Didn’t even realize that these existed until just now, both of them are recaps of the panel and audience discussion.
Didn’t even realize that these existed until just now, both of them are recaps of the panel and audience discussion.
This video only works with UK IP Addresses. Sorry about that…
This includes some short clips from my talk at the BBC in November and has several engineering leaders from the BBC talking about their culture. A good, quick intro.
This page has some more information about the speakers: BBC Academy – Engineering Culture
Happy new year! I’ve got some talks coming up this winter and spring that you may be interested in. In both of them I’ll be talking more about building strong engineering teams and how we build with Agile and Lean at Spotify.
Oslo, Norway – February 26-27, 2014
This is the yearly conference of the Norwegian Computer Society. I’ll be talking as part of the Lean development track. My talk is on Wednesday at 9:45.
Sud Web 2014
Toulouse, France – May 16-17, 2014
The format of this conference looks really great. I’m excited that they asked me to speak. I’ll have more details as the date approaches.
If you are attending either of the conferences above, let me know in the comments or over twitter. Really looking forward to meeting up with people.
I had a great time at the BBC Develop conference in London this week. The BBC were gracious hosts, the audience had some good (and not too easy questions) and the program had some really good talks; so I learned quite a bit and met some excellent folks. Special thanks to Tanya Rai, Colin Savage, and Simon Stevenson at the BBC for inviting me and putting on a great day.
Since getting to Spotify, I’ve been thinking a lot about what makes a good engineering culture and the best way to create, nurture and protect it. There is no simple formula, but I’m starting to understand better the things that have worked well in both the small startup teams I worked in as well as the big corporate ones. I’ve got two talks coming up where I’ll outline some of these thoughts. I hope that it will be insightful or inspiring to others. At least there will be some amusing anecdotes 🙂
I’ll be doing a short talk on Thursday next week at Valtech Days in Stockholm. My talk is specifically on doing real work using Lean and Agile techniques, based on my experiences building products at Microsoft, Adobe and Spotify. The line-up looks really great. It will be an excellent event.
On November 12th, I’ll be keynoting the BBC Develop 2013 conference in London. This will be a much longer talk where I go into the Spotify model of Lean and Agile development, and how it has grown a strong engineering culture. This event looks really awesome. It should be a really informative day. I’m really looking forward to it.
I’m not sure if either of these will be recorded, but I plan to continue talking about this as I keep working on these issues at Spotify. So if the subject is interesting to you, but you can’t make it, stay tuned.
Cross-posted from my old Adobe blog
I’m privileged to once again be speaking at the SC conference. For those who don’t know it; “SC is the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis.” If you are attending, I’ll be on a panel entitled Parallelism, the Cloud, and the Tools of the Future for the next generation of practitioners. I’ll be joining some of my compatriots in the Educational Alliance for a Parallel Future to once again discuss the skill sets that collegiate computer science programs should (and mostly aren’t) imparting to their students in the areas of parallel programming.
The abstract for the panel is as follows:
Industry, academia and research communities face increasing workforce preparedness challenges in parallel (and distributed) computing, due to the onslaught of multi-/many-core and cloud computing platforms. What initiatives have begun to address those challenges? What changes to hardware platforms, languages and tools will be necessary? How will we train the next generation of engineers for ubiquitous parallel and distributed computing? Following on from the successful model used at SC10, the session will be highly interactive, combining aspects of BOF, workshop, and Panel discussions. An initial panel will lay out some of the core issues in this topic with experts from multiple areas in education and industry. Following this will be moderated breakouts, much like collective mini-BOFS, for further discussion and to gather ideas from participants about industry and research needs.
If this sounds similar to the session from the Intel Developer Forum in September, there is good reason. It was the second most popular session of that conference. The IDF panel and breakout sessions covered some really interesting ground, and I really liked the format. I felt like the discussions I had with the people in my subgroup at IDF were deeper, more specific and more productive than a traditional panel format would have been.
While the speakers in this panel are different than the one in September, I think we’ll still end up splitting on the axis of using abstractions to teach fundamentals vs teaching from the first principles up. Which camp you are in seems at least somewhat determined by the fact that a number of panelists produce abstractions over the low-level elements as part of their work. I am very much in the fundamentals camp as I think that understanding what the abstractions are built on is fundamental to choosing the right abstraction, much as artists tend to start with representative figure drawing. What will make an interesting difference from IDF is the number of audience members who come from outside of computer science (HPC is used more by scientists for whom the computation is only a means to the end of solving a problem in a non-computational discipline). Those audience members are less likely to understand the fundamentals, nor care. For them parallelism is just a tool to get their answer faster. This should really make for a lively debate!
My statement for the panel is as follows (yes, I did crib the last paragraph from my earlier position):
The team I manage is building a single, modern, software product. A few years ago, that would have meant a desktop application written primarily in C++, most likely single-threaded. Today, it means software that runs on the desktop, but also on mobile devices and in the cloud. Working in my organization are developers who write shaders for the GPU, developers who write SSE (both x86 and ARM), developers using distributed computing techniques on EC2 and threads everywhere throughout the clients and server code. We write code in C, C++, ObjC, assembly, Lua, Java, C#, Perl, Python, Ruby and GLSL. We leverage Grand Central Dispatch, pThreads, TBB and boost threads. How many of the technologies that we use today in professional software development existed when we went to school? Nearly none. How many will still be used in a few years from now? Who knows. The reason we can continue to work in the field is that our education was grounded not just in programming techniques for the technology of the time, but also in computer architecture, operating systems, and programming languages (high level, low level and domain-specific).
Learning GPGPU was much easier for me because I could understand the architecture of graphics processors. I was able to understand Java’s garbage collection because I understood how memory management worked in C. I chose TBB over Grand Central Dispatch to solve a specific threading problem because I could evaluate both technologies given my experience
We’re doing students a disservice if we teach them the concepts using high-level abstractions or only teach them a single programming language. Having an understanding of computer architecture is also critical to a computer science education.
These fundamentals of computer science do not necessarily need to be broken out into their own classes. They can and should be integrated throughout the curriculum. Threading should be part of every course. It is a critical part of modern software development. Different courses should use different programming languages to give students exposure to different programming models.
If I was a Dean of Computer Science somewhere, I¹d look to creating a curriculum where parallel programming using higher-level abstractions was part of the introductory courses using something like C++11, OpenMP or TBB. Mid-level requirements would include some computer architecture instruction. Specifically, how computer architecture maps to the software that runs on top of it. This may also include some lower level instruction in things like pThreads, Race conditions, lock-free programming or even GPU or heterogenous programming techniques using OpenCL. In later courses focused more on software engineering, specific areas like graphics, or
larger projects: I¹d encourage the students to use whichever tools they found most appropriate to the tasks at hand. This might even include very high level proprietary abstractions like DirectCompute or C++AMP as long as the students could make the tradeoffs intelligently because of their understanding of the area from previous courses.
You can read the position statements from the rest of the panel here.
Cross-posted from my old Adobe Blog
As a hiring manager building teams working on modern computer software; I’ve often been disappointed in the lack of a proper foundation in parallel algorithms and architectures being taught in current Computer Science curricula. To that end, I’ve been working with a group called the Educational Alliance for a Parallel Future that aims to improve Computer Science curricula in this critical area. The EAPF is once again convening a panel of educators and industry representatives to talk about this important issue and once again I am delighted to participate.
The panel is entitled: Parallel Education Status Check – Which Programming Approaches Make the Cut for Parallelism in Undergraduate Education? Unlike previous iterations of this panel where we spoke in generalities, this time we’ll be diving a bit deeper into specific technologies that we think are good starting places for educators to introduce to their students.
Here is an excerpt of the abstract:
The industry and research communities face increasing workforce preparedness challenges in parallel (and distributed) computing, due to today’s ubiquitous multi-/many-core and cloud computing. Underlying the excitement over technical details of the newest platforms is one of the thorniest questions facing educators and practitioners — What languages, libraries, or programming models are best suited to make use of current and future innovations? This panel will confront this conundrum directly through discussions with technical managers and academics from different perspectives. The session is convened by the Educational Alliance for a Parallel Future (EAPF), an organization with wide-ranging industry/academia/research membership, including Intel, ACM, AMD, and other prominent technology corporations.
The panel will be presented on September 15th, 2011 at 10:15am as part of the Intel Developer Forum 2011 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, California. There are free passes for interested educators. Register now for a free IDF day pass using promo code DCPACN1.
My specific take has always been that I am not as interested in grounding in a specific parallelism library or abstraction. The pace of change in this area has only increased over the last few years with the rise of multi-core, GPGPU, HPC and heterogenous computing. Techniques and libraries have arisen, gained adoption, and fallen out of favor one after another.
A developer who only understands how algorithms can be mapped to OpenMP-style libraries is not as useful once the team moves to Grand Central Dispatch or OpenCL. A grounding in traditional task-level parallelism as well as data-parallelism techniques is a starting point. It is important not only to understand what each of them are but the different types of problems that they are each applicable to.
Higher level abstractions like OpenMP are good for introductory courses. However, it is important to understand fully how high-level abstractions map to lower level implementations and even the hardware itself. Understanding the hardware your software runs on is critical to find the best performance for your code. It is also critical to understanding why one particular higher level library might work better than another for a particular task on specific hardware.
Once you understand things like hyperthreading, pThreads, locking mechanisms, and why OpenCL or CUDA maps really well to specific problems, but not to others, then you can return to using higher level abstractions that let you focus on your algorithm and not the details.
If I was a Dean of Computer Science somewhere, I’d look to creating a curriculum where parallel programming using higher-level abstractions was part of the introductory courses using something like C++11, OpenMP or TBB. Mid-level requirements would include some computer architecture instruction. Specifically, how computer architecture maps to the software that runs on top of it. This may also include some lower level instruction in things like pThreads, Race conditions, lock-free programming or even GPU or heterogenous programming techniques using OpenCL. In later courses focused more on software engineering, specific areas like graphics, or larger projects: I’d encourage the students to use whichever tools they found most appropriate to the tasks at hand. This might even include very high level proprietary abstractions like DirectCompute or C++AMP as long as the students could make the tradeoffs intelligently because of their understanding of the area from previous courses.
Given that the panel consists of representatives from Intel, AMD, Microsoft, Georgia Tech as well as myself, I’m expecting this to be a very spirited conversation. I hope to see you there.
Tomorrow morning, I’ll be speaking with Paul Steinberg of Intel and Tom Murphy of Contra Costa college about the criticality of understanding parallel programming techniques for industry.
In my previous role on the Adobe Image Foundation, it was an obvious requirement for our hiring candidates. We were building tools for a insanely parallel problem, image and video processing. Now that I’m working on a new product, it would maybe seem that it would not be as important. In fact, our threading models are even more complicated than in my previous group. My expectations around threading knowledge for incoming candidates are just as high.
Even the most modest mobile hardware is going (or has gone) parallel. In addition, the expectations from a user perspective around interactivity with their applications is never higher. A laggy touch interface is death to an application (or a platform). Going to get coffee while your image renders on a desktop is a thing of the past. User’s expectations of the software we write is higher than ever and it is nearly impossible to get this interactivity without taking advantage of multi-threading on today’s multi-core processors.
The tools continue to improve, but the threading models continue to evolve. A fundamental understanding of multi-threading is critical for anyone moving into Software Engineering or looking to stay current in their field.
I always enjoy talking with Paul and Tom, and expect that we’ll have a lively conversation.