Hackerman's house

Here will be shown the evolution of Francisco's programming skills.

Week 4 progress

This week we didn’t cover our goals. We didn’t have time to improve the prototype nor to review the requirements. But, we had 2 deliveries as a team, these were really useful to familiarize with Junit and to practice how to determine what test we should write.

Resultado de imagen para junit


Week 4 Plan

We didn’t have class this monday so we discuss the week 4 plan trough Telegram. This week we want to make sure the application is well defined, assuring that the goal of the project is clear and the requirements are well defined. This is why we have 3 main taks this week: Improve the prototype, review the requirements and continue the firebase investigation.

List of responsibilities

  • Improve the prototype (Francisco and Daniela)
  • Review the requirements (Oscar and Maximo)
  • Firebase Investigation (Everyone)

Resultado de imagen para firebase

Week 3 progress

This week we covered the goals set on monday. All of the members started researching a bit about firebase, we are not going to implement this yet, but we have some basic knowledge that we didn’t have before.

We started to develop the UI of the app in android studio, using as a model the mockup we previously did in


Test && Commit || Revert

The podcast with Scott Hanselman and Kent Beck called test && commit || revert based on the idea previously posted in Kent Beck blog was really interesting as the idea they discussed was something a bit extreme to me, but it made kind of sense. The basic programming workflow is to program, then test the code and if it works you commit it, if it doesn’t work you have to erase everything you did until the last test was passed. The thing that I find extreme in this procedure is that as programmers (and humans) we don’t wan’t to throw what we did to the garbage. We usually prefer to fix what we did, and explore the same solution making minor adjustments.

Resultado de imagen para tirar basura dibujo

Altought the first time Kent Beck heard of this idea he wasn’t really sure if it would work, he decided that he would give it a try. In this workflow the programmer can experiment really quick so you can quickly determine how comfortable you feel with this weird and different technique. The idea is really easy to understand, but it is not that simple to do it right, a complete change in mentality has to be made for this to work, the test should be made more often and have more inmediate goals, this way you won’t throw away a lot of time of work. Another thing to consider is that the code that passes a test usually can be improved, so if you pass a test you may require to take a look at your code to make sure it is robust enough.

Resultado de imagen para test

To conclude I want to talk about my opinion of this programming workflow. I agree with some of the points exposed, and personally I may try to acquire the habit of testing little parts of code, because in the past I had bad experiences where a lot of work would be thrown away due the lack of early testing. The part of fully reversing until the point of your previous tests seems kind of extreme. I rather make and effort to correct the code I already did than starting from scratch.


Week 3 Plan

This week we are going to start developing the UI of the app as well as the navigation trough it. We won’t start the functionality yet, but we will start investigating how to use firebase or some other platform to save pertinent data.

As we are not going to implement any functionality this week, the testing won’t be necessary yet.

List of responsibilities

  • UI (Max and Paco)
  • Navigation (Oscar and Daniela)
  • Firebase Investigation (Everyone)


Photo by: Stuart Rankin

Week 2 Progress

As a team we made progress in this week according to the plans defined on monday. We have a basic idea of a project we want to do, an android app that will allow the user to create tier lists of anything they want; we decided the name of our team “God Tiers” based on the main idea of the project.

Basic requirements:

  • Login to enter the app
  • Create lists separated by tiers
  • Upload images and/or text of the elements in the list
  • Export an image of the full list
  • See lists of people you follow





Week 1 planning

 Week 1

    • Define the project we are going to develop
    • Name our team
    • Define the main requirements of the project
    • Analyze the domain
    • Create the mockup of the project based on the initial requirements

Link to trello: 




Photo by Marco Buonvino

Lisp: Good News, Bad News, How to Win Big

Lisp: Good News, Bad News, How to Win Big is an essay written by the American computer scientist Richard P. Gabriel in 1991. At that time, he worked a lot on the Lisp programming language. The main topic of the essay is the advantages and disadvantages of that programming language, and how accepted it was by the programmers, as well as some of its uses.

Lisp’s successes


One of the biggest successes in Lisp is that there is a standard Lisp called Common Lisp. This wasn’t considered the best Lisp but it was the one ready to be standardized. There was a Common Lisp committee formed by users of different Lisps across the United States; Common Lisp was a coalescence of the Lisps these people cared about.


It used modern compiler technology of that time, so compared to older Lisps it had a very good performance. It also had multitasking and non-intrusive garbage collection, both were great features that weren’t possible before that time.

Good environments

The environments had a lot of good qualities like windowing, fancy editing and good debugging. Almost every Lisp system had these kinds of environments; a lot of attention had been paid to the software lifecycle.

Good integration

Lisp code would coexist with C, Pascal, Fortran and other languages. Lisp could invoke them and be invoked by them. This was useful to manipulate external data and foreign code.

Resultado de imagen para c language

Object-Oriented programming

At the moment it had the most powerful, comprehensive object-oriented extensions of any language. This was really important because OO was the new trend.

Lisp’s failures

The rise of worse is better

One of the biggest problems of Lisp was the tension between two opposing philosophies. The right thing and worse is better. Lisp designers used the right thing, while Unix and C designers decided to use the worse is better. In the long run the worse is better philosophy resulted to be better because it takes a lot less time.

Good Lisp programming is hard

In Lisp, the developers could write really poor code that still worked, this meant that if the developer didn’t make enough effort to write good code, the program would work but it would perform really poorly.

Resultado de imagen para hard to program

Non-Lisp environments catching up

The Lisp environments didn’t progress in years, while languages like C were evolving really fast and surpassing Lisp.

Code revision

Code review (also called peer review) is a software quality assurance activity in which one or more developers check a program by reviewing and reading parts of its source code. At least one of the reviewers must not be the code’s author, the purpose of this is to have another point of view, and different ideas to judge the code in a more objective way. The people performing the checking (except for the author of the code) are called reviewers.

Resultado de imagen para peer programming

The main objective of this process is to detect quality problems, although it can be used to reach more goals. Better code quality: improve the readability, maintainability and understandability. Finding defects: finding performance problems, security vulnerabilities among other flaws. There are many more goals that can be achieved through this process, but the general idea is to create better software and to avoid errors.

Types of review processes

Formal inspection

This is the traditional method of review. Software developers attend a series of meetings where the code is reviewed line by line. This method has been proven to be very effective in finding defects in the code.

Regular change-based code review

This is a more lightweight type of code review. This type uses something called Version Control, it is basically a system that records changes to a file or a set of files over the time. Github is one of the most popular applications that does this; the developers are constantly checking the changes made by every member of the team. They can see who is the responsible for the code and they can check it, but they do not dedicate the time to read it line by line.

Resultado de imagen para git


Blog at

Up ↑