- Aldo Van Eyck (dismayed with modernism)

Van Eyck designed and built about 700 playgrounds throughout Amsterdam from the 1950's onwards. Social network designers could learn from Van Eyck's thoughts on and approach to public space - he petitioned for these areas of play and dotted them throughout the city as spots where the 'seeds of community were sewn'. A whole generation of children found themselves playing in the very heart of their city, in all sorts of unlikely locations. The playgrounds were rarely cordoned off from the city around them - they were open, exposed areas that forced kids to come up with rules for play and security. They brought unlikely elements together, valued ambiguity and looseness in function and blurred borderlines. You can find more information on his playgrounds and another article here.

Adolf Loos, Ornament & Crime

This talk is worth a look. Forgive the title (which is a misnomer) and the way it frames REST; equating it to feeds designed to be consumed by polling clients - Newtonian physics to PubSub's quanta (poorly formed analogy). REST and RPC simply are suited to other types of services (I fail to see how RPC over XMPP is useful unless the time to process a request is long and callbacks are required). The talk goes on to use concrete examples that illustrate how hijacking Jabber servers and XMPP for generic push messaging using a pubsub architecture is far more efficient for lots of web services outside of IM that are currently pull-based. They even manage to fudge oAuth in for protected resources. It's the kind of pragmatism that smacks of real life problems solved (I salute).

I'd be very surprised if Last.fm's 'now playing' notifications didn't switch over to pubsub very soon.

Some great slides from a 1975 IBM presentation.

Boriska, a young boy over-seeing the casting of a bell, in Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublyov

Most developers aren't paid to think about what they build. This "divorce of head and hand", as Richard Sennett puts it, is counter-productive. The more pronounced this divorce, the less likely you are to innovate. Why? Because programming is a craft, and innovation happens in the midst of practising this craft. Sennett's latest book, The Craftsman, is a study of craftsmanship through the ages. I'm writing this as a collection of my after-thoughts on the book (which I'd recommend, despite its grammatically inept first edit).

The workshop ethic

Sennett discusses the history of the workshop and explores what he calls the 'material consciousness' of a craftsman who knows his tools and working materials intimately. In a workshop, authority is equivalent to skill. Historically, the most skilled craftsmen (masters) have had authority over journeymen and apprentices in their workshops. We could learn from a closer modelling of development teams as workshops - most developers are told what to build (and in some cases even how to build it) by managers who don't possess a 'material consciousness' relevant to software engineering, which often leads to problems.

On Engineering

Why does our industry separate out the 'lead engineer' from 'engineering management'? Dealing with software engineering as craft would indicate that a hybrid works better - craftsmen are motivated to work for better craftsmen, in order to improve their skills. In the traditional workshop, the master craftsman would interact with clients (read: product managers/executives) and manage the rest of the craftsmen whilst running the workshop.

By this logic the most effective software engineering manager is an experienced, highly-skilled programmer (hello Mr. Gates). By definition they should still be programming ("If you stop coding, you stop learning" - Beck), for the same reason a master craftsman never actually stops practising his craft. Because to stop practising is to stop evolving the material consciousness that makes you a great craftsman in the first place.

The arguments against this approach are obvious - how's a lead engineer also going to manage developers? Surely he can't do two jobs? Let's take a step back. In order to manage great developers effectively you need to gain their trust and respect. Without this you'll struggle to get anywhere. Upon which we come to a programming truism:

In the work-place, the only way to get the full respect of a skilled programmer is to prove yourself at least as skilled as them at programming, and the only valid evidence is actual working code.

I don't think I've ever met a developer for whom this isn't true. Bear in mind that your average software developer, not known for their humility, will often not dispense this kind of respect until you've coded alongside them (or in a visible forum such as that of an open source project) for a while.

Given this, you can't feasibly manage great devs without being one yourself. I mean you can (it happens all over), but it's a fruitless, unproductive and frustrating operation for all involved compared to what happens when you get it right. In this regard, I'm assuming you agree with the notion that programmer productivity is a completely non-linear phenomenon (see Paul Graham). If you address the issues of trust and respect at the core of a programmer's productivity, you open up a lot of potential. This overrides (by an order of magnitude) the fact that a hybrid lead/manager doesn't have as much time as two separate people, because it gives the individual developer a higher degree of agency in their work and a clear reporting line to a developer that a) speaks the same language as them, and b) which they are motivated to work for and with.

Pretty much all successful startups naturally possess someone who fulfills this hybrid role. It's only when companies grow that this 'workshop' ethic is lost.

Another argument against letting a lead actually manage anything is that the lead has lousy social skills. You'll hear a lot about skilled programmers that are completely socially inept. In application development, I don't even buy this notion. To be a great application developer you have to have superb natural language skills as the entire craft is equal parts natural language and logic. Algorithm-driven programming may well be a different kettle of fish, but app devs absolutely are measured by their capacity to communicate in natural language.

Design & engineering: hybrid minds

This kind of logic about craftsmanship leads to some more questions - particularly around the separation of 'front-end engineering' from 'web design'. Why? The syphoning off of these two disciplines is a symptom of this separation of head and hand; one that stifles the feedback loop of discovery and product evolution at the heart of craftsmanship (the 'designer' only has to think about the final product, not actually craft it). This design/engineering split is obviously evident across sectors (take architects and civil engineers), but rarely do you find a practice like software, where results can be near immediate and design/build feedback is quick. If designer and engineer are to be separated then they will need to work as a hybrid mind in order to innovate in any case (e.g. if Cecil Balmond, a lead at ARUP, and architect Rem Koolhaas hadn't developed this kind of relationship over decades, you wouldn't get results like this).

On technique and expression

Sennett explores the craftsman's worldview that technique "is intimately linked to expression". I believe this to be true. There's an obvious difference between a purely technical innovation (such as the evolution of object-oriented design paradigms in the design of Smalltalk and its dev community in the early eighties) and a software product innovation (e.g. Joshua deciding book-marking the web should be a social activity), but I intuit that the two are linked. Both these types of innovation (indeed, all types of innovation) are highly expressive acts, and it's impossible to be expressive without cultivating expertise in technique.

On 'theoretical' practice

This leads me to think about so-called 'theoretical' disciplines such as pure maths and quantum physics that, whilst being highly abstract, are expressive and require technical expertise. Can such theoretical practices display a 'material consciousness'? Physicist Richard Feynman is a good example of how they can. In Feynman's anecdotal autobiography, he talks about his need to come up with clear material examples when discussing any kind of physics problem, no matter how abstract. His grasp of mathematical techniques was rigorously practical (and as a result, unorthodox) as he was always trying to solve 'real world' problems. He was as skilled in his ability to grasp the right problems (it's no coincidence that the word 'grasp' alludes to the hand and the handling of materials) as he was in his ability to solve them. You can't put it better than Feynman when he says "What I cannot create, I do not understand".

The pyschology of the craftsman

Lastly, a note on what I think might be one of the most illuminating insights into the psychology of the craftsman in the history of art, Tarkovsky's epic film Andrei Rublyov, in particular the penultimate vignette, which depicts a young boy that takes on a commission to cast a huge bell for the Russian Prince in the 13th Century. Those 30 minutes of cinema express a lot more than can be summarised here, depicting in detail the process of founding and casting the bell, and the young boy's descent into a craftman's obsession (his life depends on the bell ringing true). I'd simply ask you to watch it. There are other observations on the artisan/craftsman and their relation to religion and art (a foreign concept in the period the film is set in) throughout the film, which is the (mainly fabricated) biopic of a famous Russian icon painter.

PS: Whenever i've used the term 'craftsman' or 'craftsmen' I actually mean men and women, obviously.

Glad to have been a part of this in some way (I handle all the API's). Now all we need is for Apple to approve the app for their store.

Update: It's been approved now so you can download it for free from the store. Toby has the full scoop.

Klaus Schulze has released more records than is probably good for him (40+), but 'Synthasy' on side 2 of 'Dig It' is great. I couldn't find it online, but I managed to find 'Nowhere Now Here' from his porn film soundtrack, Body Love (1976).

I've been a big Akiko Yano fan ever since John came back from Tokyo and dropped Sleep On My Baby in my lap (thanks John). Lately she's been doing lots of hushed solo piano work, like Piano Nightly. Let's not mention her ex shall we - she's ace in her own right.

Dr. L. Subramaniam is just great. Particularly the pieces where the Western classical tradition goes completely out of sight, like in these three ragas for solo violin.

Butoh 'weakened body' performance from Tatsumi Hijikata.

Pasolini's Il Vangelo secondo Matteo is one of the most memorable pieces of cinema I've ever seen. I just saw it for a second time, and what strikes me most is the soundtrack. The contrast of Bach's choral piece, St.Matthew's Passion, with Odetta's A Motherless Child and the mind-blowing excerpts of Missa Luba, combined with the cinematographic style literally make the film. Missa Luba is a Congolese take on Latin Mass, in which a choir underlays a solo voice - here's some recordings and notes on the compositions (gourd shaking is vital). The actual piece that Pasolini uses throughout the film is a child choir performance of 'Gloria', in particular the latter stages. If you haven't seen the film, you're missing out on the best biopic ever created.

Unstudio's inspirational little house, VilLa NM, was destroyed by fire in February this year. Just found out. Sadface.

- Interview with Tadao Ando, boxer turned architect

Cacao in Highgate Woods. Shot by HDJ Fail.

- Susan Sontag, Against Interpretation