What you should be told on the first day of any CS course

I can't count the number of times that I've been told that for developers the tools don't matter, just give us a prompt, a basic text editor and away we go.

The idea that the tools you use is inconsequential is at least as I see it one of the worst misconceptions about development, especially since it's spread by old developers and university teachers to fresh minds looking to write their first lines of code.

As an example current projects include a lot of back and forth between python, excel and mssql, as you can imagine this leads to good deal of semi manual string manipulation.

The work pattern of copying large amount of strings around while making minute changes to the order of characters is nothing specific to the projects I am currently working on, id say it's one of the cornerstones of any development project. 

At the very least you should refactor your code before finishing a project.

These situations doesn't necessarily require a decent text editor but I think anyone that have tried refactoring a reasonably sized program in nano would agree that it's not fun.

However this task done in a fully equipped advanced text editor like sublime, emacs, vi or atom is relatively joyous.

Finally even though I dislike the notion that advanced tools is unnecessary for developers I do believe that the choice of these tools is up to each of us.

I do for example use sublime for almost all of my development with the sole exception of C# which I write in the frankly excellent Visual Studio.

To sum up the advice I would have liked to have been told my first day at CS would be:

"Start this first day with trying out emacs,vi or sublime and use one of them for the next 3 years." 

I believe that the single best thing I've done for my development skills and workplace sanity is to use an advanced text editor.

Task based concurrency in C#

I have recently switched over to a company that mainly works with C# and python.
One of my first assignments have been to implement a minimal scheduler I have been trying to wrap my head around task based concurrency in C#.
This was necessary since I decided upon a "worker -- producer" setup with a producer that fetches "tasks" from a database, and a collection of workers that executes the tasks independently. This provides the benefit of allowing us to scale the number of workers to fit the current systems cpu and memory resources.
This approach is not without limitations but most of them are basic thread safety concerns.
The main issue however have been my somewhat lacking experience using tasks, which have lead to this post.

Real stuff

Below I will try and explain the basics for my use case:

The goal is to run a specific function in a object as a new task and await the result. The command used will be on similar to the following:

public async Task<bool> Execute(int n)
    return n == 0;

And the basic caller function will be similar to the following:

public async void Run()
            Command c = tasks.Next();
            // MAGIC PART

The command class in the example implements my Execute function and the "Run" function will run in a worker object.

My initial attempts at "magic" ended up with the task running synchronously with the calling thread blocking and awaiting the result. This behavior was close to the desired result, however there was no possibility to specify await time, or to do other processing on the worker thread.

//Initial Magic
Task<bool> task = c.Execute();

To achieve my desired result this function call had to be adapted, I ended up having to create a "runner" task that handled the waiting for the intended task.

var runner = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
  var runningTask = c.Execute();
  return runningTask;

This "runner" task can then be ignored until the worker is free to await the result. Or as in my case it can be used to create a timeout loop for the task.

while (waited < timeOut)
  if (runner.Wait(500) || runner.IsCompleted)
    waited += 500;

This loop "pools" the task every 500 ms to see if it has completed, and if the timeout value is reached I am free to cancel the task.