What are some ways in which I can write code that is easily modified?
The one I have learned from experience is that I almost always need to write one to throw away. That way I have developed a sense of the domain knowledge and program structure required before coding the actual application.
The general guidelines are offcourse
High cohesion, low coupling
Dont repeat yourself
Recognize design patterns and implement them
Dont recognize design patterns where they are not existing or necassary
Use a coding standard, stick to it
Comment everyting that should be commented, when in doubt : comment
Use unit tests
Write comments and tests before implementation, that way you know exactly what you want to do
And when it goes wrong : refactor, refactor, refactor. With good tests you can be sure nothing breaks
And oh yeah:
read this : http://www.pragprog.com/the-pragmatic-programmer
Everything (i think) above and more is in it
I think your emphasis on modifiability is more important than readability. It is not hard to make something easy to read, but the real test of how well it is understood comes when someone else (or you) has to modify it in repsonse to changing requirements.
What I try to do is assume that modifications will be necessary, and if it is not really clear how to do them, leave explicit directions in the code for how to do them.
I assume that I may have to do some educating of the reader of the code to get him or her to know how to modify the code properly. This requires energy on my part, and it requires energy on the part of the person reading the code.
So while I admire the idea of literate programming, that can be easily read and understood, sometimes it is more like math, where the only way to do it is for the reader to buckle down, pay close attention, re-read it a few times, and make sure they understand.
Readability helps a lot: If you do something non-obvious, or you are taking a shortcut, comment. Comments are places where you can go back and refactor if you have time later. Use sensible names for everything, makes it easier to understand what is going on.
Continuous revision will let you move from that first draft to a better one without throwing away (too much) work. Any time you rewrite from scratch you may lose lessons learned. As you code, use refactoring tools to eliminate code representing areas of exploration that are no longer needed, and to make obvious things that were obscure. The first one reduces the amount that you need to maintain; the second reduces the effort per square foot. (Sqft makes about as much sense as lines of code, really.)
Modularize appropriately and enforce encapsulation and separation of logic between your modules. You don't want too many dependencies on any one part of the code or that part becomes inherently harder to understand.
Considering using tried and true methods over cutting edge ones. You give up some functionality for predictability.
Finally, if this is code that people will be using before and after modification, you need(ed) to have an appropriate API insulating your code from theirs. Having a strong API lets you change things behind the scenes without needing to alert all your consumers. I think there's a decent article on Coding Horror about this.
Hang Your Code Out to D.R.Y.
I learned this early when assigned the task of changing the appearance of a web-interface. The code was in C, which I hated, and was compiled to a CGI executable. And, worse, it was built on a library that was abandoned—no updates, no support, and too many man-hours put into its use to change it. On top of the framework was a disorderly web of code, consisting of various form and element builders, custom string implementations, and various other arcane things (for a non-C programmer to commit suicide with).
For each change I made there were several, sometimes many, exceptions to the output HTML. Each one of these exceptions required a small change or improvement in the form builder, thanks to the language there's no inheritance and therefore only functions and structs, and instead of putting the hours in the team instead wrote these exceptions frequently.
In my inexperience I was forced to change the output of each exception, rather than consolidate the changes in an improved form builder. But, trawling through 15,000 lines of code for several hours after ineffective changes would induce code-burn, and a fogginess that took a night's sleep to cure.
Always run your code through the DRY-er.
The easiest way to modify a code is NOT to write code. Write pseudo code not just for algo but how your code should be structured if you are unsure.
Designing while writing code never works...for me :-)
Here is my current experience: I'm working (Java) with a kind of database schema that might often change (fields added/removed, data types modified). My strategy is to parse this schema and to generate the code with apache velocity. The BaseClass generated is never modified by the programmer. Else, a MyClass extends BaseClass is created and the logical components of this class (e.g. toString() ! )are implemented using the 'getters' and the 'setters' of the super class.
Related
I recently inherited a large codebase and am having to read it. The thing is, I've usually been the dev starting a project. As a result, I don't have a lot of experience reading code.
My reaction to having to read a lot of code is, well, umm to rewrite it. But I need to bring myself up to speed quickly and build on top of an existing system.
Do other people have techniques they've learned to absorb a code base? At this point, I'm just reading through the code. I've tried generating UML diagrams using UModel. They're so big they won't print cleanly and when I zoom in, I really do lose the perspective of seeing all the relationships.
How have other people dealt with this problem?
Wow - I literally just finished listening to a podcast on reading code!!!
http://www.pluralsight-training.net/community/blogs/pluralcast/archive/2010/03/01/pluralcast-10-reading-code-with-alan-stevens.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pluralcast+%28Pluralcast+by+Pluralsight%29
I would recommend listening to this. One interesting point that was made that I found radical and may be something you could try (I know I'm going to!). Download the entire source code base. Start editing and refactoring the code then...throw that version away!!! I think with all the demands that we have with deadlines that doing this would not even occur to most developers.
I am in a similar position to you in my own work and I have found the following has worked for me:
- Write test cases on existing code. To be able to write the test case you need to be able to understand the cde base.
- If it is available, look at the bug\issues that have been documented through the life cycle of the product and see how they were resolved.
- Try and refactor some of the code - you'll probably break it, but that's fine you can throw it away and start again. By decomposing the code into smaller problems you'll understand it bettter
You don't need to make drastic changes when refactoring though. When your reading the code and you understand something, rename the variable or the method names so the better reflect the problem the are trying to solve.
Oh and if you can, please get a copy of Working Effectively with Legacy Code by Michael C. Feathers - I think you'll find it invaluable in your situation.
Good luck!
This article provides a guideline
Visualization: a visual representation of the application's design.
Design Violations: an understanding of the health of the object
model.
Style Violations: an understanding of the state the code is currently
in.
Business Logic Review: the ability to test the existing source.
Performance Review: where are the bottlenecks in the source code?
Documentation: does the code have adequate documentation for people
to understand what they're working on?
In general I start at the entry point of the code (main function, plugin hook, etc) and work through the basic execution flow. If its a decent code base it should be broken up into decent size chunks, and you can then go through and figure out what each chunk of the code is responsible for. Looking back at when in the execution flow of the system its called.
For the package/module/class exploration I use whatever doxygen will generate once its been run over the sources. It generates some nice class relation diagrams, inheritance hierarchies and file dependencies graphs. The benefit of these is they are each focused on a single class and how it ties it with its neighbors, siblings and parents, so the graphs are usually of manageable size and easy to understand.
As you understand what different, classes, functions and sub-systems do I like to add comments to fill what sounds like obviously missing documentation. This helps you when you re-read through the code the second time.
I would recommend another podcast and resources:
SE-Radion episode on Software Archeology
Is there a workaround for implementing cross cutting concerns without going into aspects and point cuts et al.?
We're in Spring MVC, and working on a business app where it's not feasible to go into AspectJ or Spring's aspect handling due to various reasons.
And some of our controllers have become heavily bloated (too heavily), with tons of out-of-focus code creeping in everywhere.
Everytime I sit down to refactor, I see the same things being done over and over again. Allow me to explain:
Everytime I have to prepare a view, I add a list of countries to it for the UI. (Object added to the ModelAndView). That list is pulled out of a DB into ehCache.
Now, initially it was terrible when I was trying to add the lists INLINE to the mav's everywhere. Instead, I prepared a function which would process every ModelAndView. How? well, with more garbage calls to the function!
And I bought out one trouble for another.
What's a design pattern/trick which can help me out a bit? I'm sick of calling functions to add things to my ModelAndView, and with over 3500 lines of only controller code, I'm going mad finding all the glue points where things have gone missing!
Suggestion are welcome. Cross cutting concerns flavor without AspectJ or Spring native.
Since you are using Java, you may consider moving your code to Scala, since it interacts well with Java, then you can use traits to get the functionality you want.
Unfortunately cross-cutting is a problem with OOP, so changing to functional programming may be a solution, but, I expect that in actuality they are using AOP to implement these mixins, so it would still be AOP, just abstracted out.
The other option is to look at redesigning your application, and make certain that you don't have duplicate code, but a major refactoring is very difficult and fraught with risk.
But, for example, you may end up with your ModelAndView calling several static utility classes to get the data it needs, or do ensure that the user has the correct role, for example.
You may want to look at a book, Refactoring to Patterns (http://www.industriallogic.com/xp/refactoring/) for some ideas.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I had a piece of work thrown out due to a single minor spec change that turned out not to have been spec'ed correctly. If it had been done right at the start of the project then most of that work would have never have been needed in the first place.
What are some good tips/design principles that keep these things from happening?
Or to lessen the amount of re-working to code that is needed in order to implement feature requests or design changes mid implementation?
Modularize. Make small blocks of code that do their job well. However, thats only the beginning. Its usually a large combination of factors that contribute to code so bad it needs a complete rework. Everything from highly unstable requirements, poor design, lack of code ownership, the list goes on and on.
Adding on to what others have brought up: COMMUNICATION.
Communication between you and the customer, you and management, you and the other developers, you and your QA department, communication between everyone is key. Make sure management understands reasonable timeframes and make sure both you and the customer understand exactly what it is that your building.
Take the time to keep communication open with the customer that your building the product for. Make milestones and setup a time to display the project to the customer at each milestone. Even if the customer is completely disappointed with a milestone when you show it, you can scratch what you have and start over from the last milestone. This also requires that your work be built in blocks that work independent of one another as Csunwold stated.
Points...
Keep open communication
Be open and honest with progress of product
Be willing to change daily as to the needs of the customers business and specifications for the product change.
Software requirements change, and there's not much one can do about that except for more frequent interaction with clients.
One can, however, build code that is more robust in face of change. It won't save you from throwing out code that meets a requirement that nobody needs anymore, but it can reduce the impact of such changes.
For example, whenever this applies, use interfaces rather than classes (or the equivalent in your language), and avoid adding operations to the interface unless you are absolutely sure you need them. By building your programs that way you are less likely to rely on knowledge of a specific implementation, and you're less likely to implement things that you would not need.
Another advantage of this approach is that you can easily swap one implementation for another. For example, it sometimes pays off to write the dumbest (in efficiency) but the fastest to write and test implementation for your prototype, and only replace it with something smarter in the end when the prototype is the basis of the product and the performance actually matters. I find that this is a very effective way to avoid premature optimizations, and thus throwing away stuff.
modularity is the answer, as has been said. but it can be a hard answer to use in practice.
i suggest focussing on:
small libraries which do predefined things well
minimal dependencies between modules
writing interfaces first is a good way to achieve both of these (with interfaces used for the dependencies). writing tests next, against the interfaces, before the code is written, often highlights design choices which are un-modular.
i don't know whether your app is UI-intensive; that can make it more difficult to be modular. it's still usually worth the effort, but if not then assume that it will be thrown away before long and follow the iceberg principle, that 90% of the work is not tied to the UI and so easier to keep modular.
finally, i recommend "the pragmatic programmer" by andrew hunt and dave thomas as full of tips. my personal favourite is DRY -- "don't repeat yourself" -- any code which says the same thing twice smells.
iterate small
iterate often
test between iterations
get a simple working product out asap so the client can give input.
Basically assume stuff WILL get thrown out, so code appropriately, and don't get far enough into something that having it be thrown out costs a lot of time.
G'day,
Looking through the other answers here I notice that everyone is mentioning what to do for your next project.
One thing that seems to be missing though is having a washup to find out why the spec. was out of sync. with the actual requirements needed by the customer.
I'm just worried that if you don't do this, no matter what approach you are taking to implementing your next project, if you've still got that mismatch between actual requirements and the spec. for your next project then you'll once again be in the same situation.
It might be something as simple as bad communication or maybe customer requirement creep.
But at least if you know the cause and you can try and help minimise the chances of it happening again.
Not knocking what other answers are saying and there's some great stuff there, but please learn from what happened so that you're not condemned to repeat it.
HTH
cheers,
Sometimes a rewrite is the best solution!
If you are writing software for a camera, you could assume that the next version will also do video, or stereo video or 3d laser scanning and include all hooks for all this functionality, or you could write such a versatile extensible astronaut architecture that it could cope with the next camera including jet engines - but it will cost so much in money, resources and performance that you might have been better off not doing it.
A complete rewrite for new functionality in a new role isn't always a bad idea.
Like csunwold said, modularizing your code is very important. Write it so that if one piece falls prone to errors, it doesn't muck up the rest of the system. This way, you can debug a single buggy section while being able to safely rely on the rest.
Beyond this, documentation is key. If your code is neatly and clearly annotated, reworking it in the future will be infinitely easier for you or whoever happens to be debugging.
Using source control can be helpful too. If you find a piece of code doesn't work properly, there's always the opportunity to revert back to a past robust iteration.
Although it doesn't directly apply to your example, when writing code I try to keep an eye out for ways in which I can see the software evolving in the future.
Basically I try to anticipate where the software will go, but critically, I resist the temptation to implement any of the things I can imagine happening. All I am after is trying to make the APIs and interfaces support possible futures without implementing those features yet, in the hope that these 'possible scenarios' help me come up with a better and more future-proof interface.
Doesn't always work ofcourse.
I'm starting on a project where strings are written into the code most of the time. Many strings might only be used in a few places but some strings are common throughout many pages.
Is it a good use of my time to refactor the literals into constants being that the app is pretty well established and runs well? What would be the long-term benefits to doing so?
One common thing to consider would be i18n. If you (or your muckity-mucks) ever want to sell your product in Mexico or France (etc.) you're going to appreciate having those string literals not littered throughout the code base.
EDIT: I realize this doesn't directly answer your question, so I'm voting up some of the other answers re: rule of three, and the like. I understand you're talking about an existing code base, so it's a little late to talk about incorporating i18n from the start. It's so easy to do when you're in the habit from the start.
I like to apply the rule of three when refactoring. If it happens three or more times, then the code needs to be updated.
Only if this project needs to be supported into the future is this a good use of time. If you will be regularly maintaining/expanding this system; however, this is a great idea.
1) There is a large degree of risk associated with string literals as a single misspelling can usually only be detected at run time. The reduced risk of run time errors is a serious advantage as they can be embarrassing/frustrating.
2) Also, should they ever need to be changed, for example when they are used to reference another system (like table names, server names etc) they can be very difficult to update when those other system names change. Centralize them and it's a trivial issue.
If a string is used in more than one place, refactor it. If it is only used in one place, leave it alone.
If you've refactored out all your common strings, it makes it easier to internationalize/translate them. It's even easier if they're all in properties files, or whatever your language equivalent is.
Is it a good use of my time to refactor the literals into constants being that the app is pretty well established and runs well?
No, you better leave it like it is.
What would be the long-term benefits to doing so?
If no one ever touch that code, the benefits are none.
What you can do, however is avoid adding new literals. But I would pretty much leave existing the way they are.
You could probably refactor them in your free to sleep better.
Probably there are some other bugs already that need your attention. Fix those instead.
Finally, if you manage you add "refactoring" to your task list, go ahead!!!
I agree with JMD, just keep in mind that there is more to i18n than changing strings(currencies, UI must be adpated to Right-to-left languages etc)
Even if you don´t wish to 18n your application it would be useful to refactor your strings, since that string that is used today only once, maybe reused tomorrow several times, and if it´s hardcoded you may be not aware of it and star replicating string all over the place.
Best let sleeping dogs lie. If you need to change a string that's used eighteen-lumpy times, yeah, go ahead and turn it into a constant somewhere. If you find yourself working in a module that has a string that could be constant-ize, do it if you feel like it. But going through the whole app changing all strings to constants... that should be on the very bottom of the to-do list.
Hear lately I've been listening to Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky's radio show and they have been talking about dogfooding (the process of reusing your own code, see Jeff Atwood's blog post). So my question is should programmers use decompilers to see how that programmers code is implemented and works, to make sure it won't break your code. Or should you just trust that programmers code and adapt to it because using decompilers go against everything we as programmers have ever learn about hiding data (well OO programmers at least)?
Note: I wasn't sure which tags this would go under so feel free to retag it.
Edit: Just to clarify I was asking about decompilers as a last resort, say you can't get the source code for some reason. Sorry, I should have supplied this in the original question.
Yes, It can be useful to use the output of a decompiler, but not for what you suggest. The output of a compiler doesn't ever look much like what a human would write (except when it does.) It can't tell you why the code does what it does, or what a particular variable should mean. It's unlikely to be worth the trouble to do this unless you already have the source.
If you do have the source, then there are lots of good reasons to use a decompiler in your development process.
Most often, the reasons for using the output of a decompiler is to better optimize code. Sometimes, with high optimization settings, a compiler will just get it wrong. This can be almost impossible to sort out in some cases without comparing the output of the compiler at different levels of optimization.
Other times, when trying to squeeze the most performance out of a very hot code path, a developer can try arranging their code in a few different ways and compare the compiled results. As a last resort, this may be the simplest way to start when implementing a code block in assembly language, by duplicating the compiler's output.
Dogfooding is the process of using the code that you write, not necessarily re-using code.
However, code re-use typically means you have the source, hence 'code-reuse' otherwise its just using a library supplied by someone else.
Decompiling is hard to get right, and the output is typically very hard to follow.
You should use a decompiler if it is the tool that's required to get the job done. However, I don't think it's the proper use of a decompiler to get an idea of how well the code which is being decompiled was written. Depending on the language you use, the decompiled code can be very different from the code which was actually written. If you want to see some real code, look at open source code. If you want to see the code of some particular product, it's probably better to try to get access to the actual code through some legal means.
I'm not sure what exactly it is you are asking, what you expect "decompilers" to show you, or what this has to do with Atwood and Spolsky, or what the question is exactly. If you're programming to public interfaces then why would you need to see the original source of the the third party code to see if it will "break" your code? You could more effectively build tests to in order to determine this. As well, what the "decompiler" will tell you largely depends on the language/platform the software was written in, whether it is Java, .NET, C and so forth. It's not the same as having the original source to read, even in the case of .NET assemblies. Anyway, if you are worried about third party code not working for you then you should really be doing typical kinds of unit tests against the code rather than trying to "decompile" it. As far as whether you "should," if you mean whether you "should" in some other way other than what would be the best use of your time then I'm not sure what you mean.
Should Programmers Use Decompilers?
Use the right tool for the right job. Decompilers don't often produce results that are easy to understand, but sometimes they are what's needed.
should programmers use decompilers to
see how that programmers code is
implemented and works, to make sure it
won't break your code.
No, not unless you find a problem and need support. In general you don't use it if you don't trust it, and if you have to use it you even when you don't trust it you develop tests to prove the functionality and verify that later upgrades still work as expected.
Don't use functionality you don't test, unless you have very good support or a relationship of trust.
-Adam
Or should you just trust that programmers code and adapt to it because using decompilers go against everything we as programmers have ever learn about hiding data (well OO programmers at least)?
This is not true at all. You would use a decompiler not because you want to get around any sort of abstraction, encapsulation, or defeat OO principles, but because you want to understand why the code is behaving the way it is better.
Sometimes you need to use a decompiler (or in the Java world, a bytecode viewer) when you are troubleshooting an annoying bug with a 3rd party library where an exception is thrown with no useful error message, no logging, etc.
Use of a decompiler has nothing to do with OO principles.
The short answer to this... Program to a public and documented specification, not to an implementation. Relying on implementation specifics and side-effects will burn you.
Decompilation is not a tool to help you program correctly, though it might, in a pinch, assist you in understanding a problem with someone else's code for which you don't have source.
Also, beware of the possible legal risk of decompiling; many software companies have no-decompile clauses which could expose you and your employer to legal consequences.