Paul Grenyer

I’m currently working on a new piece of writing that I’m hoping to present next year, and I’d really value your input.  To support this research, I’ve created a short survey to gather perspectives, experiences, and insights. Whether you’ve got strong opinions or just a few minutes to spare, your response would make a genuine difference. Why take part? Your feedback will directly contribute to real research It only takes a few minutes to complete You’ll be helping shape something meaningful and (hopefully!) impactful I’m aiming to build a deeper understanding of the topic, and every response helps create a clearer, more balanced picture. Take the survey here:   https://forms.gle/VCqJdJz248awjyjNA Thank you so much for your time and support, it’s greatly appreciated!

For a book divided into small, discrete and easily absorbable chapters, there’s a lot of Clean Architecture.  Its strengths are the discussion of the SOLID Principles, Compensation and insistence on abstract interfaces, encapsulated concrete interfaces, loose coupling and cohesion - every software engineer should read it just for these. Its weaknesses are the verbosity and its heavy bias towards object orientation and dependency injection, but then it’s a book of its time. The open minded reader will see through this and realise that Clean Architecture is applicable and applicable everywhere. There’s a long appendix which, although quite self indulgent, is actually really interesting and I’m glad I persevered with it. Clean Architecture: A Craftsman's Guide to Software Structure and Design: A Craftsman's Guide to Software Structure and Design (Robert C. Martin Series) Robert Martin ISBN-13: 978-0134494166

When One Beyond invited me to take part in the London Tech Leaders Summit, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. What I definitely wasn’t expecting was a seven‑foot robot interrupting the opening welcome. As the doors flung open, the robot ducked to fit through, marched to the side of the stage, interrupted the speaker, and proceeded to continue the welcome itself. It was initially a little unsettling, but to be fair, its jokes were better. What followed was a full day of presentations, panels, roundtable discussions, and workshops. All were framed through a leadership lens and all centred on AI. I know what you’re thinking: not another AI conference. But this one really stood out. Rather than theoretical hype, it was software leaders - many in similar roles to mine - openly sharing what they’ve learned from using AI, where it’s taken them, and how it’s shaping their organisations. There were several highlights. Hywel Carver , CEO of Skiller Whale , made a particularly memorable point:...

I wrote Deep Imports Considered Harmful for two reasons. Obviously to persuade people not to use deep imports, but I also wanted to reinforce that components should have an abstract interface and an encapsulated concrete implementation. I was expecting some pushback, but all I got was something I should have seen coming and covered in the original piece. Here’s the follow-up to get it covered. Every time you tell someone that deep imports are a bad idea, there’s always one reply waiting in the wings: But deep imports perform better. It sounds plausible. It feels intuitive. But it’s wrong. To be fair, this myth didn’t come from nowhere. In the past, some libraries really did ship poorly structured entry points with giant index.js barrels with side effects, no tree‑shaking - a build‑time optimisation that removes code you never use from your final JavaScript bundle - support, and no clear separation between public API and internal implementation. In those cases, deep imports sometimes ...

Looking ahead to next year, I want to talk about Abstraction, Encapsulation, Cohesion and Loose Coupling as it seems they are missing from a lot of modern software design. Back to Basics: Why the principles that built our industry still matter today There are only three things certain in life: death, taxes, and constant change in software. For decades, we’ve tried to limit that change. Up‑front design and predictive methodologies promised control, but too often delivered the wrong software for the user. In the late 90s, Kent Beck urged us to embrace change through methodologies like Extreme Programming and concrete practices such as Test‑Driven Development. These weren’t trends, they were reminders of fundamentals we already knew. Design behind interfaces. Keep responsibilities narrow. Make dependencies replaceable. These boundaries matter, from functions and classes to services, systems, and infrastructure. These ideas have been with us since the 60s and 70s. The challenge isn’t inven...

Keep It Loose Deep down we all know it’s important to componentise software systems.  It allows different parts of the systems, the components, to change and evolve over time with minimal effect on other parts of the system. Designed and implemented correctly, components are loosely coupled , as well as highly cohesive .   In practice this means that components can be changed, replaced, or evolved independently, without causing widespread change throughout the system. Components with responsibilities, and that naturally change together, are grouped together. Components have abstract interfaces and concrete implementations. Interfaces describe the features provided by a component and hide the concrete implementation. Users of components - usually other components - depend on the interface rather than the concrete implementation. If clients come to depend on concrete implementations - the internal details of a component - the benefits of componentisation are lost. The comp...