• Issue #16: DevOps


    Antonomasia is a word derived from the Greek ἀντονομάζειν, which means, "to name differently." It is a rhetoric figure of speech, or metonymy, in which a concept is named after another closely related. Classical examples are, for example "King" for Elvis Presley, or "Fab Four" for The Beatles. In technology, "Xerox" for photocopying, "Big Blue" for IBM, "Google" for searching, but (surprisingly enough) not "iPhone" for smartphone. In the software industry, a similar phenomenon happens: "C++" for object orientation; "Java" for web apps; "Jenkins" for CI/CD; "Python" for machine learning; "Scrum" for Agile; and Kubernetes for DevOps.

  • Issue #16: DevOps,  Library

    Bertrand Meyer

    When the author of these words started its career as a software developer, "object orientation" was all the rage. "Serious" programming languages were object oriented. "Professional" programming environments allowed one to view "objects" and "classes" in all of their glory. Inheritance, not composition, was the way of the future. Design patterns names were the answer to actual interview questions.

  • Issue #15: Writing

    Issue #15: Writing

    Welcome to the fifteenth issue of De Programmatica Ipsum, dedicated to the subject of Writing. In this edition we will start a new section, called "Library", where we will discuss the best books ever written in the field of software engineering. Graham enumerates all the valid reasons any team should write more prose than code, Adrian tries to find out why software teams do not write documentation, and Graham inaugurates the Library section with a review of two of Brad Cox's major works: "Object-Oriented Programming: an Evolutionary Approach" and "Superdistribution".

  • Issue #15: Writing

    On The Aversion To Writing

    Around 90% of the teams I have worked with in the past 22 years have never, ever, documented anything. Not a single wiki page, not a README file on top of a repository, not a single PDF file for the end users, not even a single UML diagram. Where they successful? Hardly.