As of late, Silicon Valley has been on the rebound. This is a plus for the area, but it still doesn’t erase its rise and fall history, nor the sour taste left in the mouths of entrepreneurs and investors alike. Moreover, there are certain side-effects that make Silicon Valley and many parts of California undesirable in terms of business environment, one of them being cost of living. In the land of $1 million mobile-homes and haut-couture clothing galore and horrible traffic problems, it is very unfeasible to use it as a first-choice homebase for a startup software development company unless you have something in particular keeping you there (like you really, really like the area). If someone is searching for a place to startup, however, Silicon Valley may not be their first or best bet. Where should you go then? Tech Valley of course.

Tech Valley is the name given to the Capital Region (the area surrounding New York’s capital, Albany), an area burgeoning with technological growth in fields ranging from nanotechnology to software development. Tech Valley has many advantages when it comes to promoting and fostering business growth. From the cost of living standpoint, Salary.com’s cost of living calculator shows that moving from Albany, NY to Silicon Valley (San Diego, CA) roughly amounts to a $14,000 drop in disposable income, including any expected increases in pay for equivalent jobs. Many people will point to the fact that Silicon Valley is in California and that the weather is nice, and I can’t argue with that, but life isn’t just about weather. There are many things to factor in, and that’s why Albany is the place to be for those interested in tech and science jobs. There have been many things happening in the Capital Region as of late, most of which point to a very positive growth pattern for the Capital Region’s economy and well-being, and those that live here are bound to benefit from it. Just to summarize, some of the more notable achievements and facts for the area include:

• Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and the State University of New York (SUNY) at Albany have some of the most respected facilities for nanotechnology research in the country. (Yes that’s only one source, but trust me, go browsing)
• Another technology park is being opened in Tech Valley named Luther Forest. It will house companies working in everything from nanotechnology to alternative fuels.
• RPI is considered one of the most connected campuses in the nation and is a highly regarded engineering institution with one of the oldest incubators in the country
• Albany is the site of a $200 million convention center that aims at attracting some of the countries largest conventions
• The Milken Institute ranked Albany as one of the smartest areas in the U.S. outranking even San Francisco in some ratings.
• Delmar, NY (part of Albany) was ranked the 22nd best place to live in the U.S. by CNN Money
• Crime data shows that Colonie, NY (part of Albany) is one of the safest towns in the United States.
• Tech Valley High will be one of the nation’s only high school’s geared toward immersing students in new and emerging technologies
• Albany was ranked 15th best place to relocate a business.
• Considered an IT hotspot by eWeek magazine.
• Sperling’s BestPlaces ranks Albany as the least stressful metro area in the country.

In addition to this, the quality of students in technology related fields that come out of area universities is very high, making the area an excellent source of human capital. When looked it as a whole, it seems quite reasonable that starting a technology firm in the Capital Region will benefit greatly from area growth. But what do all the technologists do on their spare time? Plenty. The area is home to beautiful lakes (Lake George, Lake Champlain, Lake Sacandaga), top rated ski resorts (Killington, Hinter, Gore), and attractions (Pepsi Arena, Six Flags Great Escape, The Palace Theater), not to mention the popular Saratoga Race Track (yes, horses). This is definitely a formula for growth. Ask yourself this, why do Venture Capitalists invent in small companies and not in Microsoft stock? Because it gives them high yields. Granted, there is a risk to everything, but that’s part of the game.

The act of engineering, according to dictionary.com, is defined as “The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.” Similar definitions can be found on other online dictionaries. If approached from pure definition, it seems quite obvious that the discipline is one of engineering. True software developers (not script kiddies) plan, layout and design complex systems using mathematics and the scientific method. For example, if an individual is part of a team that is designing a complex financial system at a well structured organization, it is quite probable that they do everything from using rudimentary math all the way up to some advanced calculus topics to discover the best may to move data or route message calls. In addition, they may use mathematics to measure and analyze data that comes from load tests and use their analysis to optimize the system. It is quite certain that all software developers create hypothesis and then test them with the hopes of conclusively validating or invalidating them, ala scientific method. These different techniques would produce documentable results and allow software engineers to create plans of assembly and execution for an entire project. All of this does not vary much from stress and strain analysis that a civil engineer might execute, or their experimentation with different materials and mechanical configurations to support various structures. Although software engineering does not necessarily produce “tangible” results, the complexity involved can definitely be of the same scale. 

There is one problem, however, that prevents software developers from being unquestionably referred to as engineers, and that is how we approach our own profession. All too frequently, we discount the advantages of rigorous design and planning. We prefer the “Get it Done” methodology; that is, lines of code equals productivity and designing is a waste because there are “no results.” I’ve seen it too many times. This approach would be equivalent to a civil engineer (who is educated and has a degree) approaching the construction of a bridge by saying “Ok, I bought some steel, bolts and cables, lets start putting it together.” The engineer may definitely be able to build a bridge of some sort by the seat of his pants, but what is its load bearing capability? Has weather been accounted for? What were your design goals? This is the equivalent to what a software engineer must go through. We must realize that formulating answers to these questions is engineering, while the development is the construction. 

 Granted, there are some projects that do not necessarily need large amounts of design overhead (after all, how many civil engineers build earthquake proof dog sheds for their dog Spot), but that does not categorically deny the label of engineer. I do agree that there are many software developers that are not engineers because they have not pursued projects worthy of any real design, but that is a consequence and is situational. Even the most trivial projects can be engineered; it’s choosing whether or not one wants to. 

 On a final note in this long-winded discussion, I do want to address the external view. Many times in our industry, people we interact with (particularly our superiors) ignore design as part of the engineering process because they do not view what we do as engineering. It is our responsibility to prove to them otherwise. We need to build business cases for them as to why approaching a requirement change very late in the game (yes, I know all you agile folks have an answer to this) can in fact be very expensive and its not just “changing a couple of lines of code.” We all too often tell people, “No problem, we can make that change” without properly analyzing the ramifications. When was the last time a civil engineer didn’t mind someone that knew nothing about civil engineering coming and scribbling on their architectural and engineering diagrams and being told “ok, go ahead and make these changes to the foundation after its been built”? You’d be hard press to find one that says “Hey no problem, let me tear down half of what we did and redo it.” Granted, it does happen when a critical flaw is the cause of the request, but doesn’t if there was a missed requirement that the concrete should have been spiked with pink food coloring.

I’m having a real tough time understanding what the problem is at this point? What’s the big deal with any of these search engines saying “Yes, Mr. Government, here is a weeks worth of search data, with no personal or origin information.” Does it really bother people that much? It seems the equivalent of having everyone type a sentence and print it on any printer they desire, having it placed in a large sac, and randomly selecting 20 of them for display in a public room. Who cares? Oh, and if you comment, don’t use stupid arguments like “Well, they could lift fingerprints.” People need to chill, analyze the situation and not make categorical assumptions and throw kindergarten hissy-fits. Throw a hissy-fit because a data warehousing employee or developer at any of these search engines can execute queries against your IP addresses and see what you see, and that they could track down where you live (at least relatively close).

A majority of the comments found on Digg regarding this article applauded Google’s stance against the “evil Bush Administration” and “Big Brother” government. Now, while I’m not supporting the broad nature of the request (I would agree with a more refined request, particularly if it means helping stop sick-bastard child porn mongers), I find it amusing that no-one recognized nor questioned Google having the data to begin with. After all, if the data was originator-agnostic, this wouldn’t be a problem. For anyone that doesn’t understand originator-agnostic, it means that they just store what was searched, and not where the search came from. The government’s request would not be a problem if the data could not be linked to search originators. The article fails to make the distinction between having and not having origination data, despite the fact that the government ”…needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.” Based on this, satisfying the request would not need IP addresses, etc. so privacy would be maintained.

Now, anyone that has ever had any curiosity behind search engine privacy policies knows that they all contain clauses in their privacy policies regarding information aggregation, which includes storing your IP address along with any information you may have searched for. It seems that this practice would be the root of the problem and an invasion of privacy in and of itself. After all, search engines would be able to corroborate the information over time and know pretty much everything about you. However, as soon as the word “government” enters the picture, everyone breaks out their tin-foil hats and starts screaming “alien-mind reader ray beam is reading my mind!” What’s the deal with that? I would venture to say that (yes, even under this administration) the government has your well-being higher up on its priority list than any corporation would (after all, corporations are there to make money). 

As if this wasn’t enough, I’ll step out on a limb and say that Google is probably one of the worst violators of privacy. Google got where they are because their searches were better, period. It’s safe to bet that their data harvesting and gathering capabilities are better as well. Kudos to them for this (seriously). But I am thoroughly disappointed that the Google Homepage does not have a direct link to their privacy policy; you can find it everywhere except their search pages, strange, don’t ya think? This is an outrage.  All other search engines (including Yahoo! and *gasp* the evil empire) have direct references to their privacy policy from their homepages and search pages, allowing you to be informed of how they are invading your privacy. That’s more than Google can say. We all know the hissy-fit that would have been thrown if there wasn’t an immediate, explicit reference to a privacy policy on MSN Search. We also know how quickly the good ol’ ACLU would have sued if the government was doing what search engines do. Remember the NSA tracking cookie or the current issue revolving around domestic spying? Too bad search engine companies (and Google) know what you eat, what you read, who you’re classmates were, your political alignment, what car you drive, and anything else you have ever searched for. 

Before Google fights the government “vigorously,” they should take care of their dual personality disorder. So please, if you must complain, start with the search engines (and Google) that are tracking you, and make sure to aim your “anti-mind reader ray ray” at them. Google, this is an open request to clean up your act and at least meet the standards defined by Yahoo!, Microsoft, and other search engine companies that inform users how their privacy is being violated up front (Yes, I worded that in a fashion where if you in fact do add a link to your privacy policy, you have admitted that you are violating a users privacy by storing information about them). Cheers!

if(x==7 || x==9 || x==10) {
//Do something…
}

Although this works (obviously, since the development community has used it over 7.3 billion times), it would be substantially more convenient to describe the condition of the statement as follows:

if(x==(7 || 9 || 10)) {
//Do something…
}

This would be logically equivalent to the first if statement, but would provide a cleaner mechanism for declaring the defining logic. There does not seem to be any loss of detail, and is equivalent to morphing the sentence “if x is equal to 7, or x is equal to 9, or x is equal to 10″ to “if x is equal to 7, or 9, or 10.”

I know, I know, it’s picky. But writing/modifying a grammar for it is quite easy (for fun: anyone want to verify that the supporting grammar for the new if statement can be written as context-free?) and every saved keystroke lengthens the amount of time to the inevitable: carpal tunnel! The only foreseeable problem is that its difficult to accommadate for it in an expression tree if it wasn’t accounted for in precompile parsing, but this is a surmountble issue. Someone please introduce this in any new, upcoming Java/C# specs…