A article on debugging techniques.

Inherent weaknesses in programming languages contribute to software vulnerabilities. Increasingly, organizations are producing standards to improve software security. Current efforts to develop software security standards are surveyed, and two such efforts are described in detail. An international standards group is writing a document providing guidance to users of programming languages on how to avoid the vulnerabilities that exist in the programming language selected for a particular project. Carnegie Mellon University’s (CMU’s) Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) is developing secure coding practices for the C and C++ programming languages1.

Google has previewed Dart, a new language with a VM but also a JS compiler. InfoQ looks beyond the grammar at Dart's contributions for building apps: Snapshots, Isolates, Modularity.

One of the most glib generalisations you can make about development work is to say that code should be liberally commented, or conversely that it should never be commented. As always, the truth is more complicated. There are many different types of comment and some types are best treated firmly with the delete key, where others are to be cherished and maintained assiduously. Even though it is hard to find two developers who agree on the topic of commenting, Michael Sorens warily sketches out the issues and the battleground.

The idea of driving development with tests has been popularized by the agile development movement. The fact is that testing and coding are inseparable components of software development. We get the best results with testers and programmers work closely together. How can we deliver real value to the business frequently? How can we know how much testing is enough? Let’s look at how testers and programmers collaborate to produce high-quality software.

Certain XP practices make project managers scoff and programmers wince. Pair programming (or pairing) is one of them. Based on feedback from some of XP's critics, pair programming gets the award for "practice most likely to offend" -- that is, if you had to pick just one. This month, XP coach Roy Miller talks about this radical way to write code, including the misconceptions surrounding pairing, why so many software developers hate it, and why it's so important to your project's success.

ased on his experiences as chief architect on the Bugzilla Project and his current employment at Google as a software engineer, Max Kanat-Alexander (@mkanat) has formulated a method and philosophy for designing effective code that is, at its core, all about simplicity. He wrote a book about these ideas, "Code Simplicity," in which he explains how developers can optimize the structural plans for their software projects. In the following interview, Kanat-Alexander discusses the negative factors that can lead to messy code and why a large number of developers on a project doesn't have to undermine the quality of software design.

The cost impact to a company of a failed project can be severe indeed. The impact on the reputation of the project manager can be disastrous.
Numerous methodologies are available for mitigating these risks – PRINCE2, RUP, DSDN, eXtreme programming – and these have helped to some extent. This document introduces the 3D™ methodology – a set of best practices and quality tools developed by BuildMonkey, which can be summarised as: De-risk. Deploy. Deliver.

Jay fields shares several strategies to help you adopt pair programming so it sticks and is valuable.

This article explores the functional programming waters and answer the question, how does functional thinking differ from the imperative kind?