Adjustable standing desks should be mandatory

by Rob Galanakis on 26/05/2014

At CCP’s Iceland office, everyone’s desk is able to adjust into a sitting or standing position. I don’t know who decided this perk. It must have been a huge expense. Adjustable sit/stand desks are already expensive in the USA, and in Iceland I’m sure they were three to five times more expensive. Until recently I thought it was required by law! This is quite an investment for each worker, but in my opinion, well worth it for a wide variety of reasons, from health to programming. Why?

  • Lots of people want to try a standing desk but don’t want to be “that guy” who asks for an expensive piece of equipment but doesn’t use it. Having an adjustable desk by default removes barriers to entry.
  • Seeing people stand (and talk about how much better it is) becomes viral. I watched it catch on at work over a few years to where everyone in certain areas is doing it. This wouldn’t have been possible without everyone already having adjustable desks.
  • Standing for part of the day completely fixed my sciatica (lower back/hip/butt pain). It also apparently has lots of other health benefits.

Okay, but “health of your workers” is a pretty nebulous concept, and in America, a business’ job is to make money for shareholders, not, like, improve society! Why would Donald Sterling want to buy black employees adjustable desks in addition to cars and houses?

  • It helped me concentrate. I was able to work faster while standing. Standing is time for working. I don’t know if this is universal, but I certainly didn’t see many people playing games or getting lost in a “YouTube hole” (as a friend puts it) while standing.
  • Pair programming and over-the-shoulder reviews were incredibly more effective while standing, even with people of different heights. Standing, I could pair easily with pretty much anyone, from a good friend to an interviewee. I was able to mentor far more effectively since standing felt like such a more natural way to collaborate.
  • Even if you don’t like pair programming (have you tried pairing while standing?), being able to program and edit code collaboratively during a code review is, IMO, a requirement. Standing code reviews were more effective than sitting. More issues got uncovered and more knowledge was transferred.

How do I know all these things? Well, when I transferred to the Atlanta office, I no longer had an adjustable desk (or a sensible healthcare system, but that’s another matter). Suddenly, reviews with people I was very comfortable with and worked with previously felt rushed and unpleasant. They were done while leaning over (“when can I get my crotch out of this other person’s face“), or sitting together (“oh god we keep brushing knees“).

Pair programming, which is the foundation of the way I mentor (and learn), was basically ineffective. No one programs well at an angle to the monitor, and people mistype constantly if the keyboard is not in a natural spot. It’s difficult to share knowledge or equipment in such an awkward situation.

If you want a vibrant and dynamic engineering culture, standing desks are a must. I view them as fundamental to a programming team as decent workstations and SSDs.

Real studies about adjustable desks are difficult to find. This 538 analysis is promising: Otherwise, it is very easy to find endless anecdotes about the usefulness of adjustable desks. Start with the 538 article’s comments if you don’t know anyone!


Maya Python Binaries for Windows

by Rob Galanakis on 23/05/2014

I’ve put together a page to link and host all the various Python C extensions compiled for various flavors of Autodesk Maya on Windows:

This is due to Maya using newer VS compilers than Python 2.6/2.7, which uses VS2008. Much more info on the page.

I’ll try and keep this up to date. If you have anything to contribute, please post it somewhere and send me the link (or send the files to me, whatever).

No Comments

The myth of the brilliant jerk

by Rob Galanakis on 21/05/2014

Do not tolerate brilliant jerks. The cost to teamwork is too high. – Reed Hastings, Netflix CEO

So I was all prepared to write about how much I hate this quote, but Freddy Nager already did. It is thorough and insightful and explains how out of context this quote is. Thanks to Freddy for doing a far better job ripping this apart than I did. (It also reminds me the difference between real writers/bloggers and people who just have a blog, like me…) Here’s his conclusion, but I suggest you read the whole thing:

In short, Netflix wants only stars who are passionate and courageous and innovative and always do A-level work while abhorring process and questioning assumptions yet working as a team — otherwise they get fired. Sounds brilliant. And jerky.

Why is the Hastings quote so popular? The Netflix presentation is a really excellent one and full of interesting advice and strong statements. I’d even say the brilliant jerk of corporate culture presentations! Why does this quip about “brilliant jerks” resonate with people so much? Probably because we’ve all run into the “brilliant jerk” and the idea of just firing him or her is so pleasing. It also remains cowardly.

This hits particularly close to home for me because I have seen the mistreatment of far too many brilliant jerks. Brilliant jerks are necessary to grow and innovate. The difficult part is to figure out how they can be brilliant but be less jerky.

Firing brilliant jerks is the absolute worst thing to do for teamwork, or indeed the health of the company as a whole. I could spend more time convincing you, or you could view the Netflix slideshow that spawned the quote!


Results are not the point, followup

by Rob Galanakis on 19/05/2014

In response to a previous post explaining the phrase “Results are not the point“, commenter RenRen Gabás says:

Both approaches have their own place. It’s easy to see why Toyota/Lean works well with manufacturing and operations. Continuous service and operations needs continual improvements. However, there are times when you need to forget all about process and workflow in order to break new ground. I would place breakthroughs in research and product development right in the Danny category.

Unfortunately, history (and logic) shows that Jess (continuous improvement) is still going to out-innovate Danny (gets drunk and makes stuff) and come up with far more breakthroughs.

  • Exhibit A: The Prius (first successful hybrid car) and Lexus (Toyota’s first luxury line) demonstrate that continuous improvement is not limited to operations. These were successes of product development and marketing.
  • Exhibit B: Google, a company filled with innovation, research, products, and big ideas, is also a world leader in analytics and iteration! Who do you think their process most closely resembles?

Do not confuse the stifling bureaucracy of a large company to embody Jess, and the creative chaos of a startup to embody Danny. This is a fallacy. Large companies are more stifling, and startups are more creative. But this is due to intrinsic properties, not continuous improvement.

Another way of saying “results are not the point” is “do not trust your fortune to randomness.” I don’t know anyone who would disagree with that! Yet when we take the Danny approach, that is exactly what we are doing, no matter the nature of what we are working on.

1 Comment

Book done, back to blogging

by Rob Galanakis on 18/05/2014

This morning, I send in my final-est drafts for my book, Practical Maya Programming with Python. This is actually the second time it’s gone to production. The editing process has been, uh, challenging, which resulted in several months of delays.

I’ll post with more information when it’s for sale, but you can pre-order it now!

Anyway, now that the book is out of the way, I can get back to blogging more regularly.


An Unfoolish Consistency: Introducing PEP8 to a legacy codebase

by Rob Galanakis on 25/04/2014

Consistency with this style guide is important. Consistency within a project is more important. Consistency within one module or function is most important.

The EVE source code, being initially developed before PEP8 existed, was based on Microsoft’s C++ style. Mostly this is manifested in UpperCamelCase function and method names, mixedCase parameter and variable names, and file headers and class/method delimiters. There was also a style guide that was probably larger than PEP8 (though included a bit more than basic style).

Today, most new code is PEP8 compliant. “What!?” I hear you say. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!” I agree, and I’ll get back to that at the end. But first, what was involved in introducing PEP8?

The move started when I asked my team if anyone wanted to keep using the headers and delimiters. No one did. So we took out the headers and delimiters before we did any modifications to a file.

A while later, I asked all the programmers on the project if anyone felt strongly about keeping the existing style. No one did. So we started writing new packages with PEP8. The rationale was that our code was already calling code using lowercase_underscore in the stdlib, so it’d be no different for that same code to call a relatively independent, though still project-related, library.

Yet a while later, I started slipping some PEP8 code into modules or packages that weren’t PEP8. I was worried people would get upset. No one did.

And finally, in preparing some basic utility libraries for usage on other projects, I converted the function and method names to PEP8. This involved find-and-replace or CamelCase aliases. I bet you can guess who cared about these “superfluous” edits, or objected to the fact that parameter and variable names remained mixedCase? No one did.

Emerson’s quote “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” is often used as a reason to not change existing code to PEP8, or introduce it into a non-PEP8 codebase. But the quote means the opposite. Foolish consistency” is being unable to change your mind because it would contradict something you’ve believed or said. So PEP8 has it so right but so wrong: the foolish consistency is to keep things the way they are, even though we know what the right thing to do is.*

* I would recommend introducing PEP8 incrementally. I also suggest keeping things backwards compatible when it is more prudent, such as if the changes are expansive, or you do not control all the code. I also don’t suggest being a stylistic nitpicker when it comes to non-functional aspects such as line length. There may also be times to break the rules (a class that behaves like a function, or function that behaves like a class def). As always, good sense should be applied when considering any viewpoints on this blog.

No Comments

goless- Golang semantics in Python

by Rob Galanakis on 21/04/2014

The goless library provides Go programming language semantics built on top of Stackless Python or gevent.* Here is a Go example using channels and Select converted to goless:

c1 = goless.chan()
c2 = goless.chan()

def func1():

def func2():

for i in range(2):
    case, val =[goless.rcase(c1), goless.rcase(c2)])

While I am not usually a Go programmer, I am a big fan of its style and patterns. goless provides the familiarity and practicality of Python while better enabling the asynchronous/concurrent programming style of Go. Right now it includes:

  • Synchronous/unbuffered channels (send and recv block waiting for a receiver or sender).
  • Buffered channels (send blocks if buffer is full, recv blocks if buffer is empty).
  • Asynchronous channels (do not exist in Go. Send never blocks, recv blocks if buffer is empty).
  • The select function (like reflect.Select, since Python does not have anonymous blocks we could not replicate Go’s Select statement).
  • The go function (runs a function in a tasklet/greenlet).

goless is pretty well documented and tested, but please take a look or give it a try and tell us what you think here or on GitHub’s issues. I’m especially interested in adding more Go examples converted to use goless, or other Go features replicated to create better asynchronous programs.**

*. goless was written at the PyCon 2014 sprints by myself, Carlos Knippschild, and Simon Konig, with help from Kristjan Valur Jonsson and Andrew Francis (sorry the lack of accents here, I am on an unfamiliar computer). Carlos and myself were both laid off while at PyCon- if you have an interesting job opportunity for either of us, please send me an email:

**. We are close to getting PyPy support working through its implementation. There are some lingering issues in the tests (though the examples and other ‘happy path’ code works fine under PyPy). I’ll post again and bump the version when it’s working.


Results are not the point?

by Rob Galanakis on 15/04/2014

The phrase “results are not the point” often confuses people new to Lean thinking. It confused the shit out of me, not having really understood it even after my first few books. This is a shame, because it’s such a simple thing.

On Friday night, Danny got really drunk, coded a game, and the game was a hit. Danny did this again the following Friday, with the same results. And once more that third Friday.
Jess codes on sober Saturday nights instead (still drinks on Friday). Jess programs a game, and it runs poorly, crashes often, and isn’t fun. The following Saturday, Jess makes a new game, which runs fast but still isn’t fun and crashes often. That third Saturday, Jess creates a new well-performing, fun game, though it still crashes.
Would you bet on the long-term success of Danny or Jess?

Clearly, the better bet here is Jess. Jess has discovered a process which can be continuously improved. There is good reason to believe Jess will eventually create reliable success. The fact that Danny has been successful three times is basically irrelevant, since Danny’s process is totally haphazard.

This is the idea behind results are not the point. Focusing on the results, and not how those results were achieved, doesn’t improve anything in the long term. The point is to create a repeatable, empirical, continuously improving process. If we can create a reliable, successful process (which here includes culture and practices), we can get reliable, successful results.


The “Year of Code” Director is Your Boss

by Rob Galanakis on 12/04/2014

There was some hubbub a few months ago when it was revealed the Executive Director of the UK’s Year of Code initiative can’t code [link]. Not that technical (domain) competency is a sufficient condition for management and leadership, but I’d certainly call it a necessary condition. (I’ll use the world ‘technical’ below to refer to any sort of specialized domain, not just programming.)

Apparently a number of people don’t agree with the idea that competency in a domain is a requirement to manage that domain.* I find this idea infuriating and it can only end poorly.

Perhaps you have a manager who knows little about programming or design or whatever your specialty is, and you consider this person to be the best boss of all time. Great! I’ll call this person Your Boss for convenience. Here’s the problem:

At some point, Your Boss needs to make some contentious decisions. Maybe over your work, maybe over something you’re not directly involved with (I bet Your Boss was hated by a lot of people, too!). Your Boss has literally no ability to help resolve a technical decision. “Wait!” I hear you say. “My Boss is enlightened enough to know that the people closer to the problem should be making the decision!

But who are those people closer to the problem? Who put them there? Oh, that’s right: Your Boss. But your boss has little technical knowledge. How is Your Boss supposed to decide who makes the more technical decisions? Without basic technical ability, Your Boss doesn’t even know what questions to ask. Your Boss can’t even learn; she doesn’t have the technical prerequisites. Instead of being able to provide leadership, Your Boss is left scratching her head. This is not leadership, and this is not management. This is a cancer and an organization that is unable to grow and learn.

It’s no surprise this topic is divisive. When Your Boss places a lot of trust in you, you are autonomous and think of Your Boss as the best boss of all time. But when someone runs up against you and Your Boss, they have no real recourse, because Your Boss trusts you and has no ability to further inspect the situation.

Certainly, superior ability or experience is not a requirement for management over a domain. But I thoroughly believe that not just familiarity, but some actual professional practice, with a domain is a requirement. I hope that if you are someone who believes in the myth of the competent non-technical manager, you’ll rethink your experience and view Your Boss in a more complete light.

* Clearly, at some point, you cannot be experienced in all the domains you manage, and need to trust people. Unfortunately we do this far to soon, and accept a development manager who has not developed, or an engineering manager who has not done much programming. In the case of the Year of Code Director, I think the issue is a non-technical background (in programming nor teaching) and a general lack of experience. If she had proven a wunderkind in her given field (which is, btw, basically PR/marketing/communications), maybe she should be given the benefit of the doubt. There are many examples where talented administrators have moved into new areas and been quite successful. But her appointment, along with most of the rest of the board, is pretty clear cronyism (and when you throw out technical merit and domain experience, you’re left pretty much with cronyism).


The manager’s responsibility to review code

by Rob Galanakis on 9/04/2014

I believe any technical leader has a responsibility to review all the code that goes into a codebase.* I am certainly not the only person to feel this way (Joe Duffy as MSFT and Aras Pranckevičius as Unity have said the same).

Furthermore, I don’t believe the responsibility to review code ends at a certain level. Everyone from an Engineering Manager to the CTO should be reviewing code as well. In my experience, I’m able to do thorough reviews for 5 to 8 people, and more cursory reviews for another 15 to 20.

Code review above a team lead level** is not about micro-management. A manager should never, ever be saying “we do not use lambdas here, use a named function instead.” Instead, try “do you think this would be more readable with a named function instead of a lambda?” Or maybe you say nothing, and observe what happens, and inspect what other code looks like. If lambdas are common in the codebase, either your opinions need more information, or you have done a poor job educating.

Code reviews by managers should be about getting enough information to manage and lead effectively.*** It keeps you up to speed about what is going on, not just in terms of tasks, but in terms of culture. Are people writing spaghetti? Are bad choices challenged? Are hacks put in? Is code documented? Are standard libraries being used? Are the other technical leads reviewing and leading their teams effectively? You can learn an incredible amount through code review, and you need this information to do your job of leadership and management effectively.

*: I believe all programming managers and leaders must be able to program. I find it shameful this needs to be said.

**: It should go without saying, but team leads should be reviewing every checkin on that team.

**: Code reviews are the genchi genbutsu, or the go and see part of Lean management.