In this article, I'd like to describe an approach in problem-solving I started to practice about a year ago. An approach I call Strategic problem-solving.
To describe strategic problem-solving, we first need to introduce three terms.
Position - a capability to do something. In the context of programming, a "position" may be an ability to perform an HTTP request with one method call. Or have the compiler catch certain kinds of errors for you before they reach the runtime.
An important catch about positions is that they are precisely capabilities, not tools. E.g. take Circe library for Scala. It provides you with a position to parse JSON to a case class with a single line of code. However, the same position could have been provided by some other library. Think interfaces.
Technology - a set of positions, connected one with another in a way that solves a particular problem.
E.g. building a JSON HTTP API will most likely require you to have the positions for:
And the defined ways for the above to communicate.
System - a technology, where a concrete tool is substituted in place of every position.
The above definitions give rise to strategic problem-solving.
The workflow of strategic problem-solving is simple:
The approach above allows you to first think what you need to solve the problem and only then look for the implementations of what you need, not vice versa.
A good way to get a feel of this approach is via Frees.IO library for Scala. In general, when you work with this library, it forces you to follow the following workflow:
The important catch to make: you will not be able to use anything else but the methods you defined at step (1). If in standard programming, you are usually able to import absolutely any 3rd party library, call methods from it in the middle of your program and it will work, this trick will not work with Frees.IO. It is another story why, and is out of scope of this article. Try it for yourself and see!
Here is the interpretation of the above three steps of Frees.IO workflow in terms of strategic problem-solving.
def readFile(str: String): F[String]. It is a method without implementation, but it is clear by name that it provides you with a capability - a strategic position - to read a text file to a String.
Fhere is the reason you will not be able to call a 3rd party method in the middle of your program, by the way.
writeStringToFile, you are already able to compose them sequentially in a small program that removes empty lines from a file.
The current situation in the Scala community is such that a strong focus is made on tools. E.g. if you follow the community media long enough, you can notice a certain hype around things like Category Theory, Cats, Monads, Type Theory etc etc.
In the framework of strategic problem-solving, tools define positions you have. Therefore, this focus is only on the first aspect of the strategic problem-solving. Discussions on unifying these into technologies and systems (systems, as in complete applications or websites, from zero to hero) are not as frequent.
Certain positions (especially when held together), give rise to a position that opens you such a great number of capabilities that you can't help but differentiate it from other positions. These we will call Strategic positions.
goto have to do with Scala collections?
goto is a technique of programming where you can label lines of your code, and then jump to these lines from any place of your code via
goto <label> instruction (or similar). This is present in most of the programming languages.
goto gives you lots of power. You can describe control statements like
for etc in terms of
goto. But with great power comes great responsibility.
goto is error-prone. It is easy to get bugs when trying to express complex logic with
However if you program with
goto for long enough, you will start to notice patterns in your
goto-related code. With time, these patterns got language-level support in most programming languages as your usual control structures:
Moreover, it turns out that with a certain set of control structures, you can express everything you wanted to express with a lower-level
goto in a declarative way, with less chance of a bug. Hence now-a-days
goto is considered a bad practice in programming.
Can you see where this is headed yet?
Java collections are like
goto. Imperative, low-level primitives you can use to solve virtually any collection problem you will encounter. Only the most simple and necessary stuff is supported (like adding, getting and removing elements from a list). Powerful, but with great power comes great responsibility. Like with
goto, you will encounter a ton of bugs trying to solve a simple collections problem. If you are a lucky Scala programmer who have not been touching Java collections in years and you'd like to cause your mind some suffering, I recommend trying the poker hands problem in Java collections to see what I mean :).
if and other control structures, Scala Collections give you about 40-50 solutions to problems commonly encountered in collections programming. Again, declarative style with minimal possibility of a bug.
Why are Scala Collections a strategic position for the language and its programmers?
Listdefines. Now imagine that these are not the only problems you will encounter - you will also encounter ones that are solved by combining several different methods.
So, getting collections right is hard due to lots of use cases. And if you don't get it right, it will hurt you almost in every project you will take.
Scala Collections solve this pain for you, however. And by doing so, it opens you doors to simple development of a wide range of projects. If previously the amount of collections work involved in a project could be seen as a boost in its complexity, with Scala Collections - no more (of course, this is true only to a certain point - measure is treasure).
One thing to notice here: both in case of
goto and Scala Collections, a strategic position was achieved by providing a declarative solution to a problem. That is, no longer do you need to explain the computer how it works - you just say what you want to get done.
Another thing to notice is that every individual control structure (
for) is a position of its own, in the sense defined above. The same can be said about the Scala Collections methods:
filter etc. However, only as an integral whole can they provide you a strategic advantage and eliminate the need for
goto or Java Collections.
Without a single one, you can get in a situation where a certain problem is a "blind spot" for your current positions.
This is actually a particularly nasty situation: when a project is extremely good at solving some problem - but at certain point you realize they missed something very small and insignificant that you need at the moment. And you need to go deep to the internals of the project to get the thing done. Small things matter.
Such a project can't be regarded as a strategic position in my opinion, because it does not unlock an entire class of problems. And will likely take a deal of time from you.
The situation above when you have 40-50 positions (capabilities to solve common collections problems) can not be called a technology. This is so, because you do not connect these positions in any way to solve a particular task. Instead, you are flexible: these positions are valuable precisely because they are easily connected in any way you like depending on a problem you are facing.
A situation where you have some 40-50 positions pre-connected for you is called a framework. And we all hate frameworks.
The main idea of functional programming is to eliminate side effects from your functions. This way, it becomes easier to reason about them.
However, attempts to program in a purely functional style gave rise to a number of patterns - problems that repeat over and over (remember
goto and Scala Collections). The solution comes in terms of Cats and the Typelevel family of libraries. They are to functional programming what control structures are to imperative programming or Scala Collections are to collections problems. That is, they provide solutions to common problems. How exactly this is done is out of scope of this article - in fact, I have written an entire book and a course on the subject.
This way, these libraries become a strategic position, because they enable you to program anything in an entirely new style.
One thing Scala is bad at is Data Science.
For machine learning, there are Spark, DeepLearning4J even some functional programming solutions like Spire and libraries that stem from it. For data exploration, there are bindings for Bokeh and D3.
However for Data Science proper (i.e. quickly experimenting with models, exploring the data visually - not to be confused with Data Engineering, when you care about performance and scale), you will have a deal of hard times dealing with these libraries.
One example - plotting. Plotting places you in position of visual exploration of the datasets. If you ask me, the ability to quickly and easily see visually what you have, how things relate, and play with them in general, is a pretty strategic position.
With Scala, you can't do plotting easily. Best thing that you have is e.g. Bokeh - but there, you need a few dozens lines to do even a simple plot. It has to do with the fact that you need to define lots of model classes, map the data to graphical representations, define the widgets your view will have etc etc...
With R, many plots can be done with a single statement (spanning on average 5 lines).
Now imagine that you need to do plotting frequently (which is the case for data exploration and visualization tasks). To get an insight, you need to run lots of experiments with your data, and plot them. If every experiment takes you several dozens of lines to conduct, one of the two is likely to happen:
This is so, because Scala does not provide you with a (strategic) position to do plotting. This won't happen in R. Unless...
R and its libraries are poorly documented. Remember the remark above about partial solutions? If R is not your main language, the position of having R and its libraries alone will not be enough for you, because you won't know what to do with them!
What you need is an extra position - a position of easy access to the information of how to use relevant features of R. This position can be implemented in terms of R Cheat Sheets. Still worse than a systematic documentation, but better than nothing. And for my needs, together with R and its libraries they give a strategic position with respect to plotting.
Arguably, a position to build applications exposed over the web is a strategic one: Lots of problems are solved in terms of JSON web APIs, or Software as a Service.
Here is a set of positions that became a strategic position for me with respect to web applications:
For a while, I did not pay enough attention to Orchestration. Try working with the stack above but without Docker or a similar solution, and then try using Docker. You will see what I mean by the problem of partial solutions.
The wording "Strategic Problem-Solving" (in contrast to "Strategic Programming") is used intentionally. The approach outlined above can be applied to things beyond programming and IT in general. Anywhere you need to solve problems.
All of us need to eat. When you travel to a new place, the following can become your positions in terms of food:
Placing yourself in a good position cooking-wise (and binding the positions you have into technologies and systems) can save you money on eating out - and I think many will agree that money is a strategic position.
Combining positions into technologies can often be tricky. In his book "Antifragile", Nassim Nicholas Taleb shows an interesting example of how cold logic and scientific approach (so prized in the modern society) are powerless at certain situations.
The example is that of a bad on wheels. According to Wikipedia, it was invented at 1970. The idea is very simple - attach wheels to your ordinary bag to make it easier to travel with it. We had the required positions (the wheel and the bag) for millennia. Yet we only invented a technology of the rolling luggage at 1970.
How many more useful things can we do out of simplicity, without hyping about high technologies or artificial intelligence?
Every person studies in their own way. I don't like studying languages by memorizing grammar rules and vocabulary. Instead I like to get insights when working with foreign sources directly. That is, you take the lyrics of a foreign song and try to get their meaning word-by-word, without actually googling the translation. I like to compare this with deciphering.
Two things I noticed doing most in such tasks are:
The above is meant to be as easy as hovering a mouse over a sentence.
For the first one, it is usually easy to find a browser plugin. For the second one, there is a great series of books called "A Dictionary of Japanese Grammar" (for Japanese). Good enough, but probably some of the ML/AI hype would not hurt here. So if anyone knows such a solution - please contact me :)
In any case, the above two positions reduce the time per lookup pretty dramatically. And you can imagine how many word and grammar look-ups you need to do with an unfamiliar language. A system of the above kind but more elaborate can actually make a difference between learning a language and not learning it - for lazy people like me.
Have you ever been in a situation when you have a ton of songs you would like to listen to find the ones you like? A system that allows you to quickly traverse your dataset can make a difference between finding good songs and giving up on the endeavor entirely. At least for lazy people like me.
Here is an example of a dead-simple system, relying only on bash scripts, that takes a folder hierarchy with full songs as an input and produces a folder with 30-second preview fragments from these songs as an output.
Notice that the README is an important part of this system. This is so because it consists of several scripts and relies on a 3rd party (paid) software. And you need to know how exactly to bind these tools into a system.
Also notice that the README even defines the timestamps where you need to cut the song to get an idea about how it sounds. Such small pieces also matter for a good system, because they save you time experimenting yourself.
If you listen audiobooks or podcasts frequently, being in position to rewind back 10 seconds or so can make a difference between understanding a piece of information (by listening to it again) or not understanding it. Some applications (like this) have this feature. But it takes time to find one.
Here is some other theory about the approach discussed that can be of use.
Positions can be passive or active.
A passive position is often a tool or something else inanimate. A capability for you to do something.
An active position is most often a community of some kind, or in general has to do with people.
The major difference is that you can get value from an active position without doing anything.
E.g. if you have a profile in good standing on some freelance platform (like Codementor), you can get new jobs without doing anything, people will find you themselves.
Another thing to remember here is that the whole is greater than the sum. What kind of things can you be in position of doing if you have a diverse set of both active and passive positions?
In this chapter I'd like to briefly discuss where your time goes most of the time when following the strategic problem-solving approach. This is to be contrasted with a situation usual when doing things in programming otherwise, when some trivial feature implementation tasks can drain your time without you having a clue why.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. (Etymology)
Sometimes even a position as simple as finding a way to insert a piece of text in a frame of a video file you are editing can take hours to gain. Some editors don't have the feature, some editors don't have convenient shortcuts for it (so that it will waste your time), and yet some editors have this feature littered with bugs. Yet, how trivial it is at the first glance! One should not be afraid to spend a ton of time on such trivial positions, since once they are achieved, they will give you some extra capability (by definition of position).
Sometimes your technology may be suboptimal and waste your time. E.g., missing a step of testing in software development may be a big time drain in future. In my opinion the best way to perfect the technology is to run it several times in practice and see whether things need to be changed.
Once you have all the positions you need achieved and the technology on a satisfactory level, you have a working system of doing things. Now the only thing to do is to train yourself and your employees to follow the system with precision. This is skill - e.g. if we are talking of video editing, the video editing person may at first proceed slowly, because they do not have the feel for the shortcuts of the video editor yet. However with time they will learn to press the shortcuts automatically (according to your system), without thinking - leading to boost in execution times.
One last example of the strategic approach is this very article and my blog in general.
For me, the following is important in blogging:
These all are positions that impact your experience as a writer as well as the experience of your readers. I remember spending a few weeks to get these right, but the time was well worth it. Currently this article makes use of the following stack: