Cyclomatic method complexity is a scam

Thomas McCabe’s 1976 paper A Complexity Measure [pdf] suggests that we can “measure” the complexity of a program by counting the branch points. Later authors “show” that McCabe’s number correlates strongly with program size, and that it is therefore worthless. Still later authors [pdf] show that McCabe complexity is much lower (typically halved) for programs written in object-oriented languages. And although they don’t describe or assess the “quality” of their code samples, this latest “result” does suggest that complexity might be a useful tool in evaluating the habitability of a program.

(The ironic quote marks are there as a shorthand, to indicate that I question the science in these papers. In particular, no account was taken of design or coding style. In terms of habitability, though, the last study does offer a little chink of light.)

However, something irks me about the complexity measuring tools I’ve tried: they all work at the method level.

McCabe’s work describes program complexity. Not method (or function) complexity. His reasoning, if it is valid at all, is valid only for the entire call graph of a program. Such a thing is difficult to calculate in programs written using modern languages, due to late binding, polymorphism and/or dynamic typing, and may even be impossible without dynamic analysis. Indeed, a running program is likely to have different call graphs in different test scenarios, rendering the cyclomatic complexity of the entire program a moot point. So it is quite natural to re-cast the measure in terms of methods, purely in order to get something potentially useful.

But here’s the rub: how should we then roll those method complexities up so that we have an idea of the complexity of bigger things, such as classes or programs? I contend that we can’t, meaningfully.

Note that each method has at least one path through it, but two methods do not necessarily mean there are two code paths. Suppose I have this Ruby method, which has cyclomatic complexity 1:

def total_price
  base_price * 1.20

I may wish to extract a method to wrap the tax value:

def total_price
  base_price * tax_rate

def tax_rate

Now I have two methods, each of which has “cyclomatic” complexity 1. The total complexity appears to have increased, and yet the program’s call graph is no more complex. Thus any tool that sums method complexities will penalise the ExtractMethod refactoring, because the tool is now using invalid graph theory.

True cyclomatic complexity is meaningful only (if at all) in the context of the call graph of the entire program. Anything that counts branch points for individual methods (and then adds 1) is not calculating “cyclomatic” complexity, and runs a high risk of penalising useful refactorings.

How to measure habitability

I have argued that in order to measure the habitability of a codebase, we should focus on attempting to measure how well the code conforms to the Once And Only Once rule. So what does that rule mean? It means that every important concept in the domain is represented (named) explicitly — not buried inside another concept (Once), and not spread out in the space between several other concepts (Only Once).


How can we write a tool that will detect when a concept is buried inside another? Well, let’s flip that question around: How can we tell when a concept contains another buried inside it? I’m not sure that pure size is a reliable guide, because design concepts have no standard size. Some will require only a few lines of code, while others will need dozens. But it is probably not unreasonable to assume that a file which is significantly larger than the others in a codebase is probably harbouring too much responsibility.

What about complexity? It is usually true that a class with many conditionals or many levels of indentation is asking to be simplified. And very often the best response to over-use of branching is to break out the Strategy pattern, which gives explicit names to two or more of the responsibilities hidden inside the original class.

Lopez et al, in Relevance of the Cyclomatic Complexity Threshold for the Java Programming Language [pdf], propose that the McCabe complexity of object-oriented software is lower (less than half) that of procedural software. While their study does not appear to take the degree of habitability into account, it seems suggestive to me that some measure of branching might be a reasonable reflection of whether a class is pregnant with unnamed concepts.

Efferent coupling [pdf] may also be indicative here. It seems intuitively correct that a class that has to import/require many others is probably doing too many things.

Only Once:

How could we write a tool that will detect when a concept is spread out in the space between two or more others? Well, again the presence of branches may be an indication of Connascence of Meaning (think of the Null Check and Special Case code smells). Primitive Obsession is also a symptom of Connascence of Meaning, but I suspect we could only detect that automatically in statically typed languages (without actually running the code).

Again, efferent coupling may be indicative. When two classes both import/require another, there may be some Connascence of Algorithm going on — or at least a missing abstraction wrapping the imported stuff.

So while I have no evidence, my instincts tell me that we may be able to get a decent hint at habitability by finding some workable combination of coupling and branching measures. Soon I will begin exploring these ideas with code samples in a variety of languages, to see whether I can work up a metric (or a system of metrics) that can predict whether I will like the code…

Choosing what to measure

Suppose we want metrics that help us write “better” code — what does “better” mean? I’m going to fall back on Extreme Normal Form, more commonly known as the four rules of Simple Design. These say that our priorities, in order, when choosing what to improve are that the code should:

  1. be correct and complete
  2. express the design clearly
  3. express every concept once and only once
  4. be small

Let’s agree to call code that meets these criteria “habitable code”, in that it is easier to understand and maintain than uninhabitable code. How can we design a metric that rewards the creation of habitable code?

Now it seems to me that most teams have processes in place for ensuring correctness and completeness. These might be requirements traceability procedures, suites of (manual or automated) tests, QA procedures, user testing, focus groups, etc etc. The first rule of simple design helps to ensure that we are only working on valid code, but doesn’t help us differentiate “better” code. Only the remaining three rules can help us with that. In a sense, the first rule can be taken as a “given” when our projects are set up with appropriate QA processes and procedures in place. I will therefore not consider test coverage when searching for a metric (indeed I believe that test coverage is an unhelpful measure in the context of code habitability).

Let’s move on to the second rule of Simple Design. Joe Rainsberger re-casts this rule as No bad names, because in the huge majority of current programming languages the names we give to variables, functions, classes etc are our primary (often only) means of expression in the code. I believe it is impossible to directly measure how well code expresses intent, or whether the names chosen are “good” in any aesthetic sense. But the beauty, coherence and honesty of the names chosen by the programmer is only one aspect of applying this rule. Implicit in the statement “No bad names” is the notion that the programmer has chosen to give names to the “correct” set of entities. That is, choosing the things to reify and name in the code is at least as important as, if not more important than, choosing the best name to give those things.

This is where rules 2 and 3 begin to trip over each other (and perhaps why some authors place them in the opposite order). Consider for example the Primitive Obsession code smell. This occurs when two different classes communicate using (messages containing parameters of) primitive types (string, integer, array etc). The primitive(s) used for the message parameter(s) represent some domain concept that must be known to both classes; but this code is smelly because both classes must also understand the particular representation chosen for that concept in this particular message. The two classes exhibit Connascence of Meaning, and the third rule of Simple Design is violated because the representation of the domain concept is understood in two different places in the code. But we could also consider this to be a violation of rule 2, because that domain concept has not been reified into a class and named — we have a missing name.

Based solely on this type of logic, I am therefore going to boldly assert that any metric that gives a good indication of the degree to which rule 3 is followed, will also be a good indication of how well rule 2 is followed (allowing for the fact that we cannot measure aesthetics). So as a proxy measure I claim we can focus solely on the Once And Only Once rule as a measure of the habitability of our code.

I don’t measure test coverage

I believe that test coverage is an unhelpful measure. I have two main reasons behind this belief: Firstly, test coverage often gives false positives and false negatives; and secondly, too many badly written tests will slow a project down (that is, higher coverage can mean lower habitability).

It is relatively easy to write tests that exercise code without actually checking it for correctness. So high test coverage does not necessarily correlate with correctness and completeness. Conversely, low automated test coverage does not imply that the software is untested, nor does imply the presence of defects.

It is also relatively easy to write tests that enshrine bad design. In codebases with high coupling and low cohesion, high test coverage probably means that those poor designs are difficult to improve without breaking tests. For example, in code that is procedural, incohesive and highly coupled, tests that simply “mock out” every one of an object’s dependencies (read: use a mock library to stub out the dependencies) will likely increase the cost of changing the design later; whereas tests that have been used to drive roles into the design will ultimately help to make the code easier to change — but only if the fundamental design structures in the code mirror those in the domain.

So it is my belief that good design trumps test coverage, and I therefore prefer to focus on design measures first. (More on those later…) Note that I am not saying that automated testing is bad, nor indeed that high automated test coverage is bad. I am saying that high test coverage is not a good measure of software habitability.

Not on the backlog: a response

Ron Jeffries recently wrote a great article in which he recommends how teams should dig their way out of thickets of technical debt:

We take the next feature that we are asked to build, and instead of detouring around all the weeds and bushes, we take the time to clear a path through some of them. Maybe we detour around others. We improve the code where we work, and ignore the code where we don’t have to work.

I wholeheartedly agree with this approach, and with the advice and analysis in Ron’s article. Ron says “Simples!” but I don’t agree. For most teams there are a few significant hurdles to overcome:

  • The team has to recognise the situation it is in, and that a new approach is required henceforward.
  • The team needs to discover the courage to take the time to invest in this change of approach.
  • The team needs to develop an understanding of what better code looks like.
  • The team needs to learn how to create better code out of bad code.

None of these things is trivial. All of them require the whole team to go on a journey, probably to learn new skills, and above all to have the courage to make the change.

Don’t put refactoring stories on the backlog. Instead, invest in learning what habitable code looks like, how to write habitable code, and how to improve the habitability of existing code. That’s what will make you go fast; that’s what will get you out of the thickets.

TDD: three easy mistakes

I run introductory training in test-driven development quite frequently these days. And each time I do, I find the same basic mistakes cropping up every time, even among teams who already claim to practice TDD. Here are the three mistakes I see most often:

1. Starting with edge cases (empty string, null parameter) or error cases:

Imagine you have to test-drive the design of an object that can count the number of occurrences of every word in a string. I will often see some or all of these tests written before any others:

public class WordCounterTest {

  public void wordCounterCanBeCreated() {
    assertNotNull(new WordCounter());

  public void nullInputCausesExeption() {
    new WordCounter().count(null);

  public void emptyInputGivesEmptyOutput() {
    Map<String, Integer> actual = new WordCounter().count("");
    assertEquals(new HashMap<String, Integer>(), actual);


These feel easy to write, and give a definite feeling of progress. But that is all they give: a feeling of progress. These tests really only prove to ourselves that we can write a test.

When written first like this, they don’t deliver any business value, nor do they get us closer to validating the Product Owner’s assumptions. When we finally get around to showing him our work and asking “Is this what you wanted?”, these tests turn out to be waste if he says “Actually, now I see it, I think I want something different”.

And if the Product Owner decides to continue, that is the time for us to advise him that we have some edge cases to consider. Very often it will turn out to be much easier to cope with those edge cases now, after the happy path is done. Some of them may now already be dealt with “for free”, as it were, simply by the natural shape of the algorithm we test drove. Others may be easy to implement by adding a Decorator or modifying the code. Conversely, if we had started with the edge cases, chances are we had to work around them while we built the actual business value — and that will have slowed us down even more.

So start with tests that represent business value:

public void singleWordIsCounted() {
  Map<String, Integer> expected = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
  expected.put("happy", 2);
  assertEquals(expected, new WordCounter().count("happy happy"));

This way you will get to ask the Product Owner that vital question sooner, and he will invest less before he knows whether he wants to proceed. And you will have a simpler job to do, both while developing the happy path, and afterwards when you come to add the edge cases.

2. Writing tests for invented requirements:

You may think that your solution will decompose into certain pieces that do certain things, and so you begin by testing one of those and building upwards from there.

For example, in the case of the word counter we may reason along the following lines: “We know we’ll need to split the string into words, so let’s write a test to prove we can do that, before we continue to solve the more difficult problem”. And so we write this as our first test:

public void countWords() {
  assertEquals(2, new WordCounter().countWords("happy monday"));

No-one asked us to write a method that counts the words, so yet again we’re wasting the Product Owner’s time. Equally bad, we’ve invented a new requirement on our object’s API, and locked it in place with a regression test. If this test breaks some time in the future, how will someone looking at this code in a few months’ time cope with that: A test is failing, but how does he know that it’s only a scaffolding test, and should have been deleted long ago?

So start at the outside, by writing tests for things that your client or user actually asked for.

3. Writing a dozen lines of code in order to get the next test to pass:

When the bar is red and the path to green is long, TDD beginners often soldier on, writing an entire algorithm just to get one test to pass. This is highly risky, and also highly stressful. It is also not TDD.

Suppose you have these tests:

public void singleWordIsCounted() {
  assertEquals("happy=1", new WordCounter().counts("happy"));

public void repeatedWordIsCounted() {
  assertEquals("happy=2", new WordCounter().counts("happy happy"counts));

And suppose you have been writing the simplest possible thing that works, so your code looks like this:

public class WordCounter {
  public String counts(String text) {
    if (text.contains(" "))
      return "happy=2";
    return "happy=1";

Now imagine you picked this as the next test:

public void differentWords() {
  assertEquals("happy=1 monday=1", new WordCounter().counts("happy monday"));

This is a huge leap from the current algorithm, as any attempt to code it up will demonstrate. Why? Well, the code duplicates the tests at this point (“happy” occurs as a fixed string in several places), so we probably forgot the REFACTOR step! It is time to remove the duplication before proceeding; if you can’t see it, try writing a new test that is “closer” to the current code:

public void differentSingleWordIsCounted() {
  assertEquals("monday=1", new WordCounter().counts("monday"));

We can now make this simpler set of tests pass easily, effectively by removing the duplication between the code and the tests:

public class WordCounter {
  public String counts(String text) {
    String[] words = text.split(" ");
    return words[0] + "=" + words.length;

After making this relatively simple change, we have now test-driven part of the algorithm with which we struggled earlier. At this point we can try the previous test again; and this time if it is still too hard, we may wish to ask whether our chosen result format is helping or hindering…

So if you notice that you need to write or change more than 3-4 lines of code in order to get to green, STOP! Revert back to green. Now either refactor your code in the light of what just happened, so as to make that test easier to pass, or pick a test closer to your current behaviour and use the new test to force you to do that refactoring.

The step from red bar to green bar should be fast. If it isn’t, you’re writing code that is unlikely to be 100% tested, and which is prone to errors. Choose tests so that the steps are small, and make sure to refactor ALL of the duplication away before writing the next test, so that you don’t have to code around it whilst at the same time trying to get to green.

Estimating user stories: the 5 day challenge

This is a quick note about an idea I’ve been using with a few software teams during the last couple of years. I also spoke about it briefly at the Scottish Ruby Conference this week. If you try it, please publish your experiences and link to them via the comments here.

Tl;dr — don’t guess the size of a story; fit the story to the size you want.

So there’s this big discussion going on about #NoEstimates and how estimating is wasteful, misleading etc. But there are very few published practical alternatives. So what to do if you want to do less estimating? Honestly, I think that’s the wrong question to be asking. A more important question is, at least for every team I’ve encountered, “how can we become more predictable in what we will deliver?” Estimates only go so far in answering this question because, well, they’re just guesses. It doesn’t matter whether they are expressed as hours, pair-hours, story points, complexity points, Gummi bears or whatever — someone somewhere will attempt to do arithmetic with your estimates and thus turn them into “facts”. So estimating is hard, and it’s guesswork; it is not my intention here to grumble on about all the side-effects of that — you can read all of that stuff elsewhere. Instead, let’s cut to the chase and do something.

Estimates are risky and difficult. So let’s try the opposite. Instead of estimating the next story, let’s play to our strengths as developers and give ourselves a technical and analytical puzzle: Let’s fit the story to the estimate. Here’s how it works:

When the team picks up the next story, apply the “five day challenge”. First ask, “can we deliver this in 5 days?” If the answer is “yes”, just do it and then pick up the next story. But if the answer is “no”, have the whole team find some core nugget of useful value within the story such that everyone agrees it could be delivered in five days or less, and such that it will be a useful and valuable product increment. Then deliver that core nugget to your users, and go and pick the next story.The core of the story

This challenge process is fun, and it is exactly the kind of problem many developers and product owners are good at solving. Furthermore, there is good literature out there to help you do it and get good at doing it. That’s a win.

Shortly after you have split the story to fit into five days, the Product Owner should take each of the edge cases you peeled off, turn them into stories and push them back down the queue. One or two of them may be the next stories to be scheduled, while others may wind up never being picked. All that matters right now is that they aren’t essential to delivering the current story, and thus need occupy no more developer time this week.

Of course, if your stories are already small, instead of 5 days pick three, or two, or one. I like 5 days because it almost always gives time to deliver an interesting chunk of value, and for many teams it’s an improvement over their current practice. The important thing is to pick a number of days and stick to it until you are confident that you have that size of story nailed. Then try reducing it by one day and learn how to slice your stories even more thinly.

When you have delivered the story, record the actual number of days it took. If that differs from five days, take 5 minutes as a team and list the reasons for that variance. Use this to help you do a better job of fitting the next story to 5 days.

Note that this is NOT a challenge to the team, it’s a challenge to the story. You all sat down together and dug out a core nugget of useful value, so now go ahead and deliver that without taking any short cuts. If you find yourselves running late, don’t try to squeeze the story into your estimate. It doesn’t matter if the story ends up taking 11 days or just two. The important thing is to do the story well, and then learn from the actual time it took.

In practice, this technique dovetails with the whole ecosystem of the other XP practices. And it fits best of all with a few other team micro-habits that I have evolved during the last couple of years. Hopefully I will be writing about some of these here soon. Or you could hire me to help your team implement XP, and find the best fit for the XP principles and practices in your organisation :)

Maths challenge

My son was given this challenge for his school homework tonight:

Pick a number in the range 2-100. Next, pick a number that is a factor or a multiple of the first, again using only the numbers 2-100. Continue like this, building a chain of numbers in the range 2-100 in which each number is either a factor or a multiple of its predecessor in the chain. What is the longest non-repeating chain you can build?

I feel some gentle programming about to occur…

Reflections on a day of mob programming

Last week one of the teams I coach was given a day to build a proof of concept for a new business idea. I thought that #MobProgramming might be a good fit for the day’s activities, so here’s what happened.

There were five of us in the team for the day: three developers, one product owner and one coach/developer (me). The product owner had done some research into the topic we were to explore, but the rest of us were relative novices in the subject matter.

We grabbed a room with a large central table and two whiteboards for the day. We set up two laptops with a projector each, projecting onto the whiteboards. On one laptop we showed the software in the text editor, and on the other we showed the product we were building. To avoid spending too much time setting up fancy sharing schemes, we simply used a github repository to share code between the two laptops: every few minutes we would commit and push from the development laptop, and the product owner would pull and refresh on the product laptop to demonstrate and explore the current version of the product. This worked reasonably well, although occasionally we did launch the product on the development laptop too, for example when we wanted to check something in the Javascript console more quickly than the github cycle would allow.

We began by discussing the product owner’s explorations, and soon we agreed a goal for the day. Our intention was to develop a very simple but useful walking skeleton that would demonstrate a single use case in the problem domain. Throughout the day we regularly revisited our understanding of the goal and compared it to our progress thus far. By 3pm we had achieved our objective, so we spent a further hour or so refactoring and stabilizing our solution, with a view to ensuring that the code would be understandable if or when we came back to it in a week or so.

We developed outside in, in very thin increments. The product owner understood this approach quickly and intuitively, and was very good at guiding us to the next thin slice. The first slice was simply a static “Hello, world!” web page, but it proved our “delivery” pipeline between the two laptops. With each further slice all of us, including the product owner, learnt things that changed our minds about what to develop next.

Occasionally the team got a little carried away and began to write code that the product owner hadn’t asked for, or that was more general than he wanted for the current slice. But as the day wore on the team became better and better at turning his requirements around quickly by doing the (often surprisingly minimal) minimum. I heard myself saying “I don’t think we need to do that” and “Commit!” at frequent intervals throughout the day.

All five of us stayed extremely focussed for the whole exercise, which lasted 7 hours with a half-hour break for lunch. At the end, all of us agreed that we were spent, and that we had greatly enjoyed both mob programming and solving the problem we had set ourselves.

I do, however, have a couple of open questions:

  • Would this have worked with a larger group? Five people felt just about right, and we all remained engaged throughout. Would that have been true for a group of six or seven, or would some team members have found their attention drifting?
  • How did the subject matter contribute? We all remained engaged for the whole day, and I wonder how much that was a consequence of working on a difficult new greenfield problem. Would the same effect have occurred had we worked on the team’s usual legacy codebase?
  • One member of the team was off sick that day. I wonder how she will feel now that everyone else has a deep and shared understanding of the prototype’s design and implementation?


I’ve recently been doing some coaching at the BBC in Media City, Salford. During the first couple of weeks my commute home always took 90 minutes; then on maybe one day per week I got home in 65 minutes; now it usually takes 65 minutes, and only occasionally (maybe one day per week) takes 90 minutes. I have saved 25 minutes on my usual journey time, and I have done it without resorting to extreme measures such as (heaven forfend!) spending money or running. How? By developing a few “micro-habits” — little routines that each save a tiny amount of time, but which together add up to a huge saving of almost 30%. I believe this approach can be applied to everything we do, so I think it may be instructive to dig into that 25-minute saving to see how it is achieved…

First, let’s take a look at the typical 90-minute commute home:

  1. At 1600, pack away my things, leave the office and walk to the tram stop.
  2. Wait for the next tram, board it, and wait for it to move off.
  3. The tram journey takes 20-25 minutes to reach Piccadilly station, depending on traffic conditions in Manchester.
  4. Walk up to the main concourse in the station and to the departures board.
  5. Wait 20 seconds for the board to show trains to Macclesfield. The next train is the 1648, departing from platform 3.
  6. Walk to platform 3, stopping to find and show my ticket to the inspector at the gate.
  7. Wait for the train. The typical wait at this point is 10-12 minutes.
  8. Sit reading on the train until it arrives in Macclesfield at approximately 1718 (actually the usual arrival time is 1723).
  9. Walk 0.5km to my car, then drive 3km home. The drive takes 5-10 minutes, depending on traffic conditions.

I noticed that there is an express train leaving Manchester Piccadilly at 1635 and arriving in Macclesfield at 1655; I also noticed that I usually arrived in Piccadilly station at around 1638. So it would only require me to save 3-4 minutes in the first half of my journey in order to realise a 25-minute saving overall. Note that there are plenty of delays in this process. I have no control over some of these, such as random traffic hold-ups, or the actual arrival time of the next tram. But I do have control over some, and during the course of a couple of weeks I have developed the following micro-habits:

  1. During the afternoon, as I use things for the last time I put them away in my locker. This is a gamble, but most of the time it turns out to be okay. And it saves me upto 2 minutes of packing up time at 1600, which means I have slightly greater a chance of catching an earlier tram.
  2. Trams are scheduled every 12 minutes, so the expected mean wait time at any stop is 6 minutes. If there is no tram waiting (or imminently arriving) at Media City, I walk to the next stop down the line. That’s because Harbour City is on TWO tram lines, and so more trams pass through that stop. The walk takes 3 minutes, and always pays off: either I get the next tram out of Media City, thus saving nothing and losing nothing, or I get an earlier tram on the Eccles line, thus removing upto 3 minutes waiting from my journey.
  3. The rearmost door of the tram is always closest to the stairs when it pulls in to Piccadilly; so I always position myself close to that door, to minimise the time it takes to get up to the main concourse.
  4. I now ASSUME that I will be in time to catch the 1635, and I ASSUME that it will depart from platform 6 as usual. So I don’t go to the departure display and wait for it to show me current status; instead, I go directly to platform 6, a saving of 20-30 seconds.
  5. While walking to the tram I found my ticket and made sure it was in an easily accessible pocket. When I arrive on platform 6 I can now retrieve the ticket instantly and show it to the inspector without breaking step, thus saving 20 seconds.

As the departure of the 1635 is usually imminent at this point, these last two savings of upto 40 seconds can mean the difference between catching it and having to wait 13 minutes for the 1648. If there were no major delays on the tram I will now get on the 1635, which arrives in Macclesfield at 1655 (always). The remainder of my commute is unchanged, and so I arrive home at around 1705 — a total commute of 65 minutes instead of 90.

Most people will, I think, do similar things to these when faced with a regular commute such as mine. As I mentioned above, I believe this approach can be applied to everything we do, and in particular I think there are huge savings to be made in software development. I believe that many, if not most, software teams could significantly reduce cycle times — the time taken to pull a single product improvement through from “idea” to “in use” — by developing micro-habits to eliminate waste. I believe that the most productive teams, and the most productive developers, already do this; and I am sure that these micro-habits make the best upto ten times as productive as the rest.

So what are the micro-habits that will make this huge difference for software development? Some of them are universal and coarse-grained:

  • use a refactoring tool,
  • use a version-control tool,
  • become test-infected,
  • write black-box behavioural tests at all levels,
  • pair program,
  • refactor mercilessly,
  • work outside-in, etc.

But I suspect that there are more that are specific to the developer, or to the team, or to the codebase, or to the technology being used. Some of mine are:

  • learn the keyboard shortcuts for all of your tools,
  • drink a lot of water,
  • pick pieces of work that can be committed to trunk at least every hour,
  • re-run the tests after every distraction,
  • commit all work before going home or throw it away,
  • automate tmux set-up,
  • automate towards a single-click build,
  • automate towards a single-click deploy, etc etc.

Do you have any stories showing how a few micro-habits have transformed a team’s productivity? There seems to be no written repository collecting such developer micro-habits together, and nor is there any obvious forum in which they are explored, shared and discussed. That seems a shame, and a huge waste. What should we as a community do about it?

[Credit to Sean Blezard for coining the term “micro-habit” when I explained to him the idea for this blog post.]