|
|
|
An Interview with Brian Sletten of Bosatsu Consulting
|
Article Topics
Introduction · AOP · Ruby Page 2 of 3
AOP
Stelligent: You've done a lot of work in the AOP space- how does AOP affect our notion of metrics?
Brian: Oh, excellent question.
I think AOP is going to turn a lot of metrics on their head. In many
ways we can't even begin to speak with much confidence on what that
impact might be, but I am interested in how modularized cross-cutting
concerns might help us track bugs back to requirements. By eliminating
the tangling and scattering, we can end up with modular implementations
of requirements that are separately testable. This way, we might be
able to track organizational issues that precede development. If
requirements are not being specified clearly, that might be something a
group needs to work on.
Stelligent: Currently, you are working with Cigital
as a consultant on software security - how do metrics (which are
commonly thought of as quality measurements) relate to software
security? Are there parallels?
Brian: Well, as Cigital will
tell you, software security is completely related to software quality.
In order to enforce a policy or to make strong statements about the
state of the software, your developers need to understand that state.
There cannot be a disconnect between the perception of quality and the
reality. Software that is highly-coupled, highly-complex or in any
other way difficult to page in is increasing its chances for defects
and security vulnerabilities.
Stelligent: What tools do you use for metrics in the Java world? How do the tools vary?
Brian: I like JDepend's capabilities, but prefer to use it indirectly through JDepend4Eclipse, Ant, Maven, etc. Frank Sauer's Metrics plugin for Eclipse
is also interesting, as it ties together complexity, Martin's metrics
and some of the other OO metrics. Jeff Palm used to have an Eclipse
plugin for managing Law of Demeter violations, but it isn't supported
anymore, unfortunately. I am really excited about commercial companies
like Stelligent starting to help developers tie metrics into their
daily routines.
Stelligent: As anyone who reads TSS or attends a No Fluff Just Stuff symposium knows, scripting languages are increasing in popularity. What is your take on them?
Brian: I think they are great.
I love the simplicity, elegance and power they offer. I love how
quickly you can get work done. I prefer Ruby over Python...or Perl;
it just feels more comfortable to me. I am by no means a Ruby Guru yet,
but I am working on it. However, I'm trying to balance the cycles I
spend on Ruby with the cycles I spend on improving my Lisp skills.
Scripting languages get a bad rap from static typing bigots. I'm all
for static typing where it is useful, but I also accept the fact that
unit tests have helped us get to a point where more dynamic approaches
are sufficiently safe. You can build safety into a development process
without using a language that forces you to be safe.
|
|
