How can you collaborate with other developers who use different languages and frameworks?

The frameworks and other technologies are of no importance when it comes to collaboration as long as the developers in question have the capacity to reach a consensus on what needs to be done in terms of the requirements. In a way frameworks and programming languages are irrelevant in this case.

Collaborating with developers using different languages and frameworks involves effective communication, thorough code documentation, and standardized naming conventions. Utilize well-defined APIs and interfaces to facilitate interaction between components. Employ version control systems for seamless integration of code changes. Implement comprehensive testing and automation through CI/CD pipelines. Stay flexible and open to learning each other's languages and frameworks. Keep dependencies up to date to prevent compatibility issues. Establish clear conflict resolution processes and consider pair programming sessions to enhance knowledge sharing and problem-solving.

The common goal often sounds like "create a functional system with satisfied users." However, it's easier said than done. When deciding responsibilities, such as what tasks belong to the front-end versus the back-end, negotiations can sometimes become challenging. Based on my experience, always prioritize the users. Do they care about the elegance of the API? If not, it might be better to prioritize speed over aesthetics. I get frustrated when an app operates slowly on a sluggish internet connection. However, if your primary product is the API, its structure should be well-designed, scalable, and thoroughly documented.

1. Visually: use classic "boxes & arrows" to communicate abstraction levels, system structure and key data movement that characterize the disparate frameworks and subsystems. 2. Structurally: use tools like UML and OO classes to create interfaces between frameworks that hide idiosyncrasies and isolate changes. 3. Functionally, use well-defined APIs for cross-language routine calls. (e.g., the Direct Programming Interface for calls between SystemVerilog and C).

Developers collaborate via whiteboard very well. Most of the software building principals are language /framework independent. I always joke that languages and frameworks represent egos and just introduce obstacles to programmers. If we could use free grammar, describing the logic and then by some magic it would be matched and translated to the best framework for implementation, I'm 100% in it. Think about FaaS projects, decoupling implementation from language.

Thank God for microservices! They have made it much easier to define interfaces and delineate the responsibilities among different developers. Teams can negotiate on the microservice's API structure and HTTP response formats, and that's pretty much it. There are many excellent tools, like Swagger, that allow you to define an API and automatically generate basic interfaces in your preferred language. The next evolution is to use RPC systems, like gRPC. This allows services to communicate in a binary format, reducing RAM usage since there's no need to allocate resources for JSON parsing. Plus, you get predefined interfaces to generate your code. However, debugging can be more challenging since you can't simply make an HTTP call to it.

I would add defining events and events flow. Interface tends to sound as API based only communication. Asynchronous communication via events adds loosely coupled communication, component dependencies, less protocols to communicate, system changes and more.

Here's a revised version for clarity and grammar: Code reviews are important, but they're often misused. Frequently, reviewers focus on imposing their code style rather than identifying genuine bugs or potential issues. Linters should be configured to handle code style. As a reviewer, your priority should be detecting potential bugs and inconsistencies in interfaces, not merely pushing your own aesthetic preferences. Offer suggestions rather than criticisms.

It's less related to this specific topic and must be used regardless. I'd suggest separate public Interface defintion into separate repo. It has to have tests, there're some tools that can test any api with some light additions. Such approach makes it more difficult to break the interface. Dependent party can subscribe to the changes and get the changes only relevant to the Interface. Interface could be API, Event.

Tests are more important than documentation because tests can serve as documentation in themselves. By reviewing tests, one can understand how a service is intended to function and what to expect from it. Don't aim for 100% code coverage; 80% - 85% is typically sufficient. Tests provide other developers with a clear understanding of what the service does, allowing them to modify the code without fear of breaking anything.

There should be fast artifacts propagation to the dependent sub-systems. Establish dev environment if possible to fail fast. Ask dependent teams enrich your tests with their use-cases. If the language knowledge is a barrier, get the description and implement by yourself

Standups. Just hearing the word makes many developers groan. Sometimes you find yourself sitting through half an hour of information that's irrelevant to you. While communication and sharing progress are vital, the traditional standup format can cause developers to disengage. Consider switching from large group calls to discussions with two or three participants. Allow developers to leave the call if they feel it's not relevant to them. Always provide an agenda for the call. Avoid mindlessly following practices without understanding their value — don't fall into the trap of the cargo cult.

Set Release channels, announce via github, etc. Set "ask-<team|component|project>" channel and monitor it with fast response, opening issues, adding reporters as watchers (or other mechanism to notify the reporters). Prefer async communication and short calls with relevant people when required. Be on the coordination meetings all the time tend to be a waste.

Information sharing is vital for the IT industry and developers. Without it, we wouldn't have open source projects or the plethora of excellent online courses. However, it's essential not to force your team into sharing. When managers try to mandate creativity, they often end up with low-value content, like blog posts generated by ChatGPT that don't bring any real insights. Instead, consider creating informal communication channels, like a #random channel on Slack, where your team can discuss anything. Organize casual meetups where developers can voluntarily share their knowledge with others. Don't push for creativity; instead, cultivate an environment where it can naturally flourish

There are numerous methods for collaborating with other developers and enhancing team dynamics. However, every team is unique; what works for one might not be effective for another. Experiment with various methods, but always be prepared to admit, "I was wrong," if something isn't working out. Beware of falling into the trap of the cargo cult. Engage with other developers, ask for their thoughts on improving collaboration, and you'll likely receive valuable insights.

The process does not cover delivery process. Prefer smaller deliveries, use stubs to start & fail integration fast. Stubs could be tailored with simple if-else static return per integration, just to allow rapid feedback.

When collaborating on a solution with others using different programming languages and frameworks, it is important that there is a clear understanding of all involved as to the architectural style and any associated design principles, design patterns or design standards. Many of these can be defined independent of programming language or framework, so that each contribution fits within and adheres to a common vision of the solution architecture.