Yet another kindle vs paper books post

TL;DR: Buy a kindle already. Reading multiple books at a time is surprisingly productive. 
I now read while I eat. There's a list at the end comparing the amount of reading I got
done before and after I switched to a Kindle

I love smelling books. I also like stacking my books on a table, or on a shelf, so that I can look at them from time to time and be pleased with myself. The stacks also double as cheap room decor – books make the room more me. Then there is the added social benefit of being able to show off to anyone who cares to visit that I have read Thoreau and DDIA*.

* Only half-way through. It has been a year since I purchased the (physical) book. Sigh.

Despite all this, despite arguing with my friends that books are more than just the sum of its parts (late realization: a book has only one “part” that matters – the text) and that smelling a book and then flipping through it is a huge part of the “experience”, I switched to a kindle.

I feel ya, fellow book smellers.
Image credits: I got this from a Facebook photo comment :shrugs:

Before you brand me as a traitor and proclaim me unworthy of all the paper books that I have ever smelled, let me assure you that I did not succumb to the dark side easily. I borrowed my dad’s kindle paperwhite and tried it out for an entire month. Then I went out and bought myself a kindle.

The anti-library argument

The number of books I have left partially read has skyrocketed after I switched to the Kindle. And this is a good thing! I have always been a one-book-at-a-time man – I used to carry around the book I was currently reading everywhere, and I would promptly pick up another book after I was done reading the current one. Fast forward to the Kindle era, I find myself reading multiple books at the same time. I had imagined that this would be counter-productive. I’m so happy that I was wrong. The ability to switch to a book on a whim has let me read more than usual since I am reading what I feel like reading now, instead of trying to finish a book that I happened to pick up a week ago out of curiosity. My (unintentional) reading pattern until a few days ago looked like this: Deep Work by Cal Newport during the day, when I find it easy to focus, The Fountainhead for reading on the bed, and The Prince (40% complete) and The rise and fall of the Third Reich (17% complete – this one is a tome) whenever I feel like it. I can confidently say that I would never have made any progress on the last two books if I had stuck to the one book at a time policy that paper books unintentionally forced me to adopt. I would have given up and moved on to the next shiny thing 3 chapters into a history book.

I might never complete reading some of the books that I have on my kindle (looking at you, Third Reich), but that is not the point. In his book Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb introduces the concept of an anti-library:

The writer Umberto Eco belongs to that small class of scholars who are encyclopedic, insightful, and nondull. He is the owner of a large personal library (containing thirty thousand books), and separates visitors into two categories: those who react with “Wow! Signore professore dottore Eco, what a library you have. How many of these books have you read?” and the others—a very small minority—who get the point is that a private library is not an ego-boosting appendage but a research tool. The library should contain as much of what you do not know as your financial means allow you to put there. You will accumulate more knowledge and more books as you grow older, and the growing number of unread books on the shelves will look at you menacingly. Indeed, the more you know, the larger the rows of unread books. Let us call this collection of unread books an antilibrary.

Replace “unread books” with “partially read books” and you can immediately see how switching to the Kindle has benefitted my anti-library.

The “I now read more” argument

I have been reading on a kindle for about 5 months now, and I do not see myself going back. If there ever was a single compelling advantage that a kindle gave me over paper books, this is it: I read more on a kindle. Much, much more.

I now read while I wait, while I eat, and while I poop. Because the device pleasantly fits into my palm, I can now read while I’m having dinner instead of watching something on YouTube. You may think that this is not a big deal – but for me, it makes all the difference. Unlike finding time to read, finding time to eat is something that I must do in the interest of self-preservation. Coupling eating with reading is a win-win.


But can’t you just read on your laptop/phone while you eat?

Even if I gloss over the possibility of food on my keyboard, a laptop on the dinner table is just outright inconvenient. Reading on the phone might work. I really do not have a solid reason (apart from the LED screen) as to why I could not bring myself to read on my phone regularly.


I am going to deliberately avoid discussing all the other nice things about using an e-reader. I do find myself taking a lot of notes while I read – something I never used to do with paper books since I couldn’t be bothered to carry around a pen. It is also useful to highlight interesting anecdotes/quotes in a book and then later see them in a compact list. But IMHO these are fringe benefits.

Some raw data

Pre-kindle. List of books I read from September 2017- January 2019 (16 months), in no particular order. This includes both physical books and the few books that I had read on my phone :

  1. God of small things, Arundhati Roy (on my phone)
  2. Animal Farm, George Orwell (small book)
  3. Ministry of utmost happiness, Arundhati Roy
  4. Designing Data-Intensive Applications, Martin Kleppman (physical book, still reading)
  5. The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins
  6. Walden, Henry David Thoreau
  7. The old man and the sea, Ernest Hemingway (on my phone, small book)
  8. Catch 22, Joseph Heller
  9. The White Tiger, Aravind Adiga
  10. Meditations, Marcus Aurelius (on my phone, read a few pages here and there)
  11. Blink, Malcolm Gladwell (Read around half of it)

The post-kindle list, spanning the duration from February 2019 to May 20, 2019. (4 months):

  1. Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky
  2. 1Q84, Haruki Murakami
  3. Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb
  4. Antifragile, Nassim Nicholas Taleb
  5. The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand
  6. Stories of Your Life and Others, Ted Chiang
  7. Deep work, Cal Newport (44% complete)
  8. The Prince, Nicholas Macchiavelli (40%)
  9. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William. L. Shirer (17%)
  10. Aatujeevitham, Benyamin (36%)
  11. Flow, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (17%. No intention of returning to this book)
  12. The New Evolution Diet, Arthur De Vany (28%, No intention of returning to this book)

Though I am not a “voracious” reader by any stretch of the imagination, you can see that when compared to the pre-kindle rate of 10 books in 16 months, 6 books in 4 months is indeed an improvement. Note that this is considering only the completed books – 17% of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” is as long as some independent books -_-. I admit that the pre-kindle list is likely to be incomplete – I do not remember all the books that I have picked up and left halfway. Nevertheless, the lists should be able to convince you, albeit rather unscientifically, that I read more after I switched to a Kindle

Programming: doing it more vs doing it better


A few years ago, very early into my programming career, I came across a story:

The ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the “quantity” group: fifty pound of pots rated an “A”, forty pounds a “B”, and so on. Those being graded on “quality”, however, needed to produce only one pot – albeit a perfect one – to get an “A”.

Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the “quantity” group was busily churning out piles of work – and learning from their mistakes – the “quality” group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay.

Jeff Atwood’s “Quantity Always Trumps Quality” post, though he himself took the story from somewhere else.

This little story has had a tremendous impact on how I approach software engineering as a craft. I was (and still am) convinced that the best way to get better at software engineering is to write more software. I was careful enough to not take the story too seriously – I have always strived to write readable, maintainable code without bugs. However, deep inside my mind was this idea that one day I would be able to write beautiful code without thinking. It would be as effortless to me as breathing. “Refactoring code” would be something left to the apprentice, not something that I, the master who has churned out enough ceramic pots, would be bothered with. I just have to keep making ceramic pots until I get there.

Three years later, I am still very much the apprentice. Rather than programming effortlessly, I have learned to program more deliberately. I have learned (the hard way) to review my code more thoroughly and to refactor it now rather than later. I get pangs of guilt and disappointment every time my pull request has to go through another round of review. I am frustrated when I deliver a feature two days late. As an engineer I want to, above everything else, churn out (the right) features as fast as possible.

Today, I came across an essay that would let me resign from my perpetual struggle to “get faster” at engineering:

I used to have students who bragged to me about how fast they wrote their papers. I would tell them that the great German novelist Thomas Mann said that a writer is someone for whom writing is more difficult than it is for other people. The best writers write much more slowly than everyone else, and the better they are, the slower they write. James Joyce wrote Ulysses, the greatest novel of the 20th century, at the rate of about a hundred words a day

William Deresiewicz, Solitude and Leadership

I can strongly relate to this – I would often read and re-read something that I wrote and then I would go back and change it, only to repeat the process again. Though comparing my modest penmanship (keymanship?!) to “the best writers” is outright sacrilegious, even I have in the past noticed that the slower I write, the better I write.

The equivalent in software engineering terms would be to (nothing you did not know before, except for maybe the last point):

  1. Put more thought into the design of your systems
  2. Refactor liberally and lavishly
  3. Test thoroughly
  4. Take your sweet time

As I said, nothing you did not know before. Also, this is almost impossible to pull off when you have realistic business objectives to meet.

But James Joyce probably did not write Ulysses with a publisher breathing down his neck saying “We need to ship this before Christmas!”.

So the secret sauce that makes good code great and the average Joe the next 10x programmer might be this – diligence exercised over a long time.

How does this affect me? Disillusionment. Writing more software does not automatically make you a better programmer. You need the secret sauce, whatever that might be.

Announcing matchertools 0.1.0

Matchertools is my “hello world” project in rust, and I have been chipping away at it slowly and erratically for the past couple of months. You can now find my humble crate here. The crate exposes an API that implements the Gale-Shapley algorithm for the stable marriage problem. Read the wiki. No really, read the linked Wikipedia page. Lloyd Shapley and Alvin Roth won a Nobel prize for this in 2012. Spoiler alert – unlike what the name indicates, the algorithm has little to do with marriages.

This project is so nascent that it is easier for me to list what it does not have:

  1. No documentation
  2. No examples
  3. Shaky integration tests
  4. No code style whatsoever. I haven’t subjected the repo to rustfmt yet (gasp!)
  5. Duct-tape code.
  6. Not nearly enough code comments.

Meta

I had recently adopted a new “philosophy” in life:

Discipline will take you farther than motivation alone ever will

Definitely not me, and more a catch-phrase than philosophy

Most of my side projects do not make it even this far. I go “all-in” for the first couple of days and then my enthusiasm runs out and the project is abandoned before it reaches any meaningful milestone.

But I consciously rate limited myself this time. I had only one aim – work on matchertools every day. I did not really care about the amount of time I spent on the project every day, as long as I made some progress. This also meant that some days I would just read a chapter from the wonderful rust book and that would be it. However, I could not stick to even this plan despite the rather lax constraints – life got in the way. So my aim soon degenerated into “work on matchertools semi-regularly, whenever I can, but be (semi) regular about it“. Thus in two months, I taught myself enough rust to shabbily implement a well-known algorithm. Sarcasm very much intended.

Though I was (am) horrified at the painfully slow pace of the project, the “be slow and semi-regular but keep at it” approach did bear results:

  1. I learned a little rust. I am in love with the language. The documentation is superb!
  2. I produced something, which is far better than my side-project-output in the past 18 months – nothing.

Besides, I have realized that much of what happens around me is unplanned and unpredictable to a larger degree than I had thought. I am currently working on revamping the way I plan things and the way I react when my plans inevitably fail. A little Nassim Nicholas Taleb seems to help, but more on that later.

Lessons from learning to play the violin

TL;DR:

Learning to play the violin introduced me to western classical music, amateur orchestras, and deliberate practice. Even though I will never seriously pursue music, it was well worth my time.

Some background

I have been taking violin lessons as an adult beginner from 2016 December till now. I have stopped my lessons temporarily since I will be moving to a different city soon. As of January 2019, I am at Suzuki book 3. The decision to pursue violin as an adult might have been influenced by the Carnatic violin lessons I took when I was eleven years old [see sunk cost fallacy].

Also, partly owing to my limited knowledge, I am going to collectively refer to baroque, renaissance and classical music as just “classical music”.


1. Classical music is cool!

I would often come home from a practice session and look up the music we learned that day on Youtube. Though it started as an exercise to get more familiar with the music, I found myself listening to music more actively rather than just letting it play “in the background”. This simple act of being more attentive to what I listen to helped a lot in letting me appreciate classical music.

I was never much interested in the classical genre – most of the pieces I had encountered earlier were simply too long for my short attention span. The lack of an obvious, simple, repeating “chorus” in the genre was something I found hard to come to terms with. However, listening attentively led to the realization that the sophistication and the “cleverness” in the music is something that I could enjoy. My first “aha!” moment was when I stumbled upon the Canon in D. I could see how nuanced the composition was (to my untrained ear), and how each of the violinists seemed to be playing something entirely different yet similar. This was brilliant.

Then I discovered Antonio Vivaldi. I was blown away.

Then there are compositions like the Moonlight” sonata, which I did not quite like the first time I heard it and now I cannot imagine how I could have not loved it all this while. There is clearly a method to the madness.

My favorite rendition of the Canon in D

2. It is better to progress slowly, but surely.

The vibrato is a technique that every budding violinist hopes to master one day. Six to seven months ago, my vibrato was barely audible – I had to strain my ears to recognize it. Even though I am still a long long way from a respectable vibrato, today I can do some vibrato. A shitty vibrato feels much better than no vibrato.

I did not have to practice particularly hard or long to achieve this. I learn the violin for leisure and is in accordance rather leisurely when it comes to practice. I am happy that though I do not play daily (not a good thing), the 40 minutes of practice I put in 3-4 times a week actually let me (slowly) progress in my lessons. This was new for me. I did not have to work hard to progress – I just had to work somewhat consistently. If I had applied this principle to other things in my life, such as contributing to an open source project or going to the gym, I would have had today a much more braggable resume and much less belly fat.

3. Short, deliberate practice is much better than long hours of unfocused practice

When learning new music, my teacher often tells me that once you learn to play the hardest part the rest becomes very easy. The developer in me resonates with this idea – there is no point in optimizing the rest of your code unless and until you address the bottlenecks. The bottleneck, in my violin lessons, is often fast sections of a composition or parts where I am required to use a new finger position. I would often try to avoid putting in the work and won’t practice the difficult parts separately, partly because playing just the difficult parts is just boring. It is much more pleasurable to attempt the music as a whole and enjoy playing at least a part of the composition, instead of tackling just the difficult parts and consequently sound like a cat being tortured. Inevitably, a few days later, I would realize that I am no closer to playing the music successfully because the difficult parts are holding me back. To make progress, I have always had to prioritize learning the difficult portions.

Some parallels that I can draw to software development include learning new programming paradigms or tackling problems outside your usual domain of expertise. I have recently started reading this wonderful book on mathematics even though I have covered most of the topics as part of my CS bachelors degree. Writing code for the exercises at the end of each chapter is sure to get me out of my comfort zone, and using rust to attempt those exercises will make things more interesting.

4. Use social commitments to your advantage

I performed on a stage for the very first time on October 29, 2018. Even though I played the relatively easier second violin part, the pieces that my teacher chose for the orchestra were beyond my skill level. I had four months to “get my shit together” and “man up” for the big day. Horror-struck by the idea of embarrassing myself in front of a crowd, I started pouring extra time into my practice sessions. Vivaldi’s Summer was a particular pain in the ass – it was simply too fast for me. Eventually, we stopped following the Suzuki books in my personal classes and focused only on being able to play the second violin part of Summer by October.

When the big day came, I was not even nearly ready for that performance. I played a lot of wrong notes and to make things worse, my music stand’s hinge broke and I had to try and read from a stand in the next row. I felt terrible at the end of the day. When I talked to my teacher about how disappointed I was with myself, this was his response:

It does not matter. Do you really think that I do not make mistakes? The final performance was not at all significant compared to what you learned in the months of preparation leading to it.

Raja Singh, The creative school of math and music, New Delhi

The final performance was just an excuse to get the students to punch above their weight class. I must say that it worked – I would not have put in the extra time and effort in the absence of a social commitment. The orchestra also taught me how to follow a conductor, and I could not help but chuckle when I realized that the conductor is just a glorified metronome. Something similar happened when I committed to writing something for my employer’s engineering blog. We were trying to create a brand around the culture we strove to build in the engineering team, and I did not want to do a sloppy job. While I usually invest only a couple of hours into a blog post, this particular one took an entire weekend and went through multiple iterations. The result was head and shoulders above anything I had written till date. Social commitments FTW!

Us performing Mozart’s Symphony No. 25. I’m the tall-ish guy at center-right last row who seems to be barely playing. I need to use more bow *sigh*.

5. It is okay to not like something

My opinion before my introduction to classical music:

Country/Acoustic/Pop > Rock > Hip Hop > Metal > Classical

What I thought my opinion would be after (a mere) 2 years of violin lessons:

Classical music > everything-else > Metal

Unfortunately, such PC master race > console peasantry type comparisons are useless in music. For example, I do not get why people love Chopin. I mean yeah this sounds nice, and I would very much like to claim that I listen to Chopin and thus validate my “superior” taste in music. But the truth is, I like Tarzan and Jane much more than I like Frédéric Chopin. To each his own.

Squad takes the Joel test

As originally published in Squad Engineering

Disclaimer: Though this post sounds like fancy startup propaganda, it is not. I still stand by what I’ve written, even though I no longer work at Squad.


Considering that the Joel test dates back to the turn of the century, a time when Pentium III was state of the art and Linux was still obscure, it has aged quite gracefully. It is no more the golden standard against which development teams are rated, but it still is surprisingly relevant (for the most part).

At Squad we strive to build an engineering culture of doing more with less, and having a super smooth kick-ass development workflow is a necessity, not a luxury. Here we go.

1. Do you use source control?

Yes, git. All our code lives on Github. This one’s a no-brainer.

2. Can you make a build in one step?

One step builds are nice, but no builds are even nicer. In python-land, you don’t build — you deploy. As a developer, all I have to do is commit my changes to the staging branch, and do a fab deploy and voila! I can now test my changes on our staging server to my heart’s content . The whole deploy to staging process takes less than 5 minutes. Deploying to production is just another 5 minutes away, assuming you tested your feature on the staging server thoroughly.

3. Do you make daily builds?

As I said, we don’t really have ‘builds’ and that’s a good thing. What we do have is continuous integration using CircleCI. Unit tests are run automatically every time I commit to the repo and with a Slack integration, the team gets notified whenever a build is completed.

Looks like Nitish is killing it today!

4. Do you have a bug database?

Yes, we track all our features and bugs on Pivotal Tracker. We have git integrations and every commit to the repo is automatically recorded under the relevant story. All discussions relevant to a bug/story happens at a single place. Did I mention we seldom use emails? Yup, that’s right, I can count on my fingers the number of times I had to use email for communicating with my teammates.

5. Do you fix bugs before writing new code?

Depends. Before you go berserk thinking “Why would Squad dooo thaaat?” let me humbly point you to Jeff Atwood’s take on the matter — not all bugs are worth fixing. Since we strive to be as lean as possible, every hour we sink into a bug has to be justified. In fact, our developers ruthlessly confirm the ‘ROI’ first before diving into the code base to hunt down and fix the bug.

That being said, you’ll never see a Squad dev building a feature on top of an existing bug. If thou see-eth the bug, thou fixeth the bug while writing thy feature. Also we don’t believe in titles, so the decision to whether fix a bug or not usually comes down to you and not to a mystical manager two tiers above you.

6. Do you have an up-to-date schedule?

We have ‘solver teams’ that are super committed to solving a focused problem and each solver team has a set of Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) for a quarter. This results in a very transparent schedule, agreed on by the whole team, and meeting or breaking it (if necessary) is always a collective decision and not a directive from up top.

What this means is that if Squad was trying to colonize Mars, every member of the solver team would know exactly when to work on making the landing lights look nice and when to focus on just hurtling the shuttle in the approximate direction of Mars.

From when to fix the ignition switch to saying ‘Hi’ to the alien, the solver team has it all figured out.

But despite our best efforts, sometimes deadlines are missed. We try to shed more weight (no landing lights on the rocket) and invoke ** ‘focus on focus’ to get the most critical components shipped. What happens if we’re still unable to meet the schedule? That’s when we own up that our estimates were incorrect and do it better the next time.

** Focus solely on what is worth focusing on. Thanks, Rishabh

7. Do you have a spec?

Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if both are frozen — Edward V. Berard>

Remember what I said about stories in Pivotal Tracker? Our specs too live inside stories. This is the process we follow:

  • Discuss with all stakeholders and draft a requirements doc. This doc will act as the source of truth for what needs to be solved and what needs to be built. This is our spec, and it is frozen as far as this story is concerned
  • Design a solution. What’s the easiest, most elegant way to meet the specs? Write down the design, the tasks involved and estimate the story
  • A teammate reviews your design, and a meaningful discussion about the merits of your design and alternate solutions ensue
  • You and your reviewer agree on a design, and you happily code away

8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions?

Oh this is my favorite part.

We have two really cool ‘silent rooms’ anybody can go to when they feel that the office bullpen is getting too loud. Once inside, you are not allowed to talk (unless you and your buddy have super-human whispering skills) and your phones should be on silent. Not on vibrate, but on silent. This is the metaphorical cave where programmers disappear into and come out with bags full of features. Silent rooms are our rock and our refuge, the one place where we won’t be disturbed. The rooms are insulated so that if someone revs their bike right outside the window, we wouldn’t know about it. And yes, I’m writing this blog sitting in one of the silent rooms.

One of our two beloved silent rooms

9. Do you use the best tools money can buy?

Yes, developers bring their own device to work. I actually moved my assembled desktop into the office since I was convinced that an underpowered laptop without a discrete GPU won’t be able to ‘handle me’. Whatever makes you productive.

IDEs too are up to you to decide, and my favorite contester is PyCharm. We also have employed a slew of awesome tools like SlackSentry, and Loggly to make sure that our developers are as productive as they can be. Look at our StackShare page for more.

However, this does not mean we have a paid subscription for insert your favorite tool for x here. We don’t give MacBook Pros to our developers (but we do finance interest-free EMIs if they choose to buy one). We just recently got Slack premium. We are moving from Asana to Clickup. We have not maxed out the parallelism of our CircleCI builds. We also don’t swim in money. We only buy things that make us more productive.

10. Do you have testers?

No. The developers are responsible for their stories/features and they are expected to test it well before pushing to production. However, since another pair of eyes is always better, the person who requested the story (usually a Product Manager from the team) would do an ‘Acceptance Testing’ to make sure what you wrote conforms to the (hopefully frozen, rock solid) specs.

11. Do new candidates write code during their interview?

Yes, an insane amount of code. These are the steps that you would go through to get hired as a Product Engineer at Squad:

  • A call from our awesome CTO, Vikas
  • A design round, over the phone
  • A take-home assignment. (During my interview, I spent around 2 days on it and wrote a lot of code)
  • The team at Squad runs your code, and see if it works as intended. Bonus points if you have a readme.md that makes our life easier
  • The team then reviews your code. I want to stress this part. We actually read your code, and it ‘works’ does not mean you pass
  • A meaningful discussion over email about your chosen design and execution
  • You get invited for an on-premise interview. First round is ‘activity extension’ — extend your take-home assignment to add a couple of features. If your methods/modules were too tightly coupled and inflexible, you’d have a hard time here
  • Another design round. You are expected to design the solution to a problem, and write skeleton code to solve it. Given the time constraint, you get bonus points if your code actually works
  • A bug smash round. You are given a code base and your task is to refactor it according to your definition of ‘good code’

Yes, that’s a lot of code and I guarantee you that it will be the best technical interview you’ve ever had!

12. Do you do hallway usability testing?

Remember what I said about our high octane HQ? It is almost impossible to keep a feature under the wraps till the time it’s released. “Oh Kevin it looks cool but I don’t think it is really useful because of x and y” happens a lot and I’m grateful for it. Continuous improvement and constant iteration is part of our DNA. That being said, there has also been instances where I waited too long to show my features, or I committed to production and then asked the stakeholder to go through the feature. Hallway testing is a guideline. Though we strive to follow the best practices and guidelines whenever possible, it is not always possible. As they say, it is easier to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission. Not always, but sometimes.

So we’re finally here — time to count the points. I would claim that we scored a solid 11, but a skeptic would argue that we barely made a 10. You be the judge.

Also there are a lot of questions that the test does not address, like how easy it is for developers to work remotely (very easy, our team is partly remote) and how often do you refactor code (very often). But I’ll defer that to another post.

Image courtesies:

This post was much ‘shittier’ than it is now. Thanks to my wonderful friends at Squad for helping me fix it

Django code review for dummies

After 2 years at an enterprise backup software firm, I finally took the plunge and joined a startup. I love the engineering culture we have here at Squad, and rigorous code reviews are very much a part of it. Since I often found myself repeating the same mistakes again (and again, and again..), I went ahead and wrote a checklist to help me.

Very wise words from Jake the dog

This is not a generic list and is very much tied to me and the mistakes that I made. The list helped me, but your mileage may vary

The TL;DR

Read through the code you wrote, and stop and ponder at each line.

The actual (noobie) list

1. No create/update inside a loop

Are you making create() or update() calls in a loop? Have you considered whether they could be replaced with bulk_create() and bulk_update()? See the django-bulk-update package.

2. No unnecessary model attribute fetches

Are you writing post.id where you could have gotten away with post_id? For example:

class Blog(models.Model):
     title = models.CharField(max_length=200)


 class Post(models.Model):
     blog = models.ForeignKey(Blog)
     time = models.TimeField()
     author = models.CharField(max_length=100

Let’s say you want to know the id of the blog to which a particular post belongs to. One way is to do:

 post = # some how get a reference to a Post object
 print post.blog.id

But the better way is to do:

 print post.blog_id

What’s the difference? In the first case, we are asking Django to fetch the id attribute from the post’s blog entry. As you would probably know, Post and Blog are separate tables in the database. So when you ask for post.blog.id, Django will query the Blog table to fetch the id that we need. That’s an extra query. However, this is not really necessary because we have the information we need in the Postobject itself. Since we have a foreign key relationship from Post to Blog, django must somehow keep track of which post is related to which blog. Django does this by storing a special blog_id attribute in Post which would store the primary key of its parent Blog. So post.blog_id would give us the information we need, without resulting in an extra query.

3. Docstrings and comments are important

Read through the docstrings and comments. It might seem unimportant to read the docstrings and comments when you have a feature to ship. But a wrong comment/docstring can throw the next developer who reads your code off track, and trust me you don’t want to be that guy.

4. If possible, limit your business logic to the model classes

Be mindful of where you write your business logic. Coming from jquery world, I had a tendency to put my business logic wherever I please. Avoid writing business logic in ModelAdmin classes or ModelForm classes (yikes!) and write them where they belong – Modelclasses. This would ensure:

  • Consistency in the codebase. If it is business logic, there’s only one place it could be.
  • Better tests. If it’s in a Model class, then you know you should write unit tests for it

5. Is it covered by unit tests?

Speaking of unit tests, how do you decide when to write unit tests and when not to? If it’s business logic, it needs unit tests. No buts, no maybes, just write the damn tests. If it is something in your ModelAdmin, then you can afford not to write unit tests for that as long as you don’t do any fancy if..elses there. Test your business logic, not your boilerplate

6. Think how your changes affect the existing data

In some cases, for example, when you introduce a new field, you might have to write a data migration so that existing rows in the table would have a sane value for that field. I made the rookie mistake of happily coding away on my feature with nary a thought about the existing data in the database and regretted it afterward. See here for a primer on Django migrations

7. Use that cache!

Keep an eye out for things that can be cached. Find yourselves fetching ‘top 10 scorers of all time’ from the db everytime the page loads? Cache it! Though this should be fairly obvious, it’s easy to forget about the cache when you are busy writing your feature.

8. Offload non-critical heavy tasks to an async queue

Okay, this one is a little specific to our particular stack. Let’s say you have a feature where your user presses ‘generate cats report’ button and you wade through the entire database to figure out how much of your total traffic involved pictures of grumpy cats. It is probably not a good idea to make your user stare at a loading screen while we crunch gigabytes of cat data. Here’s what you could have done:

  • When the user presses the button, start an async task to calculate grumpy cat traffic volume. We use celery to make this happen.
  • Once you fire the async task, immediately respond to the http request with the message “Looking for grumpy cats in the system, we will let you know when we are done”. Now your user can use his/her time for something more productive
  • Message the user in slack/send an email/display a button on the page when your async task is done.

This will let us offload heavier tasks to spare EC2 instances so that more critical requests/queries do not get slower because of grumpy cats

The grumpy cat programmer

9. Be aware of popular optimizations

Know your python. Use list comprehensions over for loopsizip over zip, et cetera. This comes with time and practice, so don’t sweat it. Oh and don’t forget this:

need_refuel = None
if fuel_level < 0.2:
    need_refuel = True
else
    need_refuel = False

The above mess can be refactored into:

need_refuel = fuel_level < THRESHOLD or False

Whether this aids or impairs readability is a whole different debate. Things like these are subjective, and it is okay to have opinions.

10. Query only what you need

If you had a model like this:

class Banana(models.Model):
    gorilla = models.CharField()
    tree = models.CharField()	
    jungle = models.CharField()

(God save you if you actually have a class structure like that in production, but it would serve our example well) And you want to do something like this:

banana = Banana.objects.get(id=3)

What you wanted was a banana, but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana with the tree it was sitting on along with the entire fricking jungle (thanks, Joe Armstrong for the quote). Not cool.

What you can do instead is:

banana = Banana.objects.get(id=3).only('id')

Here’s the documentation for only. No more gorillas, just the banana. However, I prefer using .value_list('id', flat=True) over only('id') because the latter might result in extra queries if we carelessly try to use any attribute other than id in our code. Using .values() is very explicit and conveys to the programmer that you only need this particular attribute here. It is also faster.

For the love of bananas, just query only what you need

11. Learn to use Django Debug Tools

Django debug tools is your friend. Lavishly using only() and defer()could bite you back if not careful. If you defer loading attributes that you don’t think you will need, but you end up needing them anyways, that would be an extra DB query. At least in the Django list pages, this would result in the dreaded n+1 query. Let’s say you want to tabulate bananas and gorillas:

idGorilla Details
1Chump, Amazon rainforest
2Rick, Cambodia
3Appu, Kerala

You thought all you need is id and Gorilla, so you did Banana.objects.all().only('id', 'gorilla'), so that we don’t need the tree and the jungle. But 3 months later, you thought it would be a good idea to display where the gorilla came from in your table. So you fire up a custom function in the ModelAdmin to do this:

def gorilla_details(self, obj)
    return '{0} {1}'.format(obj.gorilla, obj.jungle)

And everything worked smooth. But unbeknownst to you, Django is making DB queries in a loop. We had told Django to get only id and gorilla through the only() method. We now need the jungle as well. So whenever we access obj.jungle, Django queries the DB to get the jungle because we specifically told it not to fetch the jungle earlier. So we end up making 10 calls to the db for 10 gorillas (or bananas, whatever). The fix is to include jungle in the only() clause, but more often than not we do not even know that we are making an n+1 query.

Enter django debug tools.

Among many other things, DDT will tell you how many queries were fire to load your page. So if our banana-gorilla table makes 35 queries to the database to load, we know something’s wrong. Always look at what the debug toolbar has to say before you send in that pull request for review

Sorry for the long post. Here’s a potato.

This tiny potato will get you through it

Authentication with React-router 4.x

This article is inspired by the excellent tutorial by Scott Luptowski on how to add authentication to you React app. I attempt to re-invent the wheel again because the original article cites an older version of react-router and the instructions do not work if you are using react-router 4.x. There are a lot of breaking changes when you migrate from 3.x to 4.x, and there is an answer to all the whys here

Disclaimer

I’m not a Reactjs ninja or rockstar or paladin or anything of that sort. Just a dude with good intentions who had to spend an entire evening trying to figure out how authentication with react-router 4.x works, when the internet had only tutorials that use 3.x. So take my advice with a pinch of salt – I might not be following the best practices.

The goal

Your glorious new app requires the user to log in before they are allowed to do certain things. For example, if you were building the next Twitter, your users shouldn’t be able to tweet unless they are logged in. The idea here is to put certain URL patterns/pages behind an authentication wall so that if a user visits that page and the user is not logged in, he/she should be redirected to a login page. If the user is already logged in, proceed to show the requested content – and the user will have no idea about the karate chops we did behind the stage. Should the user try to navigate to a page that does not exist, we should show a 404 component as well.

The how-to

The solution is simple enough. Just like Scott explained in the original article, we create a React component that contains the login logic. This component wraps all of the routes that require authenticated users. Our entry point to the app would look something like this:

ReactDOM.render(
  <Router&gt;
	<App /&gt;
  </Router&gt;,
  document.getElementById('app')
);

But where did all the routes go? From react-router 4.x, you don’t get to define all your routes in one place. Yep, you read that right. So our Appcomponent will be doing its part in routing:

<pre class="wp-block-syntaxhighlighter-code brush: jscript; notranslate">class App extends Component {
	constructor(props){
		super(props);
	}

	render() {
		return (
			<div>
				All the awesomeness in the world converged to a single component.
				
					
  					
  				
			</div>
		
		)
	}
}</pre>

So what are we doing here? If the url exactly matches /, we render a Homecomponent. For everything else that is a subset of /, we render RootRouteWrapper which will subsequently route our requests. So all the other url patterns (eg: /pizza/pizza/yummy) would go on to render the RootRouteWrapper component. But what’s that Switch component doing there? If we had not enclosed the routes in a Switch, react-router would have rendered all routes that matched the url. So if the user visits your-awesome-app.com, all the routes for / will trigger – both Home and RootRouteWrapper! If your routes are enclosed in Switch, react-router will render only the first match – in our example the Home component.

OK. So now we can show a home page. What does the RootRouteWrappercomponent do again?

<pre class="wp-block-syntaxhighlighter-code brush: jscript; notranslate">class RootRouteWrapper extends Component {
	render() {
		return (
			<div id="RootRouteWrapper">
				
					
					
					
				
			</div>
		)
	}
}</pre>

We define 2 routes here – /login to show the user a login prompt and /tweet to let the user post a tweet. Now /tweet should be accessible only if the user is logged in. EnsureLoggedInContainer is the magic component that will handle the login logic for us. The idea is to configure all routes that need authentication to render the EnsureLoggedInContainer. You can also see that we have defined a route that will render the PageNotFoundcomponent if the URL does not match any configured routes. On to our login logic:

import {Route, Switch, withRouter} from 'react-router-dom';

class EnsureLoggedInContainer extends Component {
	constructor(props){
		super(props);
	}

	componentDidMount(){
		const {dispatch, currentURL, isLoggedIn} = this.props;

		if(!isLoggedIn){
			this.props.history.replace('/login');
		}
	}

	render() {
		const {isLoggedIn} = this.props;

		return (
			<Switch&gt;
				<Route path="/tweet" component={Tweet} /&gt;
			</Switch&gt;
		)

	}
}


export default withRouter(EnsureLoggedInContainer);

The assumption is that the Tweet component shows the user an input box to type a message. Notice how we have declared a Route for /tweet again inside the EnsureLoggedInContainer. When the user navigates to /tweetRootRouteWrapper renders EnsureLoggedInContainer which in turn renders Tweet. If the user is not logged in, componentDidMount will redirect the user to the login page. Remember that you need to export the class with withRouter for the history to be available in the props. Also, you would need to maintain the state of the application separately – this article assumes that you have laid down the necessary plumbing to pass isLoggedIn as a prop to EnsureLoggedInContainerisLoggedIn should come from your application state – and react-redux seems to be the most popular choice here. How to use react-redux to pass properties to your component is beyond the scope of this article. If you are interested, there’s a really good introduction here

In case you wanted to add another page that displays a tweet – say /tweet/1– that would show the tweet with id 1 in a TweetContainercomponent – you would have to write the necessary routing logic inside the Tweet component. /tweet/:id would automatically require authentication since its parent route – /tweet – renders EnsureLoggedInContainer.

Caveats

You have to make changes at 2 places to add a new route that needs authentication – in the RootRouteWrapper component and then again in EnsureLoggedInContainer. I wonder if there is a more elegant solution