Author

I am Joannes Vermorel, founder at Lokad. I am also an engineer from the Corps des Mines who initially graduated from the ENS.

I have been passionate about computer science, software matters and data mining for almost two decades. (RSS - ATOM)

Meta
Tags

Entries in teaching (5)

Wednesday
Apr282010

Sqwarea, open source game on Windows Azure

Beyond running a small software company, I am also responsible for the Sofware Engineering and Distributed Computing course at the ENS Paris. For the fourth year in a row, Microsoft offered gracious support for this course (include some Windows Azure resources).

Every year, a small dozen of 1st year Computer Science students take over a sofware project. Last year, my students produced Clouster, a scalable clustering algorithm on top of Windows Azure. It was already significant achievement considering the beta status of Windows Azure at the time (student upgraded twice from a SKD version to another during the time of the course).

This year, my students went (*) for an online massively multiplayer strategy game named Sqwarea (heavy contraction of square+war+area).

You are a King battling over a gigantic map to conquer the world. Train soldiers, conquer new territories, and resist the assault of other kingdoms. The world is flat, see for yourself.

Despite my teaching methods, students managed to do really great (especially considering that we are only at 2/3 of the project at this point of time), so let's review a few salient facts about this project:

  • Open source, see sqwarea.codeplex.com
  • ASP.NET MVC, C#, jQuery, OpenId for the front-end.
  • Lokad.Cloud for the persistence, and back-end execution framework.
  • Windows Azure used as the hoster.
  • Table Storage for the persistence (1 entity per map square).
  • Queue Storage to spread the workload among VMs.

 Then, in order to make sure, project wasn't going to be easy, I included a game rule real hard to implement:

People and soldiers have to be constantly reminded who is the King; otherwise, they just do it their own way. If, after a conquest, a part of your kingdom is no more connected to your King through a path of controlled land squares, then the disconnected area is reverted as neutral.

Apparently, students managed to implement a good (and expectedly complicated) scheme to get it this connectivity rule working in a very scalable way.

(*) Actually, every year, I choose the project to be carried on by my students. Hence, if you think the project idea is lame, blame me.

Monday
Mar222010

Thinking an academic package for Azure

This year, this is the 4th time that I am a teaching Software Engineering and Distributed Computing at the ENS. The classroom project of 2010 is based on Windows Azure, like the one of 2009.

Today, I have been kindly asked by Microsoft folks to suggest an academic package for Windows Azure, to help those like me who wants to get their students started with cloud computing in general, and Windows Azure in particular.

Thus, I decided to post here my early thoughts on that one. Keep in mind I have strictly no power whatsoever on Microsoft strategy. I am merely publishing here some thoughts in the hope of getting extra community feedback.

I believe that Windows Azure, with its strong emphasis on tooling experience, is a very well suited platform for introducing cloud computing to Computer Science students.

Unfortunately, getting an extra budget allocated for the cloud computing course in the Computer Science Department of your local university is typically complicated. Indeed, very few CS courses require a specific budget for experiments. Furthermore, the pay-as-you-go pricing of cloud computing goes against nearly every single budgeting rule that universities have in place - at least for France - but I would guess similar policies in other countries. Administrations tend to be wary of “elastic” budgeting, and IMHO, rightfully so. This is not a criticism, merely an observation.

In my short 2-years cloud teaching experience, a nice academic package sponsored by Microsoft has tremendously simplified my situation to deliver the “experimental” part of my cloud computing course.

Obviously, unlike software licenses, offering cloud resources costs very real money. In order to make the most of resources allocated to academics, I would suggest narrowing the offer down to the students who are the most likely to have an impact on the software industry in the next decade.

The following conditions could be applied to the offer:

  1. Course is setup by a Computer Science Department.
  2. It focuses on cloud computing and/or software engineering.
  3. Hands-on, project-oriented teaching.
  4. Small classroom, 30 students or less.

Obviously there are plenty of situations where cloud computing would make sense, and not fit into these constraints such as bioinformatics class with data crunching project or large audience courses with +100 students … but the package that I am proposing below is unlikely to match the needs of those situations anyway.

For the academic package itself, I would suggest:

  1. 1 book per student on Visual Studio 20XY (replace XY by the latest edition).
  2. 4 months of Azure hosting with:
    • 4 small VMs
    • 30 storage accounts, cumulative storage limited to 50GB.
    • 4 small SQL instances of 1GB.
    • Cumulative bandwidth limited to 5GB per day.

Although, it might be surprising in this day and age of cloud computing, I have found that artifacts made out of dead trees tend to be the most valuable ingredient for a good cloud computing course, especially those +1000 pages ones about the latest versions of Visual Studio / .NET (future editions might even include a chapter or two about Windows Azure which would be really nice).

Indeed, in order to tackle the cloud, students must first overcome difficulties posed by their programming environments. One can argue that everything can be found on the web. That’s true, but there is so much information online about .NET and Visual Studio, and that students get lost and lose their motivation if they have to browse through an endless flow of information.

Furthermore, I have found that teaching basics of C# or .NET in a Computer Science is a bad idea. First, it's like an attempt to kill students out of sheer boredom. Just imagine yourself listening for 3h straight at someone enumerating keywords of a programming language. Second, you have little or no control on the background of your students. Some might be Java or C++ gurus already; while some might have never heard of OO programming.

With the book on hand, I suggest to simply ask students to read a couple of chapters from one week to the next, and to interrogate them on their reading at the beginning of each session.

Then, concerning the Windows Azure package itself, I suggest 4 months worth of CPU as it should fit for most courses. If the course spread longer than 4 months then I would suggest students to start optimizing their app not to use all the 4 VMs all the time.

4 VMs seems just enough to feel both the power and the pain of scaling out. It brings a handy 4x speed-up if the app is well designed, but represents a world of pain if the app does not correctly handle concurrency.

Same idea applies to SQL instances. Offering a single 10GB instance would make things easier, but  course should be focused on scaling out, not scaling up. Thus, there is no reason to make things easier here.

In practice, I have found that offering individual storage accounts simplifies experiments, although there is little support for offering either lot of storage or lot of bandwidth.

In total, the package would represent a value of roughly $2500 (assuming $30 per book), and, from a different angle, about $100 per student. Not cheap, but attracting talented students seems worth a worthy (albeit long-term) investment.

1.     Focus on cloud computing and/or software engineering.

Thursday
Oct122006

Finally, I am going to be a theology teacher

According to Jeff Atwood (Coding Horror), software development is a religion. Wow, frankly I hope not, because I am quite ignorant when it comes to theological matters. A major issue with human/social studies and practices is that it is so hard to get close to anything that would be considered as scientific knowledge and not pure erratic opinions. Yet, it's not because it's hard to produce science that it isn't worth trying.

The recipe of scientific knowledge production includes a very fundamental ingredient: reproducibility. If somebody else can't, providing enough time and efforts, reproduce what you have observed then there is no hope to produce any science. For software development, the current situation is quite troublesome. Indeed, the pace of change in software development is totally dwarfing the speed of scientific production. By the time, a scientist would be able to produce a rigorous scientific analysis of software development (5 to 10 years), the software world itself would have changed so much that the study, at the time it gets published, would be already totally obsolete.

The second factor that complicates the production of knowledge is that software engineering actors do have very strong interests to defend biased positions. Science involves publishing both positive but also negative results (see the Journal of Negative Results - Ecology and Evolutionary Biology for example). Do you think that Microsoft, Google or [insert here your favorite IT company] are really going to publish anytime soon reports explaining how and why they failed miserably while developing some particular products? From a marketing viewpoint, you need to appear brilliant no matter how bad (or good) things might be in the office.

Tuesday
Oct032006

The unteachable parts of software engineering

Having the responsibility to handle the software engineering course at the ENS in spring 2007, I have started to think about the desirable qualities that make the difference between an average developer and a brilliant one. Indeed, I can't think of a better goal for this course but to actually try to develop such qualities.

What makes a "good" software developer?

It's an obvious fact that many qualities and skills are required to make a good developer. Smart and Get things done are often cited as the top criterions to decide whether a candidate should be recruited or not.

... a passionate curiosity for software related matter ...

I would complete those two criterions with a third one that I consider to be no less important: a passionate curiosity for software-related matters. Most well-known antipatterns such as programming by permutation, golden hammering, re-inventing the wheel, ... are caused by a lack of curiosity. There is far too much to know of the subject of software engineering to trust any particular school diploma (or certification) to be sufficient to produce even a "passable" developer.

Additionally, the software world is fast-paced. Hardware and software get obsolete alike. Development methods evolve. Better tools are released continuously. The sheer (intellectual) complexity of those evolutions is beyond what a single individual can possibly handle. Curiosity when leveraged through teamwork is a strong driver to actually maintain the development practices and tools as close as possible to a state-of-the-art level.

Finally, on the long run, I do not see how it is possible to stay motivated (and therefore productive) if there is no eager interest in mastering this constant flow of evolutions.

How to train such a developer?

I have listed smart, get things done and passionate curiosity as being the top qualities for a software engineer. But this list is more than troublesome for a teacher: it's not even clear whether any of those qualities can be actually taught

Concerning the first criterion, i.e. smart, I have simply surrendered all "academic" ambitions. The course schedule is far too short; beside I have the chance of having ENS students who are already very smart (though entrance exams have already filtered out students who were not so smart). Yet, the course can them the opportunity to apply their intelligence to a large variety of fuzzy problems that are inherent to software development.

The second criterion get things done is probably the most actionable element of the three. The French education system (highly selective and highly individualistic) usually produces people that are relatively weak against this criterion, the ENS students being no exception (quite the opposite in fact). I have planned to incorporate a student software project within the course mostly to push student develop a get things done mentality .

As for the first criterion, I haven't much ambition to actually transmit a passionate curiosity the students. In this respect, my first ambition will be to avoid the issue that usually plagues software engineering courses: an overwhelming boredom. I do not think it is really possible to create curiosity ex-nihilo if people have no interest beforehand. But, assuming that students are at least somehow interested (well, if not, it's going to be tough for the students and me alike), an "expand your horizons" strategy for the course might give them materials to apply and develop their curiosities.

There are two kinds of students: those who are too weak to be taught anything and those who are so strong that the teacher is totally unnecessary.

Bottom-line: out of three main qualities to make a good developer, the ambitions associated with the software engineering course I am thinking of are pretty weak. Well, considering the importance of the subject, I still believe it's a worthy attempt (stay tuned, more on later posts ... )

Saturday
Sep232006

Antipatterns of Software engineering courses

I am very honored to be in charge of the Sofware engineering and distributed applications course at the Ecole normale superieure (ENS). This will be my first official teaching assignment, and I will be affected to brilliant Licence 3 students (it's pretty tough to get through the entrance exam of the ENS).

Software engineering is a difficult topic to teach. I have been browsing the web just to have an outlook at what people are usually doing in a software engineering course, and I must confess that I haven't found anything very satisfying so far (although the MIT experience is definitively worth reading). In a nutshell, I would say that software engineering is the art of producing great software with limited resources. In respect to this definition, it seems that there are many ways to spend hours teaching things that totally miss the point. I have listed in this post what I think to be the 3 most common ways of disgusting students from all software engineering matters.

Coding antipattern

Here is the 300-pages API. This API will be the subject of your exam. Documents will not be authorized.

The second fastest way on earth to get your 30h of teaching ready is simply to teach some particular programming language and its associated technologies (think Apache/PHP/MySql, stay tuned the fastest way will be detailed next). Just take any reference documentation, and you get enough material to talk for 30h. But your course is both deadly boring and super-short-lived. Some people assume that their students have no prior knowledge about any language. I won't (it's stated in the course-prerequisite btw). My objective is not to teach the syntax of any programming language, because I believe students are smart enough to learn that by themselves. If not then, I would say that it was a bad move to take the software engineering course in the first place.

ISO-certified development antipattern

If you don't assess your customer requirements through a 17-phase process, then you're not ISO-171717.

Just by looking at Learning Tree - Software Engineering course (one of the top result of Google for "software engineering"), I think Wow, those people are attempting to kill their attendants with boredom. Look at the table of content: Life cycle phase contains (sic) 1) Understanding the problem 2) Developing the solution 3) Verifying the product 4) Maintaining the system. I can't remember of any software project that ever happened that way but who cares because the content is going to be nothing more than obvious statements anyway.

I call this kind of teaching ISO-certified development, the worst part being certainly the enumeration of software life-cycle models (which are, according to Learning Tree: Waterfall, V, Phased, Evolutionary and Spiral). This approach is basically the extreme opposite of the coding course. You're not teaching anything technical, instead you end-up with long, super-detailed, over-boring descriptions of business practices that do not even exists as such in the real world anyway.

Green-field projects antipattern

Our project was to develop a video game. Alice wrote the scenario, Bob took care of the rules and I did the graphics. The rest has been left unfinished.

The fastest way on earth to get your 30h software teaching course ready is the green-field project: just say Decide among yourselves what you're gonna do, I will be the judge of the software you produced and then, spend the next 30h doing groupwork (groupwork is like teamwork but instead of having a team, you have a random bunch of people, i.e. a group). Don't take me wrong, I think that projects do have a huge pedagogic value, yet the probability of re-discovering good software engineering ideas just by doing random groupwork is low.

There are also other criticisms to the green-field projects as usually practiced. The first poor practice is to let the students come up with their own project ideas. For various reasons, students have a tendency to favor projects that are quite ill-adapted (such as video games); then it's really hard to scale the project in such a way that it matches the time to be invested in the course. The second poor practice is to let the students come up with their own internal organization. I have never encountered any company where all employees are equal, I do not see why it should be the case in a student software project (more on the subject in a subsequent post).