, I communicate well and read and write prose ridiculously fast, I’m conversant in like a dozen programming languages and frameworks at any given moment, I understand things quickly and thoroughly, I have a great breadth of experience; …and I’m a broad generalist without serious, intense, in-depth mastery of any particular field, framework, or language; I’m an architect who really benefits from others tracking all the flesh and polish that need to be added once the skeleton is constructed; and I’m so UX-blind (“Wait, you mean those fields aren’t aligned already?”) that it’s something of a running joke among my co-workers.

People like me are hard to find, and super in demand… and a company that consisted of me and nine of my clones would be completely doomed from the get-go. Oh, we’d do a lot of things really well; but it only takes one collective blind spot, one disastrous lacuna, to kill a company. Most people would concede that there are things they can’t do well, that other people probably need to take care of. These are often the same people who look for “cultural fit” and try to hire people just like them. It is to weep, and/or laugh.

6. Any decision is better than no decision

Don’t dither. When in doubt, do something. OK, this may not apply to promoting code into production, but it applies to every other aspect of software development. We work in the most hyperaccelerated industry in history. We live in a world of exponential growth. Time is not on your side. Don’t waste it.

This is as true of high-level discussions as of low-level decisions. At the high level, the dicussion “should we implement feature A, or B? Should we do it X way, or Y?” all too often lead to “Let’s think this over… let’s have a call about this next week…” or, most insidiously, “let’s research what other people have done and then talk about it again.” In rare conditions, one of those is the right answer. In most conditions, the right answer is for someone to say, “I’ll decide which one we’ll try by the end of the day, so we can start building it tomorrow.”

Even if A is ultimately the wrong answer, the decision to start building A is probably better than no decision at all. This is counterintuitive. It is also usually true. What is always true is that a very good way to understand A substantially better is to actually start building it, and that this understanding will likely lead you to a better decision.

If anything this is even more true of low-level decisions. “The spec doesn’t say how we should handle error condition X, or what the error message should be for this.” (Specifications often seem to be written for an aspirational utopia in which error conditions are as rare as unicorns.) “I know, I’ll just stick a comment in and go back and ask what they want done in that case!”

This is tempting. No one can accuse you of doing anything wrong, if you do this. But it is the wrong thing to do. Better to go ahead and make some decision about this yourself, even if it is crude and ugly, then to do nothing and go back and ask about it. Let them iterate on work you’ve already done and lessons you’ve already learned, even if you know it’s not great, rather than making them start from cognitive scratch. They and the project will both be better for it. Be quick to experiment … and quick to change course.

7. Be humble, but swagger

You don’t have all the answers. Even I, and I say this with what must by now be evident reluctance, don’t have all the answers. Heck, I don’t even have most of ’em, though I feel moderately confident that given sufficient time and effort I could figure most of them out…

…And so could you. We can’t all be Jeff Dean, or Satoshi Nakamoto, or Margaret Hamilton. We work in a field rife with both real geniuses and ersatz self-proclaimed ones, where nobody knows everything and everybody is acutely aware of all the things they don’t know.

Fortunately — for the most part — we’re not scientists. Our job is not to make breakthrough discoveries. Our job is to put others’ discoveries into practice; to make things work, hopefully in the service of something that people actually want. Maybe you’ll never invent anything like a Bloom filter or a Merkle tree. But neither will the vast majority of the people you work with, and besides, that’s not the point; the point is to use Bloom filters and Merkle trees, and/or the even easier layers of abstraction built atop them, to actually get shit done.

So while it’s wrong to assume that you know more than the person across the table, that their counterintuitive idea is crazy, that their language of choice is terrible — it’s also wrong both to assume that they know more than you, or, even if they do, that that matters. The world is full of smart, knowledgeable people who are for some mysterious reason incapable of actually getting shit done. (It’s a cheap joke, but what the hell, I’m going to make it: that’s why we have academia.)

So if you’re a person who gets shit done, don’t be humble when faced with a dizzying array of theoretical knowledge, and/or when faced with a kindred spirit who happens to get even more shit done than you. At the end of the day it’s the developers in the proverbial trenches, building and testing and deploying code, who actually make things happen; and, speaking as someone who finds himself drifting away from those trenches, you have every right to look down just a little bit on those who are not there digging with you, and to greet all those who are as collaborators rather than superiors.

This article is shared by www.itechscripts.com | A leading resource of inspired clone scripts. It offers hundreds of popular scripts that are used by thousands of small and medium enterprises.

Credits : Infoworld

Credits : Infoworld

 

Fast, safe, easy to write—pick any two. That’s been the state of software development for a good long time now. Languages that emphasize convenience and safety tend to be slow (like Python). Languages that emphasize performance tend to be difficult to work with and easy to blow off your feet with (like C and C++).

Can all three of those attributes be delivered in a single language? More important, can you get the world to work with it? The Rust language, originally created by Graydon Hoare and currently sponsored by Mozilla Research, is an attempt to do just those things. (The Google Go languagehas similar ambitions, but Rust aims to make as few concessions to performance as possible.)

What makes Rust a better development language

Rust started as a Mozilla research project partly meant to reimplement key components of the Firefox browser. A few key reasons drove that decision: Firefox deserved to make better use of modern, multicore processors; and the sheer ubiquity of web browsers means they need to be safe to use.

But those benefits are needed by all software, not just browsers, which is why Rust evolved into a language project from a browser project. Rust accomplishes its safety, speed, and ease of use through the following characteristics:

Rust satisfies the need for speed. Rust code compiles to native machine code across multiple platforms. Binaries are self-contained, with no runtime, and the generated code is meant to perform as well as comparable code written in C or C++.

Rust won’t compile programs that attempt unsafe memory usage. Most memory errors are discovered when a program is running. Rust’s syntax and language metaphors ensure that common memory-related problems in other languages—null or dangling pointers, data races, and so on—never make it into production. The compiler flags those issues and forces them to be fixed before the program ever runs.

Rust controls memory management via strict rules. Rust’s memory-management system is expressed in the language’s syntax through a metaphor called ownership. Any given value in the language can be “owned,” or held/manipulated, only by a single variable at a time.

The way ownership is transferred between objects is strictly governed by the compiler, so there are no surprises at runtime in the form of memory-allocation errors. The ownership approach also means there is no garbage-collected memory management, as in languages like Go or C#. (That also gives Rust another performance boost.) Every bit of memory in a Rust program is tracked and released automatically through the ownership metaphor.

Rust lets you live dangerously if you need to, to a point. Rust’s safeties can be partly suspended where you need to manipulate memory directly, such as dereferencing a raw pointer à la C/C++. The key word is partly, because Rust’s memory safety operations can never be completely disabled. Even then, you almost never have to take off the seatbelts for common use cases, so the end result is software that’s safer by default.

Rust is designed to be easy to use. None of Rust’s safety and integrity features add up to much if they aren’t used. That’s why Rust’s developers and community have tried to make the language as useful and welcoming as possible to newcomers.

Everything needed to produce Rust binaries comes in the same package. External compilers, like GCC, are needed only if you are compiling other components outside the Rust ecosystem (such as a C library that you’re compiling from source). Microsoft Windows users are not second-class citizens, either; the Rust tool chain is as capable there as it is on Linux and MacOS.

On top of all that, Rust provides several other standard-issue items you’d expect or want:

  • Support for multiple architectures and platforms. Rust works on all three major platforms: Linux, Windows, and MacOS. Others are supported beyond those three. If you want to cross-compile, or produce binaries for a different architecture or platform than the one you’re currently running, a little more work is involved, but one of Rust’s general missions is to minimize the amount of heavy lifting needed for such work. Also, although Rust works on the majority of current platforms, it’s not its creators’ goal to have Rust compile absolutely everywhere—just on whatever platforms are popular, and wherever they don’t have to make unnecessary compromises to do so.
  • Powerful language features. Few developers want to start work in a new language if they find it has fewer, or weaker, features than the ones they’re used to. Rust’s native language features compare favorably to what languages like C++ have: Macros, generics, pattern matching, and composition (via “traits”) are all first-class citizens in Rust.
  • A useful standard library. One part of Rust’s larger mission is to encourage C and C++ developers to use Rust instead of those languages whenever possible. But C and C++ users expect to have a decent standard library—they want to be able to use containers, collections, and iterators, perform string manipulations, manage processes and threading, perform network and file I/O, and so on. Rust does all that, and more, in its standard library. Because Rust is designed to be cross-platform, its standard library can contain only things that can be reliably ported across platforms. Platform-specific functions like Linux’s epoll have to be supported via functions in third-party libraries such as libc, mio, or tokio.
  • Third-party libraries, or “crates.” One measure of a language’s utility is how much can be done with it thanks to third parties. Cargo, the official repository for Rust libraries (called “crates”) lists some ten thousand crates. A healthy number of them are API bindings to common libraries or frameworks, so Rust can be used as a viable language option with those frameworks. However, the Rust community does not yet supply detailed curation or ranking of crates based on their overall quality and utility, so you can’t easily tell what works well.
  • IDE tools. Again, few developers want to embrace a language with little or no support in the IDE of their choice. That’s why Rust recently introduced the Rust Language Server, which provide live feedback from the Rust compiler into an IDE such as Microsoft Visual Studio Code

     

    This article is shared by www.itechscripts.com | A leading resource of inspired clone scripts. It offers hundreds of popular scripts that are used by thousands of small and medium enterprises.

 

Credits : Thenextweb

Credits : Thenextweb

 

Software might be eating the world, but most businesses are sitting out the feeding frenzy because they can’t release software fast enough to meet changing customer needs.

No matter what kind of business you’re in — technology, consumer goods, manufacturing — companies are driving engagement with consumers through applications across web, mobile, point-of-sale and more. The faster an organization can improve its software, the more it can drive loyalty for itself and build switching costs for the competition. According to one study, high-performing IT units with faster software releases are twice as likely to achieve their goals in customer satisfaction, profitability, market share and productivity.

Acknowledgement of this has fueled a headlong rush toward what software developers call “continuous delivery.” Whereas in the past organizations would spend months or even years perfecting a release full of new features, continuous delivery allows teams to make incremental changes to software and send them live as each improvement is made.

It’s a process most technology departments aspire to but only a fraction have achieved. According to a recent survey by Evans Data, 65 percent of organizations are using continuous delivery on at least some projects, but only 28 percent are using it for all their software. Among non-SaaS companies, that proportion is just 18 percent.

These leading organizations recognized years ago that they needed to speed up the development process and made organizational changes accordingly. Now they’re eating the competition’s lunch while everyone else is catching up.

The small percentage of organizations that are continuously delivering software lean heavily on automation to speed development and simplify handoffs between developers, QA testers, operations staff and so on. But continuous delivery isn’t an end-state — it’s a process of constant improvement, meaning even the highest performing teams can’t rest on their laurels.

So what comes next?

The future of application development depends on using artificial intelligence (AI) within the continuous delivery model. As a data scientist, I see automation and AI as being on the same spectrum, with automation referring to simpler, rule-based solutions and AI being more complex. A basic automated system might observe something relatively static that a human does over and over, record that action and then repeat it automatically. An AI engine, on the other hand, can generalize a range of actions, learn and anticipate necessary behavior to improve a system.

For example, current automation technology can make it easier to deploy and automatically choose from a set of website modifications for A/B testing. AI could not only do that faster, but also use semantic understanding of page structure to suggest its own novel changes that make the most sense for the user.

We’re at the precipice of a new world of AI-aided development that will kick software deployment speeds — and therefore a company’s ability to compete — into high gear.

“AI can improve the way we build current software,” writes Diego Lo Giudice of Forrester Research in a recent report. “It will change the way we think about applications — not programming step by step, but letting the system learn to do what it needs to do — a new paradigm shift.”

The possibilities are limited only by our creativity and the investment organizations are willing to make. As Lo Giudice notes, using AI within the development tool chain is largely “still science fiction.” But progress is afoot.

At my company, our goal is to help developers test their code more swiftly. We do that by crowdsourcing QA testers, and we use AI both to manage those workers and to rank their reputation, so we can prioritize work for clients based on those findings. Other examples are cropping up every day. Take the progress we’ve seen in AI-powered project management assistants, which prod developer teams to make better decisions based on current activities and deliverables.

The industry should expect more of this process-oriented AI with the recent release by Amazon Web Services of Lex, the natural language processing framework that powers Amazon Alexa. Lex enables developers to build conversational interfaces for their applications. It’s not a stretch to think that creative teams could use Lex within the internal tools developers use to make those applications.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. AI could play a bigger role in test automation, for example. And for security stress testing, Netflix made a huge contribution by releasing to open source an automated engine called Chaos Monkey, which it uses to randomly close down application environments to see how well its systems failover and keep things running. What if something similar were powered by an AI engine that explored stress tests more systematically? AI could also be used to configure servers, making small changes that optimize performance based on the applications and workload.

AI could also play a huge role in software documentation. The more incremental an organization gets about improving features and components, the harder it is to keep track of those changes and how they’re made. The same kind of natural language processing used by Google to automate news writing could be used to document feature change lists, API technical details and processes used by DevOps teams.

As with automation, AI won’t put developers out of a job, but it will force them to evolve their skillsets to make better use of machine learning in the development process. To achieve get closer to that future, businesses need to invest in the data science brain trust required to support it. And they need to start collecting the data necessary for training effective AI systems.

There’s a long road to achieving these efficiencies, but smart businesses are moving now to incorporate AI in their software development. The pace of technology continues to accelerate, and consumers have come to expect the best and latest experiences a business can provide. If software is eating the world, automation and AI will be the stakes for a seat at the table.

This article is shared by www.itechscripts.com | A leading resource of inspired clone scripts. It offers hundreds of popular scripts that are used by thousands of small and medium enterprises.

Credits : Engineering

Credits : Engineering

 

If you’re a software engineer, chances are that at some point you considered Silicon Valley for your career. Even if you aren’t considering moving there, it’s a good bet that the Valley is still the first place that comes to mind when you wonder where the best software engineering jobs are.

While it’s true that Silicon Valley and the Bay Area in general offer enticing salaries—an average of $110,554 USD per year, according to Glassdoor—many engineers may not consider the effect that cost of living has on this salary.

This is the focus of a recent study by CodeMentor, which analyzed the “real earnings” of software engineers in 43 cities across the U.S. and around the world to determine the best places for them to work.

“Real earnings” in this case is the value of the salary software engineers earn given the essential costs of living associated with each city, such as rent or mortgage payments, taxes and social security.

The CodeMentor report used a “real earnings formula” to calculate average earnings for a software engineer who lives alone in the city. That formula is:

Real Earnings = Income – Taxes – Social Security – Living Costs – Rent

The biggest effect on real earnings came from taxes and rental costs, both of which vary significantly from city to city.

So which cities are the most affordable, resulting in the highest real earnings for software engineers?

Top U.S. Cities for Software Engineering Salaries

Seattle comes out as the clear winner in the report. The presence of top-tier tech companies such as Microsoft and Amazon serves to put wages on par with Silicon Valley, but the costs for rent are significantly lower – meaning more money in your bank account each month.

Also at the top of the list are Phoenix, Austin and Houston, which offer real earnings above $30,000.  However, these cities are still growing their software industries, and so have relatively modest numbers of software engineering job openings in their job market.

Interestingly, New York and Washington D.C. sit at the bottom of the list, even though these two cities have the largest number of openings in the job market.  This is largely due to the astronomical cost of rent – averaging as high as $3,000 per month – leaving software engineers working in these cities with real earnings in the $15,000 – $18,000 range.

International Cities with Highest Real Earnings for Software Engineers

The report also analyzes cities outside the U.S., for those who may be considering working abroad.  Oslo and Tel Aviv offer the highest real earnings in this group, at an average of $28.1K and $22.9K respectively. However, they also have small – albeit, growing – job markets.

Three Canadian cities also make a good showing: Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, with real earnings in USD between $16 – $19K, and job markets that are moderate and increasing.

The full report is available and includes a more detailed breakdown of the calculations, methodology and additional analyses of affordability and quality of life across the 43 cities featured.

While salary – or real earnings – alone shouldn’t be the only deciding factor in choosing where you want to pursue your career in software engineering, having this information can help you plan for success.

For more tips on finding a great engineering career, check out Winning Strategies to Land That Great Engineering Job.

This article is shared by www.itechscripts.com | A leading resource of inspired clone scripts. It offers hundreds of popular scripts that are used by thousands of small and medium enterprises.

Business People Celebration Arms Raised Ecstatic Concept

Business People Celebration Arms Raised Ecstatic Concept

 

It has never been more challenging than today to build a successful software development company. Even just a few years ago, companies would offer breakfast at the office or put their people on training to hone and develop their skills. Today, however, we are in a different world. In order to attract and retain top talent, we are hiring professional business coaches and organising work weeks at the seaside.

Building the core dream team of qualified and passionate IT people

Team is always number one! Having the right core team is what will set you on the path to success! As a CEO of Dreamix – a software company for Java and Angular development – I feel confident saying that the CTO is the most important role in any IT company. Moreover, he or she doesn’t have to be that crazy geek who can code anything you name. On the contrary – you need a leader who inspires people and can attract the best experts to your company.

Our CTO, Angel (yes, he is a real angel!), has been a true blessing for us. By the time he started the company, he was teaching Java Development Technologies at a local university. Having someone well-known in the IT community is invaluable. Having such a person means he is dedicated to growing experts, not just taking the first person he finds and allocating him or her to a project. From our experience with Angel, people recognise and value his attention and care a great deal!

Focus on key technology or business solutions

There is a perennial debate: should you concentrate on technology or business solutions? For us, technology comes first. We have decided to focus on Java backend and web solutions. We don’t build any .Net or smartphone applications, nor do we do web design. We even hired an external company to build our new website because we do not take on any web design projects (yes, some people have found it funny that an IT company does not implement their own website).

The mantra ‘anyone in the company can do anything’ works only when you first start out. Once you begin to be compared with world class players in a technology/business vertical, nobody will believe that you, going into the jungle holding a Swiss Army knife, are better than someone going in holding a machete.

Also from my experience, when you have people with very different skillset, you will have more people sitting on the bench, thus lower your profit margin. This is because you cannot get sales people to look for all the different types of technologies/projects. And following Murphy’s law, once you have a free Ruby developer you will instantly start receiving Java and C# requests, but no Ruby ones.

Establish a tough interview process

Once you have the core team, you should only allow the right people join the company. You will need to conduct both a tech interview and a ‘cultural fit’ interview (you can read more about culture below). A tough interview is good for two things:

  • It helps you hire the strongest experts. You need to make sure you hire A Players. Because A Players make for an A Company;
  • It makes for good PR. Once you turn down someone with ten years’ experience because his multithreading skills are poor, everyone in the city will hear about it. And guess what? Strong candidates will be hungry to see how they will rank in your interview process.

Although you might get only super strong engineers, your company might still not be in good shape, since we all know that a great deal of building software is actually communicating with the stakeholders. That is why we introduced a second stage in our interview process – “Culture Fit” interview. During the interview we ask potential candidates about what initiatives they have started on their own, how have they contributed to the last company they worked with, how do they help their colleagues grow. This makes sure the engineers you are selecting will fit in the culture, but also are good communicators and team players.

Build a partnership and business development network

No business is bigger than its clients and partners. As a nearshore outsourcing software development company, our clients come from different countries and sometimes even different continents. This means we need to focus on staying close to our clients. That is why we have built partnerships with software development companies in various countries, including the UK, Switzerland, Germany and the USA. Having great partnerships will give you access to interesting clients and projects. If you deliver the high quality software, you will soon become the number one option for them. However, have in mind this is tough process that requires a lot of dedication.
From experience, companies will not trust you in the beginning, at least until you have shipped 1 project for them. For example, we started a project with a London based consultancy company by sending 1 of our consultants onsite. Our expert did a great job and delivered the project in no time, showing that he was super proficient with Java and Integration technologies. Shortly after, the partner was calling us for additional small project. Although it required traveling to the countryside in Wales, we accepted the challenged and went there to spend several weeks. The project was a tough one, included a lot of refactoring of old applications, and although it was far from “the dream project”, we put a lot of effort and dedication and delivered it in a way, that exceeded the initial expectations.

After these first projects together, it was really easy to expand the collaboration and talk about future opportunities. That is why I suggest you to focus on starting with small project, deliver the right result and then once you are in the trust zone, it is inevitable that you land a good and long-lasting contract.

Company culture and why it is important

Company culture means what are the values you believe in and why you follow them and what initiatives you create to support them. Here the credit goes to my partner Stoyan, who has done a great job to establish a great culture in Dreamix – you can read more about it in his blog “Dreamix: Why Is Company Culture So Important?
In short, what you need to set is:

  • values of your company – both internal and external. Internal are the ones that help you people work better and the external are the ones which attract/retain your clients
  • Initiatives to support them – if your value is to be great in emerging technologies, then create a bi-weekly event where each of the colleagues presents a new framework/technology/startup company. If you want to be great consultancy, invite famous consultants to present what makes them great.
  • Find ways to promote your culture – you can write blogs, make videos or organize events to showcase what you have achieved in this direction

Having a good company culture benefits you in many ways. For example in my experience when  the management of the company gives personal attention to every team member with weekly face to face meetings, understanding when there are personal issues, etc. people find great satisfaction in their workplace and hence they recommend many friends for new positions. By also adding bonuses for recruited friends, we spend very little on recruitment and can focus on making our company even better, having more resources.

Keep in pace with the new technologies

Being a technology company at a time when technology focus shifts every five years means you need to be constantly on the move, adapting to these changes.

When we started eleven years ago, the RIA (Flash) technologies were widely spread. Nowadays, we are migrating Flex applications to Angular. Had we decided to stick with the old technologies, we would now be supporting old applications; by the next technological shift, we would find ourselves out of business. Instead, we follow the trends and currently, we are even looking to establish an AI department.

A funny story is that in the beginning of the “JavaScript frameworks” hype, I was not a strong believer in it. However, some of our key engineers were super keen on it. Eventually one of our core expertise became JavaScript frontend using AngularJS & Angular, because several of our key developers started experimenting with it, way before it became a common trend.

After getting experience with it, we started doing internal trainings and lectures and once we were professionals with it, we started blogging and spreading the knowledge. The moral of the story is that you need to rely on your tech people – just because you are CEO does not mean you are immune to missing tech trends and business opportunities, that others might have spotted easily.

Keep an eye on the bottom line

Being good at technology does not create instant success. Delivering great projects but making no profit is a dead end. At the same time, as in every business, you need to be able to provide your most cost-effective option. We have created our Business Intelligence Dashboard which monitors our income, expenses, and profit. This helps us:

  • Identify which projects are more profitable;
  • Keep an eye on expenses;
  • Stay competitive by knowing your minimum daily rates;

We calculate this by keeping track of all metrics in the company: salaries, social benefits, rent, sales cost, internal initiatives, trainings, sick leaves, holidays. Additionally, in this way we know the budget of each department, so for example when we want to increase the sales effort, we know how much exactly we want to invest and from where you can cut a bit in order to compensate.

These seven points come from eleven years of experience and are integral to building a great software development company. However, I am sure you have your own secrets or ideas what can make your company stand out from the crowd – I am really looking forward to seeing them in the comments below!

This article is shared by www.itechscripts.com | A leading resource of inspired clone scripts. It offers hundreds of popular scripts that are used by thousands of small and medium enterprises.

Credits : Programmableweb

Credits : Programmableweb

 

To develop a REST API in PHP quickly and easily it’s a good idea to use a lightweight PHP framework. Developing your own from scratch with plain PHP, apart from being a pain and taking too much time, is likely to require a lot of testing and deviate from REST standards. Ankur Kumar over at Find Nerd takes you through the top five PHP frameworks to make your life easier when creating a REST API.

First up, is Slim. This PHP microframework has a scalable, modular architecture that lets you use exactly what you need and nothing more. Even better, you can put your entire web service in a single PHP file. Features include: the ability to enable and disable debugging for the API, the ability to inspect and manipulate HTTP messages including headers and cookies, and support for dependency injection. A big plus is that its HTTP Router maps route callbacks to target HTTP request methods and URIs.

Next in line is Silex. It’s a microframework based on Symfony. It comes in two flavors. The fat version includes Symfony components and a template engine. The slim version just has a basic routing engine and some procedures to work with other libraries. The slim version is what you want if you’re keeping it lightweight. It’s fast and has features like one step controllers and easy-to-manage testing tools.

Third in line is Wave. It’s a popular PHP microframework based on the MVC design pattern. It comes with a view controller and special gateway for web functionality. It doesn’t, however, come with any optional libraries so it’s extremely lightweight and built for speed.

Next up is Limonade. Like Wave, it’s lightweight and easy to use. Ankur advises its use for prototyping and rapid web development. It’s not suited to larger projects mainly because it’s functionality is limited and it can’t be easily integrated with other libraries or extended. On the plus side, it’s easy to learn.

Last but not least is Lumen. It’s a Laravel-based microframework that’s recommended for microservice architectures because of its blazing speed. Not surprisingly, it’s best used with Laravel, since its code can be easily be dropped into a Laravel app. Out-of-the-box features include caching, validation and routing.

This article is shared by www.itechscripts.com | A leading resource of inspired clone scripts. It offers hundreds of popular scripts that are used by thousands of small and medium enterprises.

Credits : Business2community

Credits : Business2community

 

Python and PHP are two of the most popular high-level programming languages. PHP is traditionally used as a server-side scripting language, while Python is valued for its dynamics, availability, and simplicity. Despite their almost identical popularity among developers, these two languages have many specifics and differences. The wide prevalence and use of these languages lead to the question – which of them is better and more convenient?

In order to give a full answer to this question, it is necessary to carefully consider the features, functionality, and scope of Python and PHP in software development. Also important is to understand main differences and their relation. Choosing the best language for server side development between PHP and Python based on the product properties is, probably, impossible. In this article, we strive to at least explain clearly the similarities and differences between these two languages. To consciously select Python vs PHP for your project, it is worth looking at origins of these languages and the goals their creators pursued first.

PHP

The start of the development of this programming tool can be attributed to 1994 when Rasmus Lerdorf created a number of components and extensions that extended capabilities of the most popular than C language. Initially, the components were created in order to facilitate the management of the Rasmus’s own website. However, other developers quickly appreciated the new features of those components and began to actively implement them. As a result of the constant use and extension of PHP, the emergence and growth of the community, the new language has become not just popular: over 80% of the modern websites are based on it. PHP is constantly evolved and complemented by the developer team and members of a large user community together. We can safely say that PHP is on the peak now and it is still very early to talk about the decline in its popularity.

Python

Five years older than its competitor, Python was developed by Guido van Rossum back in 1989 as the ABC language replacement. The main popularity among developers Python got in the 2000s, after the release of Python 2.0, one of the main features of which was the complete Unicode support.

Unlike PHP, Python from the start was engineered as a full stack programming language, irrelative of web development. That’s why it’s not so popular on the web – today less than 1% of websites is created and managed using Python.

Python and PHP: what is common between them?

At first glance, it may seem flawed to compare the two languages originally created for different purposes. However, seemingly different, PHP and Python have a number of common properties that make them popular:

  • Both languages are easy to learn (compared to C++, Perl, and others);
  • Both languages are accompanied by the extensive and detailed documentation;
  • Both languages are open source and can be updated and advanced by users with the purpose of improvement;
  • Wide and friendly developer communities facilitate the process of learning and working with PHP and Python;
  • Portability and versatility: both languages have IDEs for all the major operating systems.

And what are the major differences?

Naturally, when choosing a language for development, its distinguishing features are the first thing that should be considered.

Development logic

The first and most important difference between PHP and Python is their orientation. Python is aspect-oriented (separates the program functionality and splits the program into separate modules), while PHP is object-oriented (encapsulates code modules that contain certain functions and data into objects).

Thus, working with Python, the developer creates separate functional modules and then registers the connections between them on the “if-then” basis. It results in an algorithm that executes this or that program block based on the user’s actions.

Working with PHP means creating an integral code object that has certain properties and executes certain actions depending on the user input.

Syntax

The syntax of a language is constituted by its fundamental “grammatical” rules. The main difference between various languages, be they spoken or programming, lays in syntax, and the process of learning a language is by most the study of its grammar.

The PHP’s syntax is almost the same as the syntax of C (due to its origins). When writing the code using this language, curly brackets, additional characters and operators, and other C elements are used. A nice moment in working with PHP is neglect of white spaces during the compilation, which brings additional usability and gives the ability to structure the code into simple logical components. An unpleasant feature of PHP is the incompatibility of the namespace conventions, which is why many developers do not perceive it as a full-fledged programming language. However, this feature is primarily due to the fact that the language initially was designed for the website management.

The syntax of Python, on the contrary, is based on the separation of the code with spaces and tabs, which significantly speeds up the process of coding, but increases the possibility of careless errors. Considering Python, it’s also worth noting the simplicity of commands. In fact, most of the commands in this language are similar to the corresponding words in natural English, which makes it much easier to learn.

The list of secondary PHP and Python differences is as follows:

  • Python is considered a more flexible programming language, while PHP is tightly regulated;
  • Python uses special packages to load additional libraries, while PHP requires loading them manually;
  • Unlike PHP, where assuring the software security requires additional tools, applications written in Python are considered among the safest;
  • Although Python supports a graphical user interface and can be used in web development, PHP, originally created to support web applications, is more applicable in this area.

PHP vs Python: what to choose?

For years, debates have been going on about which of the languages is more user-friendly and most applicable to various tasks: PHP or Python? Despite the many differences between these tools, which consist in a different syntax, different spheres of application and logic, these languages, nevertheless, have a number of common properties.

They are convenient, easy to learn and use, have many useful libraries, broad communities, and detailed documentation.

However, to choose the best of two, it all eventually comes down to the purpose of development. Same as in the creation of PHP and Python, before starting to learn the language and developing your own product, it is important to ask the question “what exactly do I want to get in the end?” To create simple working sites and web applications, as the experience of developers around the world and statistics reaffirm, PHP would be the best solution. However, Python would be the most optimal and convenient tool for the development of complex flexible products.

When it comes to choosing PHP or Python for mobile development, take into consideration that Python is not limited to the web development capabilities, which makes it more versatile than PHP. All the major mobile platforms (iOS, Android, Windows Mobile) have some kind of Python port or framework that allows developing native and web applications with a help of Python. Thanks to its regulations and logic, PHP is better applicable for web development exactly. Though there are ways to build mobile web applications over the PHP server-side backends, it is much harder as compared to Python. Not to mention that the simplest way – using the solutions by Zend company, is commercial, though not very pricey.

Conclusion

In general, the choice of PHP vs Python lies in the selection between stiffness and flexibility, nativity and versatility. We can even go further and compare PHP vs Python vs Java. However, the final choice always belongs to the developer and depends on the assigned task. We hope that this article helps our readers to better understand main properties of the two most popular languages and facilitates the complex process of choosing between them.

 

This article is shared by www.itechscripts.com | A leading resource of inspired clone scripts. It offers hundreds of popular scripts that are used by thousands of small and medium enterprises.

Credits : Nagpurtoday

Credits : Nagpurtoday

 

What is PHP?

And why should I learn to use and where would I begin once I decide to use it? To start, PHP stands for ‘PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor’, and it is one of the most common server-side languages in programming today. The reason it is so popular is the fact that it is completely open sourced, which means anyone with access to the internet, is free to complete access to everything PHP has available to them.

There are obvious reasons why a programmer should, and would, want to learn this language on that basis alone. Not only is it a programming skill you can use and implement free of cost, but there are a vast number of employers who incorporate this language on that basis alone. With the ease that it can be embedded into HTML, it won’t be long before you start seeing professional web development come to life in front of your very eyes.

Now that you have PHP successfully installed, we need somewhere we can actually write the code. I use Visual Studio Code. Once it is downloaded and installed, it is as simple as saving a blank notepad document, but instead of saving it with a ‘.txt’ extension at the end of the file name, use a ‘.php’. Now when you right click on that file and go to ‘Open With’, select Visual Studio Code, and it will open up to you a blank template to use. In order to write PHP code, it needs to be within PHP tags. The starting tag looks like ‘’. Anything in between these tags will be read as PHP code.

Now that we have PHP installed, and a place to write our code, the next thing we will need is a software that will allow us to run the code so we can see our work come to life. I use Xampp. Once it is downloaded there are some slight modifications needed to make it run, but not that many. If you don’t alter any of the steps in the Xampp installation process, Xampp will be saved within your C:\ (Local Disk C:) file path on your computer. If we go there and click on Xampp, it will open into many different options. Now it is the ‘htdocs’ folder where you will want to save all your projects of work. For example, go inside the htdocs folder and save an empty document called ‘hello-world.php’. Now find where Xampp is on your computer and run it. You will get a pop-up that looks as follows except you won’t have any messages displayed yet I am sure.

Hope you liked the article.

—Sanket Wankhede

This article is shared by www.itechscripts.com | A leading resource of inspired clone scripts. It offers hundreds of popular scripts that are used by thousands of small and medium enterprises.

Credits : Zdnet

Credits : Zdnet

 

A little-known Portuguese company, OutSystems, which specialises in the equally little-known practice of low-code development, is taking large sections of the corporate market by storm.

As its name suggests, low-code development reduces the amount of coding required to develop applications. And, by doing so, it reduces the time needed to develop applications — in some cases by a factor of 10.

The speed of this approach makes it especially attractive to the mobile market and, as that market has grown, so has OutSystems. According to analyst Forrester, OutSystems is the market leader in low-code development, beating better-known names like Salesforce.

OutSystems CEO, Paulo Rosado, outlined the advantages of the low-code approach to ZDNet.

ZDNet: Why did you start it in this business?

Rosado: This is my second company. I started my previous one in 1997. What we handled there was infrastructure software for very large national and international companies.

We were right at the middle of the bubble. I sold the company in 1999, but during that time I didn’t have a single project that was on time and on budget.

When we started a project, we tried to change the analysis phase but we could never get the requirements right. That concerned and interested me, because it was a difficult problem. I ran the company for 18 months and during that time I focused on this problem. OutSystems was the result of that. I looked back at why these projects were failures, and that related to a fundamental issue in software construction. It had to do with technical debt [relying on a solution that is quick and easy to implement but will cause problems in the future], and the fact that, as software changes and time passes, the next change needs to be done.

What happens is that the cost increases exponentially as each change is made, until it becomes too expensive and you have to start afresh.

So, the idea we came up with was, instead of starting by trying to get the requirements right, why don’t we assume that they are always wrong and then attack the problem of change?

We kind of reverse engineered the anatomy of software change and created a product that was unique. To give you an idea, one of the reasons was that as you increase the size of the software, the software becomes harder to change. If you double the size of the software, the dependencies increase exponentially.

So if you have fewer options to track, you can put in a dependency engine and you decrease dramatically the cost of your packet. That’s why we went with a model.

I had a lot of experience with very large Java projects and I thought Java was terrible. I was an architect in Oracle and I had my first glimpse of the dark ages that would come because of the lack of productivity. As people change things they are afraid of changing something and breaking something else.

One of the things we did was create a domain specific language, a visual language that was built for any specific domain of apps and was built to solve the problem of maintenance of change.

We removed Inheritance in objects — which was a big, stupid idea — but the other big thing was we realised that in order to tackle the problem of change we had to tackle the full lifecycle. So you have to take over the staging all the way through to deployment.

outsystens-low-code.png
Forrester: The analysts reckon that OutSystems is the clear market leader in low-code development. As of Q2 ’16.

Source Forrester

Basically, we introduced a DevOps capability into our product in 2002 [DevOps came into common usage in 2008].

You were doing DevOps before anybody else?

Exactly. If you look at that notion of One-Click Publish, we have big buttons that [were introduced] in 2002, with those buttons you click and deploy automatically. It’s a huge portion of our R&D, taking all those pieces, even database, integrations, making sure that with one click you upgrade the version that’s in production in a hot environment.

[When] you try to create a platform for Agile where technology is not in the way you stumble into continuous delivery, and you stumble into DevOps. There is no way around it.

What do you see as the key difference between Agile and DevOps?

It’s fixing the latency of change. Very simple to say but it’s a big problem.

We have an ALM [Application Lifecycle Management] group and we also have a domain group, so we constantly monitor the nature of the applications.

For example, when REST [Representational State Transfer] appeared about four years ago and started making inroads inside the enterprise, replacing web services and SOAP [Simple Object Access Protocol], we said: ‘We need to create a visual construct to model REST’.

The low-code aspect — how do you do that?

You have a modelling environment. It’s a very visual environment. In our case, the scope of that modelling environment is the scope of the domain of apps you want to create.

So in that modelling environment, for instance in our systems, we are able to model responsive, web native, mobile [apps], and then the stacks you would normally associate with that.

Then we also take care of integrations and the synchronous processes and so on. That stack is sufficient to tackle almost any problem. Any transactional app, any portals, dashboards, the big systems of record, BI, all that stuff.

We create model artefacts with, for instance, 3,000 objects and 11 million lines of code. Then from that modelling environment we have a code generator that generates into a target architecture. That’s another thing that we do a lot of research on: ‘What is the de-facto best target architecture for the next two or three years?’.

That group makes choices like ‘What is the architecture of the mobile native app?’, ‘Is it pure native or is it some hybrid?’, ‘What is our microservices strategy with containers?’.

This is all completely independent, so you just click and the apps are generated and deployed. When an architect comes in underneath, what he sees is services, and it is almost as if it was done by hand.

How do you get developers to buy in to this?

The reason why developers, especially the experienced ones, are wary of this type of product is because of a couple of issues.

One is the ‘wall’ issue. The issue is whether these platforms are sufficiently powerful.

The way we solve that is by our sheer multi-functionality. Our language is very powerful and when you extend it, it extends very elegantly, with JavaScript or CSS [Cascading Style Sheets]. You can integrate, we have plug-ins for almost everything, but you can [also] build your own plugins for almost anything.

That is why it’s call low-code. When no-code stops, you can go to code, augment the capabilities of the platform, and continue.

The second issue we also solved is that in most of these platforms it’s hard and it really takes time to build a platform to generate code, one that is capable, scalable and secure.

One of our requirements was that with each of those [generated] apps you could have at least 20 million devices accessing that application — one app could have 20 million users at one time.

We put in those requirements, along with the requirement that there be no single point of failure. On security, we did the same thing.

Many of our customers are very keen on security, so with our beta processes we sent them the platform so that they could try everything out for themselves. And when things come up, we go in and we change it.

There is a trust level that you build up with your customers. They can see how we can solve the whole problem, and not just the functional requirement problem.

So, to some extent it’s automation?

That’s exactly what it is. It’s automating a process as much as possible so that it is simple to use.

Are there notable successes that you can talk about in terms of companies?

We have over 800 customers and I know so many inside stories. UK customers include the NHS Practitioners Health Programme, where we built a mobile app and online patient booking system in seven weeks. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology company Charles River is another company who we built a mobile app for. Again, it only took us seven weeks.

[Worcestershire County Council, the Netherlands-based gas, electricity and heating company Eneco, and Ricoh Singapore are all customers.]

We have very big manufacturing companies, very big banks, logistics companies and the like. We have common use cases where people use our systems to build a digital factory [an arrangement of technology that lets management configure, model, simulate, assess and evaluate systems before building them].

And presumably with automation in there?

Oh yes. Our platform has an internal manager that does real-time impact analysis. What that means is the quality of the apps from the get-go is absolutely top.

If you are building a very big system there are situations where you need to augment them with standard testing, so we integrate some testing tools. We have a lot of use cases for very large systems where testing is required.

To give you some idea, there is a logistics company in the Netherlands which is one of the largest oil and gas handlers. They store oil and gas and they have 73 terminals. The system that manages the oil tankers, the pumping stations, the transportation is all managed by applications built using our systems. A full, worldwide, mission-critical system.

What was the key aspect of software development that needed fixing as far as you’re concerned?

It was that change issue. It was fixing the change request problem. Because the reason why we are so successful today — why we are growing so fast and have so much demand — is because before, you could get along with these waterfall projects where everything’s defined upfront, etc. We still get that.

But mobile changed everything — the single mobile project that you can do without iterating. That’s because it’s an exercise in trial and error, an exercise in change.

If you don’t change, well… Let’s say you build a map. It’s really well designed so you think: ‘I don’t need to worry about this for the next six months’. You’re already dead because, before that, after just two weeks, you find there’s a huge number of requirements that want you to change that app.

So you find that you must now compress that delivery cycle to two weeks.

You’ve created a tipping point in IT because they start doing it for mobile, and then they start doing it to get more responsive systems on the web, and so they have to redo all that. And that’s when they realise ‘wow, I can do this so much faster!’ That created the appetite inside the business; the business increased the pressure for delivery to the point where the backlogs are so huge — in terms of digital demand — that they can only do it with our productivity tools which are very good at doing change.

And that’s exactly what we are.

And that’s why you are enjoying this very successful growth and that’s worldwide?

We are very successful in the US and in Europe of course, but also in Asia-Pac. And even in countries that are a little bit more conservative, like Japan.

Japan’s a difficult market to crack.

It is. We started about four years ago and now it’s going very well. Japan relies on extremely custom-developed software because they can very rarely use pre-built software from America. They have to build a lot of their own stuff and our type of tool saves them hundreds of millions of dollars. Over there we are compressing projects which could take five years into 18 months.

So why are you not better known?

Well, it’s partly a lack of marketing acumen, but also, for a long time we were very much alone. These are products that are extremely difficult to catch up to. There are huge barriers.

I can tell you from our experience with Gartner and Forrester. Even when we had the evidence of first 100 and then 200 customers, they could not believe that what we said we did was possible.

And then we were very lucky because Salesforce jumped into the category and only then was low-code seen as a distinct category in its own right. But fundamentally we had been alone in this category for many years.

We weren’t big enough back then and we weren’t in Silicon Valley so we couldn’t create this new category of software until things got better. Now we have our headquarters in Silicon Valley and a customer base more than big enough to define this new category of low-code development.

This article is shared by www.itechscripts.com | A leading resource of inspired clone scripts. It offers hundreds of popular scripts that are used by thousands of small and medium enterprises.

Credits : Infoworld

Credits : Infoworld

 

Devops is one of the key trends in software development to emerge recently. But the term is often not fully understood.

An amalgamation of “development” and “operations,” “devops” describes the organizational structure, practices, and culture needed to enable rapid agile development and scalable, reliable operations. Devops is about the culture, collaborative practices, and automation that aligns development and operations teams so they have a single mindset on improving customer experiences, responding faster to business needs, and ensuring that innovation is balanced with security and operational needs.

For development teams, that usually means standardizing platforms, following an agile development process, and participating in operationally driven initiatives. For operations teams, it means targeting better stability, reducing costs, and improving responsiveness.

Core devops practices center around infrastructure configuration standards, automation, testing, and monitoring. But devops also requires cultural and mindset changes in IT.

And not everyone agrees on the organizational structure and how responsibilities are assigned between development and operational teams.

Some people stress a merging of development and operational people and responsibilities so that one devops team carries both responsibilities. This does have some cultural advantages as both developers and engineers are now forced to respond as a team to both operational and business needs. And this structure can be more efficient, especially in smaller shops that can’t easily dedicate resources to focus on development or operations independently. Many people also argue that when you standardize on cloud infrastructure and automate most workflows, there is less of a need for having separate sets of people with different skills and responsibilities.

Although this integrated structure may be possible, it’s a difficult hill to climb for organizations carrying legacy systems and without superskilled engineers who can enable all the standards and automation. And even when that’s possible, I believe that most organizations that are driving digital need to separate first, achieve their digital business agendas, and then perhaps look to merge when there is a maturity of IT practices. That is my recommendation for how transformational organizations need to implement devops.

In this transformational view, devops aims to reduce conflicts that arise when developers are focused on meeting business demands to add functionality and improve the usability of applications whereas operations teams are traditionally more focused on the stability and security of the computing environments. It tries to educate developers on operational responsibilities and educate operations teams on how to serve business needs smarter and faster.

When there is a shared understanding and a better alignment on priorities and process between the development and operations team, a more customer-centric devops culture emerges.

The basic technical concept in devops is: As you automate more of the interactions with the infrastructure from building, testing, deploying, and monitoring, you can remove many operational defects and better align development and operations processes. From a practice point of view, the big questions involve what tools to use and how much to invest developing any single devops practice area.

This article is shared by www.itechscripts.com | A leading resource of inspired clone scripts. It offers hundreds of popular scripts that are used by thousands of small and medium enterprises.