I know it’s easier said than done. There are at least as many articles on this as there are stars in our galaxy. Or may be more.

But the hard truth is that the world’s still full of people who find no time to code their pet project into a full-fledged app. And it’s more or less a self-discipline issue.

Finding time to code is one of the hardest things to do if you’re working full-time and doing the code in your ‘free’ time, which is typically the evenings/nights and the weekends. Quite a lot of hobbyists find it easy to code simple “hobby projects” that won’t see the light of day on the App Store (or even GitHub) but when it comes to serious coding, trouble starts at the time-management level.

There’s always a time to code. “I haven’t got the time to code/test/debug” isn’t a good excuse even when you’re in a full-time job and it all boils down to two things: sacrifice and self-discipline.

I’m sure most of what you are going to read is advice you’ve heard (possibly a million times before). For the benefit of those who’re starting the first lines of their app and for those who’re struggling to manage time to code, here are some things you should always, always remember:

1. There’s No Coding in Small Chunks

If there’s one lesson I’ll take to my grave after having spent a considerable chunk of my lifetime writing code, it’s this: there’s nothing called ‘code in small chunks’. This ‘do it in small measures’ thing might work elsewhere but no, sir, not when you’re coding.

A few lines of CSS and jQuery can take away more than an hour of your time even if you’re smart and can write semantic code on paper like Steve Wozniak.

If you think you’ll come back from office, do a little of this and that and then sit to code for about an hour, I suggest you forget that idea. Code is something that takes away a lot of your time and if you want to get it done, you’ll need to, more often than not, forget time. That means forget setting time limits to code.

2. There’s Something To Sacrifice

Evening visits to the gym can be shifted to the mornings if you code well in the night. A handful of weekend parties can be skipped. Webinars/Seminars on development can be missed. Or if things come to a head-on, a dine-out can be sacrificed for those few hundred lines of code that’ll fix the core part of your project.

There’s always something that you can sacrifice. For me, it has been – for sometime – reading books in the night. Club that with a couple of other things like an evening stroll (about an hour) and TV and you probably get more than enough time to code your way to heaven.

Figure out your routine. Then, cut out stuff that can be sacrificed for precious coding time.

3. Set Up A Distraction-free Environment

There’s this thing called Zero Clutter work zone. It’s basically about de-cluttering your work-zone so you can work distraction-free. And while Leo stops at the physical level of de-cluttering, you can (and should, definitely) take it to the next level: your screens.

When you are coding, have nothing more than one thing in focus: the IDE that you’re working on.

It takes a lot of self-discipline not to:

- check email every two/five/ten minutes
- constantly compile the code every time you make a minor change
- open and refresh Facebook/Twitter/App.net or HN every once in a while
- flip your phone to check messages
- munch on a bagel or fries (drink water; that’s a healthier practice)

Everything other than the IDE is a distraction. If you’re writing a caching program, do just that till you get to a point where you start debugging the code (once it’s totally complete). If you’re writing a regex, finish that totally (test, debug) before you even think of opening a new window in Chrome.

Use a blocking program to keep you off from Gmail, Facebook, HN etc. Keep the phone away – preferably in a different room so you get up only to pick a call.

Little but effective disciplinary changes can help you a lot in focused coding: which translates into less time, more code.

Like I said, it all boils down to self-discipline. And of course, a few hacks like a distraction-free environment (Sublime Text 2, may be?) and a lot of burning the midnight oil (or, if you’re a morning person, getting up a lot earlier than before).

Image by Flickr User Toni Verdú Carbó

Make friends and talk code!  The UMBC Council of Computing Majors will hold its first meeting of the year at 3:00pm on Wednesday, February 20 in ITE 210 on Main Street in the Commons.  CCM is an undergraduate student organization dedicated to promoting the fields of computer science and computer engineering. All majors are welcome!  Come if you are interested in joining or just finding out more about the CCM.

For more information send email to Sorry, you need javascript to view this email address.

App-ademics

CSEE professor Nilanjan Banerjee’s new Introduction to Mobile Computing class gives Computer Science students the skills to break into the exploding field of mobile application development.

Today, more than 125 million Americans own a Smartphone. That’s nearly 40% of the 315 million people living in the United States. And, those numbers are only growing.

For these millions of Americans, their phone is so much more than a tool for making phone calls. It’s a personal planner and a video game console; a GPS and an MP3 player. These days you can download Smartphone applications to add almost any type of functionality to your phone. Dr. Nilanjan Banerjee’s new Introduction to Mobile Computing class is inspired by this growing trend. In it, Dr. Banerjee is teaching students how to create helpful and inventive Smartphone applications.

First, the course teaches mobile phone programming essentials like UI programming, data management, localization, and programming sensors like the accelerometer and compass, mobile OS services, and mobile phone games.

Then, students work in teams of two to dream up and build unique applications for the Windows 8 platform and android platform. “Mobile System development requires strong programming skills, knowledge of networking and OS, working with phone sensors, and user interface design,” explains Dr. Banerjee. “I hope that the students will learn how to use these concepts together to build real applications.”

The class is partially supported by Microsoft’s Project Hawaii Initiative. The benefits of this partnership are two-fold. First, it supplies the class with fifteen Nokia Lumia 920 phones for app building. Second, the partnership gives students access to Microsoft’s set of cloud services, which allows students to create more complex smartphone applications. 

“Complex mobile applications like image processing or text-to-speech require computational resources which may not be available on Smartphones,” explains Dr. Banerjee. “Hence, they leverage cloud services—these are services such as a text-to-speech engine resident on powerful backend servers.”

When Dr. Banerjee taught Introduction to Mobile Computing at the University of Arkansas, students produced a range of creative applications. One team created a remote security system for cars (pictured left). The system used a Smartphone to remotely control a video camera placed inside of the vehicle.  

Another student created Project Pond, simple touch-based game (pictured right). In the game, players use their fingertips to create ripples in a simulated pond. As the game progresses, the player must use the ripples to destroy enemies like crawfish, red tadpoles, and dragonflies.

While dreaming up application ideas, the sky is the limit for students. Dr. Banerjee only requires that the applications solve real world problems and use sensors available on the phone.  All the applications must be demonstrated in a Poster/Demo session that will be organized at the end of the semester.

Dr. Banejree, himself an iPhone user who swears by the Maps application, says that knowing how to create these applications is a huge asset for Computer Science students today. “The importance of the field can be seen by the simple fact that smartphone/tablet sales have surpassed desktops now,” he says. “With the advent of more computationally capable phone platforms, integration of sensors in smartphones, and advancements in cloud computing, it is clear that this field is going to grow in importance in the coming years.”

Dissatisfied with her job, Dilys quit and began learning to code. Now she's ready to make the move she wants. » Read more

By Julian Dautremont-Smith
Chief Sustainability Officer
Alfred State College

In an effort to track progress in sustainability education and promote sustainability courses, many colleges and universities have attempted to identify which courses they offer integrate sustainability concepts. As Alfred State is starting to move in this direction, I recently analyzed almost 160 definitions of “sustainability in the curriculum” submitted by participants in the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS). To enhance the comparability over time and with other institutions, I was hoping to find examples of definitions that are clear, specific, and require little subjective interpretation. At a minimum, I was looking for definitions that were explicit in how to deal with potential grey areas.

Unfortunately, I found many of the definitions to be fairly ambiguous. Perhaps as a result, even institutions that used similar definitions often seemed to interpret them differently when it came time to classify courses. The experience confirmed what a number of STARS users and reviewers have argued - the curriculum data available through STARS do not allow for meaningful comparisons between institutions. This post, the first of a two-part article, summarizes my findings. In Part 2, I’ll actually propose some new definitions for sustainability courses that I believe will generate better and more comparable data.

Overall, I found that the definitions of sustainability in the curriculum that institutions provided could be organized into 4 main groups:

• Roughly a quarter repeat the definitions of “sustainability-focused” and “sustainability-related” courses from the STARS Technical Manual almost verbatim.
• About 17 percent provide only a general definition of sustainability (often the standard Brundtland definition) and don’t say anything directly about what it means in the curriculum.
• Another 30 percent define sustainability education, but do not distinguish between sustainability-focused and sustainability-related courses.
• The remaining 28 percent provide an institution-specific definition of sustainability-focused and sustainability-related courses that went beyond upon the generic definition provided in the Technical Manual.

Disconcertingly, this means that although classifying courses as sustainability-focused or -related is necessary to earn many of the curriculum points in STARS, almost half (47%) of STARS participants submitted definitions that are clearly inadequate for this task. And, almost half of those who did distinguish between sustainability-focused and -related courses just used the definition supplied by STARS, which was intended as a starting point rather than a complete definition. Even many of those institutions that took the time to develop their own definitions ended up with definitions that contained substantial wiggle room and left a lot to individual judgment.

Given the room for interpretation in many definitions of sustainability in the curriculum, it’s no surprise that STARS participants ended up with quite different approaches when applying the definitions to their course lists. For example, some institutions seemed to take a very inclusive approach to classifying “sustainability-focused” courses - including courses that seemed to be about a more traditional topic e.g. Meteorology, Swine Production, Principles of Accounting, American Economic History, Petroleum Geology, Family Resource Management, Fundamentals of Marketing, Contemporary China, Beginning Tai Chi Chi Kung - while others took a more conservative approach, basically only including only courses with “sustainability” in the title. As a result, the scores on ER Credit 6 “Sustainability-Focused Courses” range from 0.03 to 10. The situation is similar for ER Credit 7 “Sustainability-Related Courses,” where scores range from 0.05 to 10.

This is a serious problem for STARS.˚ ER credits 6 and 7 are worth 20 points collectively. Choices about which courses to classify as sustainability-focused or related could easily bump an institution up a whole rating. The large number of points involved, subjective nature of the definitions, and difficulty of determining if a course has been correctly categorized without reviewing a syllabus or talking to the professor, may tempt institutions to over-report their numbers of sustainability-focused and -related courses. Over time, it’s easy imagine that this dynamic could result in the course count figures becoming more and more inflated and less reflective of the real trends in sustainability education. At a minimum, wide differences in approaches to course class classification make meaningful benchmarking on this issue almost impossible.

This analysis suggests that the campus sustainability community would be better served if AASHE were to offer greater guidance on this matter rather than asking campuses to define terms themselves. Less than a third are really taking advantage of the flexibility for participants to develop their own definitions offered under the current version of STARS anyway. A key question then is how broad such a definition should be or, put another way, how many dots should we connect in our course classifications. I’ll provide my answer to this question in Part 2.

˚Admittedly, as one of the original creators of STARS and current chair of the STARS Steering Committee, I deserve a sizable share of the blame for this problem. I hope this post is a step towards remedying it.