Related
Almost everywhere I worked I met lots of people who didn't care that they produced massive amounts of boilerplate code.
For me this is one of the worst things ever, it leads to errors, it is boring and it increases the noise.
Worst example may be even Microsofts unwillingness to give us a better syntax for this annoying "INotifyPropertyChanged" - stuff. You can't use automatically generated properties, you have to create a big redundancy (replicating the property name in the call to "OnPropertyChanged" or whatever your raiser method is called).
Some people go as far as to accept that most programs in many programming languages consist of mostly the same repeated code (noise), not interesting stuff (signal). See MSDN - examples for example, there is so much unneeded, repeated code all over the place (the horrible "INotifyPropertyChanged" - pattern that ruins all the flow being only the tip of the iceberg).
However, when I raise this issue and propose solutions like AOP (PostSharp.NET) or using delegates (for the non - C# - folks: anonymous functions, often realized using a lambda operator), all I get is "we don't care".
Anyone else here troubled by the insane amount of noise introduced by boilerplate code and who wants to think about ways to push solutions to the boilerplate - issue?
For what it's worth, I'm completely on your side.
The boilerplate folks argue that the repetitive, redundant code is "automatic" or "consistent" and therefore doesn't contribute to code complexity. Often when a language forces developers to create boilerplate, the industry creates IDEs and other crutches to automate the process. Then, when the apparent cost of producing that boilerplate code approaches zero, people think it doesn't cost anything.
They're wrong: Boilerplate code contributes to code bulk, and anyone maintaining code has to dig through the irrelevant code to get at the important parts. Also, since auto-generated code can and often does get edited, it can hide bugs introduced by typos, incomplete renaming or other accidents. The cost of boilerplate code is not in its creation but in its maintenance - which many projects try to ignore completely.
In the '80s, I saw trade mags plastered with ads for memory leak debuggers for C++, and it was an obvious sign to me that memory management in C++ is seriously broken. Now, in the vicinity of Java and C#, I see a proliferation of code generating assists, and that indicates to me that those languages have issues that would be better solved elsewhere.
Scala has issues of its own, but I love what they've done with properties and auto-initializing constructors.
Just kill'em. No, really, if someone writes boilerplate code and doesn't care to improve it, I doubt we may call him professional. It often happens that management wants to see tasks done fast and only thing that's left is to push out some write-only boilerplate code just to make them happy. If your management encourages such approach - change your job.
I have a big mess of code. Admittedly, I wrote it myself - a year ago. It's not well commented but it's not very complicated either, so I can understand it -- just not well enough to know where to start as far as refactoring it.
I violated every rule that I have read about over the past year. There are classes with multiple responsibilities, there are indirect accesses (I forget the term - something like foo.bar.doSomething()), and like I said it is not well commented. On top of that, it's the beginnings of a game, so the graphics is coupled with the data, or the places where I tried to decouple graphics and data, I made the data public in order for the graphics to be able to access the data it needs...
It's a huge mess! Where do I start? How would you start on something like this?
My current approach is to take variables and switch them to private and then refactor the pieces that break, but that doesn't seem to be enough. Please suggest other strategies for wading through this mess and turning it into something clean so that I can continue where I left off!
Update two days later: I have been drawing out UML-like diagrams of my classes, and catching some of the "Low Hanging Fruit" along the way. I've even found some bits of code that were the beginnings of new features, but as I'm trying to slim everything down, I've been able to delete those bits and make the project feel cleaner. I'm probably going to refactor as much as possible before rigging my test cases (but only the things that are 100% certain not to impact the functionality, of course!), so that I won't have to refactor test cases as I change functionality. (do you think I'm doing it right or would it, in your opinion, be easier for me to suck it up and write the tests first?)
Please vote for the best answer so that I can mark it fairly! Feel free to add your own answer to the bunch as well, there's still room for you! I'll give it another day or so and then probably mark the highest-voted answer as accepted.
Thanks to everyone who has responded so far!
June 25, 2010: I discovered a blog post which directly answers this question from someone who seems to have a pretty good grasp of programming: (or maybe not, if you read his article :) )
To that end, I do four things when I
need to refactor code:
Determine what the purpose of the code was
Draw UML and action diagrams of the classes involved
Shop around for the right design patterns
Determine clearer names for the current classes and methods
Pick yourself up a copy of Martin Fowler's Refactoring. It has some good advice on ways to break down your refactoring problem. About 75% of the book is little cookbook-style refactoring steps you can do. It also advocates automated unit tests that you can run after each step to prove your code still works.
As for a place to start, I would sit down and draw out a high-level architecture of your program. You don't have to get fancy with detailed UML models, but some basic UML is not a bad idea. You need a big picture idea of how the major pieces fit together so you can visually see where your decoupling is going to happen. Just a page or two of some basic block diagrams will help with the overwhelming feeling you have right now.
Without some sort of high level spec or design, you just risk getting lost again and ending up with another unmaintainable mess.
If you need to start from scratch, remember that you never truly start from scratch. You have some code and the knowledge you gained from your first time. But sometimes it does help to start with a blank project and pull things in as you go, rather than put out fires in a messy code base. Just remember not to completely throw out the old, use it for its good parts and pull them in as you go.
What was most important for me on different occasions were unit tests: I took a few days to write tests for the old code and then I was free to refactor with confidence. How exactly is a different question, but having the tests made it possible for me to make real, substantial changes to the code.
I'll second everyone's recommendations for Fowler's Refactoring, but in your specific case you may want to look at Michael Feathers' Working Effectively with Legacy Code, which is really perfect for your situation.
Feathers talks about Characterization Tests, which are unit tests not to assert known behaviour of the system but to explore and define the existing (unclear) behaviour -- in the case where you've written your own legacy code, and fixing it yourself, this may not be so important, but if your design is sloppy then it's quite possible there are parts of the code that work by 'magic' and their behaviour isn't clear, even to you -- in that case, characterization tests will help.
One great part of the book is the discussion about finding (or creating) seams in your codebase -- seams are natural 'fault lines', if you like, where you can break into the existing system to start testing it, and pulling it towards a better design. Hard to explain but well worth a read.
There's a brief paper where Feathers fleshes out some of the concepts from the book, but it really is well worth hunting down the whole thing. It's one of my favourites.
Just an additional refactoring that is more important than you think: Name things correctly!
This goes for any variable name and method name. If the name does not accurately reflect what the thing is used for, then rename it to something more accurate. This might require several iterations. If you cannot find a short, and entirely accurate name, then that item does too much and you have an excellent candidate for a code snippet that needs to be split. The names also clearly indicate where the cuts are to be made.
Also, document your stuff. Whenever the answer to WHY? is not clearly conveyed by the answer to HOW? (being the code) you will need to add some documentation. Capturing design decisions is probably the most important task as it is very hard to do in code.
You could always start from "scratch". That doesn't mean scrap it and start from nothing, but try to rethink high-level things from the beginning, since you seem to have learned a lot since the last time you worked on it.
Start from a higher level, and as you build the scaffolding of your new and improved structure, take all the code you can reuse, which will probably be more than you think if you're willing to read through it and make some small changes.
When you're making the changes, be sure to be strict with yourself about following all the good practices you now know, because you will really thank yourself later.
It can be surprisingly refreshing to properly re-make program to do exactly what it did before, only more "cleanly". ;)
As others have mentioned as well, unit-tests are your best friend! They help you ensure that your refactoring works, and if you're starting from "scratch", it's the perfect time to write them.
You're in a much better position than many people facing this problem in that you understand what the code is supposed to do.
Taking variables out of a shared scope, as you're doing, is a great start, in that you're partitioning responsibilities. Ultimately you want each class to express a single responsibility. A few other things you might look at:
Easy targets for refactoring are code that's duplicated in lots of places and long methods.
If you're managing application state through statically initialized singletons or worse, a global state that everything is talking to, consider moving it to a managed initialization system (i.e. a dependency injection framework like spring or guice) or at least make sure that the initialization isn't entangled with the rest of the code.
Centralize and standardize how you're accessing outside resources, especially if you've got things like file locations or urls hardcoded.
Buy an IDE that has good refactoring support. I think IntelliJ is the best, but Eclipse has it now, too.
The unit test idea is key as well. You will want to have a suite of large, overall transactions that will give you the overall behavior of the code.
Once you have those, start creating unit tests for classes and smaller packages. Write the tests to demonstrate proper behavior, make your changes, and re-run the tests to demonstrate that you haven't broken everything.
Track code coverage as you go. You'll want to work it up to 70% or better. For the classes you change, you'll want those to be 70% or better before you make your changes.
Build up that safety net over time and you'll be able to refactor with some confidence.
very slowly :D
No seriously... take it one step at a time. For instance, refactor something only if it affects or helps you write the current bug/feature that you are working on right now and do no more than that. And before you refactor make darn sure that you have some kind of automated test in place that gets run on each build that will actually test what you are writing/refactoring. Even if you don't have unit tests, it is never too late to start adding them for all new and modified code that is being written. Over time, your code base will get better in small increments daily or weekly instead of worse - all without you making monumental heaps of changes.
In my personal opinion and experience, it's not worth it to just refactor a (legacy) codebase en masse for the sake of refactoring. In those cases, it's best to just start from scratch and do it right all over again (and very rarely are you afforded the opportunity to do such a thing). Hence, just refactoring incremental is the way to go.
For Java code, my favorite first step is to run Findbugs and then remove all the dead stores, un-used fields, unreachable catch blocks, unused private methods and likely bugs.
Next I run CPD to look for evidence of cut-copy-paste code.
It isn't unusual to be able to reduce the code base by 5% by doing this. It also saves you from refactoring code that is never used.
I think you should use Eclipse as a IDE because it is having many plugins and free of cost.You should now follow the MVC pattern and yes must write test cases using JUnit.Eclipse also have plugin for JUnit and it is providing code refactoring facility too so that will reduce your some work.And always remember that writing a code is not important the main thing is to write clean code.So now give comments everywhere so that not only you but any other person read the code then while reading the code he must feel that he is reading an essay.
Refactor the low-hanging fruit. Nibble away at the easy bits, and as you do that, the harder bits will begin to be a little easier. When there aren't any bits left to refactor, you're done.
The refactorings you'll probably find most useful are Rename Method (and even more trivial Renamings like Field, Variable, and Parameter), Extract Method, and Extract Class. For each refactoring you perform, write the necessary unit tests to make the refactoring safe, and run the entire suite of unit tests after each refactoring. It's tempting - and, let's be honest, pretty safe - to rely on the automated refactorings of your IDE, without the tests - but it's good practice and will be good to have the tests into the future as you add functionality to your project.
You might want to look at Martin Fowler's book Refactoring. This is the book that popularized the term and technique (my thought when taking his course: "I've been doing a lot of this all along, I didn't know it had a name"). A quote from the link:
Refactoring is a controlled technique
for improving the design of an
existing code base. Its essence is
applying a series of small
behavior-preserving transformations,
each of which "too small to be worth
doing". However the cumulative effect
of each of these transformations is
quite significant. By doing them in
small steps you reduce the risk of
introducing errors. You also avoid
having the system broken while you are
carrying out the restructuring - which
allows you to gradually refactor a
system over an extended period of
time.
As others have pointed out, unit tests will allow you to refactor with confidence. And start by reducing code duplication. The book will give you lots of other insights.
Here is a catalog of refactorings.
The correct definition of messy code, is code that hard to maintain and change.
To use more mathematical definition, you can check your code by code metrics tools.
This way, you will keep the code that already good enough, and find very fast, the wrong code.
My experience say, that is very powerful way to improve the quality of your code. (if your tool can show you the result on each build or on realtime)
Throw it away, build it new.
My team and support a large number of legacy applications all of which are currently functional but problematic to support and maintain. They all depend on code that the compiler manufacture has officially no support for.
So the question is should we leave the code as is, and risk a new compiler breaking our code, or should we bite the bullet and update all the code?
The answer is totally dependant on the resources your employer (or yourself) can afford to make the refactoring (or even totally rewrite big parts).
So you should first estimate how much time/developers you can afford to refactoring the application, then see if you think it'll be enough.
If you can afford time and people, then do it, don't hesitate! You're investing in the future by reducing the time to debug the application so it will be helpful and less expensive once the refactoring is done.
It depends on the nature of the applications, just how big and important they are, as well as the programming culture at your workplace, and the resources available to you.
If the applications are valuable enough to you that they are worth the trouble, and you have the necessary resources, then do the update. Don't let the problem persist.
If they are not valuable enough to be worth a full-scale update effort, or appropriate resources are not at hand, perhaps work on updating one at a time if possible.
Just some suggestions, but again this greatly depends on you and your organization.
It sounds like you have a large technical debt. This debt is only going to increase unless you do something. Both things you mentioned are options, and risky, but long term it's a risk you need to take.
Using an updated compiler just means you need to update the code to work in the new compiler. Something is bound to break, but then refactor the parts that break. This allows you to migrate.
The other option is to update your entire code base. This takes time, during which you need to maintain 2 copies of the code, or freeze the old version. Freezing the old version is probably not an option.
I would recommend using an updated compiler and fixing what breaks. This allows you to add features, while refactoring and fixing the current codebase.
Rewriting the code can be an useful step for you company for many reasons:
you can use a new compiler and a more recent platform
you can refactor the code deleting its weaknesses
you can motivate your people because developing new code is better than correct bugs in an old one.
Why don't you start that activity with a small number of people, beginning from the most common parts of the code? You can group them into a dll and use it also for future projects.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
As we program, we all develop practices and patterns that we use and rely on. However, over time, as our understanding, maturity, and even technology usage changes, we come to realize that some practices that we once thought were great are not (or no longer apply).
An example of a practice I once used quite often, but have in recent years changed, is the use of the Singleton object pattern.
Through my own experience and long debates with colleagues, I've come to realize that singletons are not always desirable - they can make testing more difficult (by inhibiting techniques like mocking) and can create undesirable coupling between parts of a system. Instead, I now use object factories (typically with a IoC container) that hide the nature and existence of singletons from parts of the system that don't care - or need to know. Instead, they rely on a factory (or service locator) to acquire access to such objects.
My questions to the community, in the spirit of self-improvement, are:
What programming patterns or practices have you reconsidered recently, and now try to avoid?
What did you decide to replace them with?
//Coming out of university, we were taught to ensure we always had an abundance
//of commenting around our code. But applying that to the real world, made it
//clear that over-commenting not only has the potential to confuse/complicate
//things but can make the code hard to follow. Now I spend more time on
//improving the simplicity and readability of the code and inserting fewer yet
//relevant comments, instead of spending that time writing overly-descriptive
//commentaries all throughout the code.
Single return points.
I once preferred a single return point for each method, because with that I could ensure that any cleanup needed by the routine was not overlooked.
Since then, I've moved to much smaller routines - so the likelihood of overlooking cleanup is reduced and in fact the need for cleanup is reduced - and find that early returns reduce the apparent complexity (the nesting level) of the code. Artifacts of the single return point - keeping "result" variables around, keeping flag variables, conditional clauses for not-already-done situations - make the code appear much more complex than it actually is, make it harder to read and maintain. Early exits, and smaller methods, are the way to go.
Trying to code things perfectly on the first try.
Trying to create perfect OO model before coding.
Designing everything for flexibility and future improvements.
In one word overengineering.
Hungarian notation (both Forms and Systems).
I used to prefix everything. strSomeString or txtFoo.
Now I use someString and textBoxFoo. It's far more readable and easier for someone new to come along and pick up. As an added bonus, it's trivial to keep it consistant -- camelCase the control and append a useful/descriptive name. Forms Hungarian has the drawback of not always being consistent and Systems Hungarian doesn't really gain you much. Chunking all your variables together isn't really that useful -- especially with modern IDE's.
The "perfect" architecture
I came up with THE architecture a couple of years ago. Pushed myself technically as far as I could so there were 100% loosely coupled layers, extensive use of delegates, and lightweight objects. It was technical heaven.
And it was crap. The technical purity of the architecture just slowed my dev team down aiming for perfection over results and I almost achieved complete failure.
We now have much simpler less technically perfect architecture and our delivery rate has skyrocketed.
The use of caffine. It once kept me awake and in a glorious programming mood, where the code flew from my fingers with feverous fluidity. Now it does nothing, and if I don't have it I get a headache.
Commenting out code. I used to think that code was precious and that you can't just delete those beautiful gems that you crafted. I now delete any commented-out code I come across unless there's a TODO or NOTE attached because it's too perilous to leave it in. To wit, I've come across old classes with huge commented-out portions and it really confused me why they were there: were they recently commented out? is this a dev environment change? why does it do this unrelated block?
Seriously consider not commenting out code and just deleting it instead. If you need it, it's still in source control. YAGNI though.
The overuse / abuse of #region directives. It's just a little thing, but in C#, I previously would use #region directives all over the place, to organize my classes. For example, I'd group all class properties together in a region.
Now I look back at old code and mostly just get annoyed by them. I don't think it really makes things clearer most of the time, and sometimes they just plain slow you down.
So I have now changed my mind and feel that well laid out classes are mostly cleaner without region directives.
Waterfall development in general, and in specific, the practice of writing complete and comprehensive functional and design specifications that are somehow expected to be canonical and then expecting an implementation of those to be correct and acceptable. I've seen it replaced with Scrum, and good riddance to it, I say. The simple fact is that the changing nature of customer needs and desires makes any fixed specification effectively useless; the only way to really properly approach the problem is with an iterative approach. Not that Scrum is a silver bullet, of course; I've seen it misused and abused many, many times. But it beats waterfall.
Never crashing.
It seems like such a good idea, doesn't it? Users don't like programs that crash, so let's write programs that don't crash, and users should like the program, right? That's how I started out.
Nowadays, I'm more inclined to think that if it doesn't work, it shouldn't pretend it's working. Fail as soon as you can, with a good error message. If you don't, your program is going to crash even harder just a few instructions later, but with some nondescript null-pointer error that'll take you an hour to debug.
My favorite "don't crash" pattern is this:
public User readUserFromDb(int id){
User u = null;
try {
ResultSet rs = connection.execute("SELECT * FROM user WHERE id = " + id);
if (rs.moveNext()){
u = new User();
u.setFirstName(rs.get("fname"));
u.setSurname(rs.get("sname"));
// etc
}
} catch (Exception e) {
log.info(e);
}
if (u == null){
u = new User();
u.setFirstName("error communicating with database");
u.setSurname("error communicating with database");
// etc
}
u.setId(id);
return u;
}
Now, instead of asking your users to copy/paste the error message and sending it to you, you'll have to dive into the logs trying to find the log entry. (And since they entered an invalid user ID, there'll be no log entry.)
I thought it made sense to apply design patterns whenever I recognised them.
Little did I know that I was actually copying styles from foreign programming languages, while the language I was working with allowed for far more elegant or easier solutions.
Using multiple (very) different languages opened my eyes and made me realise that I don't have to mis-apply other people's solutions to problems that aren't mine. Now I shudder when I see the factory pattern applied in a language like Ruby.
Obsessive testing. I used to be a rabid proponent of test-first development. For some projects it makes a lot of sense, but I've come to realize that it is not only unfeasible, but rather detrimental to many projects to slavishly adhere to a doctrine of writing unit tests for every single piece of functionality.
Really, slavishly adhering to anything can be detrimental.
This is a small thing, but: Caring about where the braces go (on the same line or next line?), suggested maximum line lengths of code, naming conventions for variables, and other elements of style. I've found that everyone seems to care more about this than I do, so I just go with the flow of whoever I'm working with nowadays.
Edit: The exception to this being, of course, when I'm the one who cares the most (or is the one in a position to set the style for a group). In that case, I do what I want!
(Note that this is not the same as having no consistent style. I think a consistent style in a codebase is very important for readability.)
Perhaps the most important "programming practice" I have since changed my mind about, is the idea that my code is better than everyone else's. This is common for programmers (especially newbies).
Utility libraries. I used to carry around an assembly with a variety of helper methods and classes with the theory that I could use them somewhere else someday.
In reality, I just created a huge namespace with a lot of poorly organized bits of functionality.
Now, I just leave them in the project I created them in. In all probability I'm not going to need it, and if I do, I can always refactor them into something reusable later. Sometimes I will flag them with a //TODO for possible extraction into a common assembly.
Designing more than I coded.
After a while, it turns into analysis paralysis.
The use of a DataSet to perform business logic. This binds the code too tightly to the database, also the DataSet is usually created from SQL which makes things even more fragile. If the SQL or the Database changes it tends to trickle to everything the DataSet touches.
Performing any business logic inside an object constructor. With inheritance and the ability to create overloaded constructors tend to make maintenance difficult.
Abbreviating variable/method/table/... Names
I used to do this all of the time, even when working in languages with no enforced limits on lengths of names (well they were probably 255 or something). One of the side-effects were a lot of comments littered throughout the code explaining the (non-standard) abbreviations. And of course, if the names were changed for any reason...
Now I much prefer to call things what they really are, with good descriptive names. including standard abbreviations only. No need to include useless comments, and the code is far more readable and understandable.
Wrapping existing Data Access components, like the Enterprise Library, with a custom layer of helper methods.
It doesn't make anybody's life easier
Its more code that can have bugs in it
A lot of people know how to use the EntLib data access components. No one but the local team knows how to use the in house data access solution
I first heard about object-oriented programming while reading about Smalltalk in 1984, but I didn't have access to an o-o language until I used the cfront C++ compiler in 1992. I finally got to use Smalltalk in 1995. I had eagerly anticipated o-o technology, and bought into the idea that it would save software development.
Now, I just see o-o as one technique that has some advantages, but it's just one tool in the toolbox. I do most of my work in Python, and I often write standalone functions that are not class members, and I often collect groups of data in tuples or lists where in the past I would have created a class. I still create classes when the data structure is complicated, or I need behavior associated with the data, but I tend to resist it.
I'm actually interested in doing some work in Clojure when I get the time, which doesn't provide o-o facilities, although it can use Java objects if I understand correctly. I'm not ready to say anything like o-o is dead, but personally I'm not the fan I used to be.
In C#, using _notation for private members. I now think it's ugly.
I then changed to this.notation for private members, but found I was inconsistent in using it, so I dropped that too.
I stopped going by the university recommended method of design before implementation. Working in a chaotic and complex system has forced me to change attitude.
Of course I still do code research, especially when I'm about to touch code I've never touched before, but normally I try to focus on as small implementations as possible to get something going first. This is the primary goal. Then gradually refine the logic and let the design just appear by itself. Programming is an iterative process and works very well with an agile approach and with lots of refactoring.
The code will not look at all what you first thought it would look like. Happens every time :)
I used to be big into design-by-contract. This meant putting a lot of error checking at the beginning of all my functions. Contracts are still important, from the perspective of separation of concerns, but rather than try to enforce what my code shouldn't do, I try to use unit tests to verify what it does do.
I would use static's in a lot of methods/classes as it was more concise. When I started writing tests that practice changed very quickly.
Checked Exceptions
An amazing idea on paper - defines the contract clearly, no room for mistake or forgetting to check for some exception condition. I was sold when I first heard about it.
Of course, it turned to be such a mess in practice. To the point of having libraries today like Spring JDBC, which has hiding legacy checked exceptions as one of its main features.
That anything worthwhile was only coded in one particular language. In my case I believed that C was the best language ever and I never had any reason to code anything in any other language... ever.
I have since come to appreciate many different languages and the benefits/functionality they offer. If I want to code something small - quickly - I would use Python. If I want to work on a large project I would code in C++ or C#. If I want to develop a brain tumour I would code in Perl.
When I needed to do some refactoring, I thought it was faster and cleaner to start straightaway and implement the new design, fixing up the connections until they work. Then I realized it's better to do a series of small refactorings to slowly but reliably progress towards the new design.
Perhaps the biggest thing that has changed in my coding practices, as well as in others, is the acceptance of outside classes and libraries downloaded from the internet as the basis for behaviors and functionality in applications. In school at the time I attended college we were encouraged to figure out how to make things better via our own code and rely upon the language to solve our problems. With the advances in all aspects of user interface and service/data consumption this is no longer a realistic notion.
There are certain things which will never change in a language, and having a library that wraps this code in a simpler transaction and in fewer lines of code that I have to write is a blessing. Connecting to a database will always be the same. Selecting an element within the DOM will not change. Sending an email via a server-side script will never change. Having to write this time and again wastes time that I could be using to improve my core logic in the application.
Initializing all class members.
I used to explicitly initialize every class member with something, usually NULL. I have come to realize that this:
normally means that every variable is initialized twice before ever being read
is silly because in most languages automatically initialize variables to NULL.
actually enforces a slight performance hit in most languages
can bloat code on larger projects
Like you, I also have embraced IoC patterns in reducing coupling between various components of my apps. It makes maintenance and parts-swapping much simpler, as long as I can keep each component as independent as possible. I'm also utilizing more object-relational frameworks such as NHibernate to simplify database management chores.
In a nutshell, I'm using "mini" frameworks to aid in building software more quickly and efficiently. These mini-frameworks save lots of time, and if done right can make an application super simple to maintain down the road. Plug 'n Play for the win!
I have heard many developers refer to code as "legacy". Most of the time it is code that has been written by someone who no longer works on the project. What is it that makes code, legacy code?
Update in response to:
"Something handed down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legacy. Clearly you wanted to know something else. Could you clarify or expand your question? S.Lott
I am looking for the symptoms of legacy code that make it unusable or a nightmare to work with. When is it better to throw it away? It is my opinion that code should be thrown away more often and that reinventing the wheel is valuable part of development. The academic ideal of not reinventing the wheel is a nice one but it is not very practical.
On the other hand there is obviously legacy code worth keeping.
By using hardware, software, APIs, languages, technologies or features that are either no longer supported or have been superceded, typically combined with little to no possibility of ever replacing that code, instead using it til it or the system dies.
What is it that makes code, legacy code?
As with plain legacy, when the author is dead or missing, you as a heir get all or some of his code.
You shed some tears and try to figure out what to do with all this rubbish.
Michael Feathers has an interesting definition in his book Working Effectively with Legacy Code. According to him legacy code is code without automated tests.
It is a very general (and oft abused term) but any of the following would be legitimate reasons to call an app legacy:
The code base is based on a language/platform which is entirely unsupported by the manufacturer of the original product (often said manufacturer has gone out of business).
(really 1a) The code base or platform on which it is built is so old that getting qualified or experienced developers for the system is both hard and expensive.
The application supports some aspect of the business which is no longer actively grown and for which alterations are extremely rare, normally to fix it if something entirely unexpected changes around it (the canonical example being the Y2K issue) or if some regulation/external pressure forces it. Since both reasons are pressing and normally unavoidable but no significant development has occurred on the project it is likely that those people assigned to deal with this will be unfamiliar with the system (and it's accumulated behaviours and intricacies). In these cases this would often be reason to increase the perceived and planned for risk associated with the project.
The system has/or is being replaced with another. As such the system may be used for much less than originally intended, or perhaps only as a means of viewing historical data.
Legacy generally refers to code that is no longer being developed - meaning that if you use it, you have to use it on its original terms - you cannot just edit it to support the way the world looks today. For example, legacy code has to run on hardware that may not exist today - or is no longer supported.
According to Michael Feathers, the author of the excellent Working Effectively with Legacy Code, legacy code is a code which has no tests. When there is no way to know what breaks when this code changes.
The main thing that distinguishes
legacy code from non-legacy code is
tests, or rather a lack of tests. We
can get a sense of this with a little
thought experiment: how easy would it
be to modify your code base if it
could bite back, if it could tell you
when you made a mistake? It would be
pretty easy, wouldn't it? Most of the
fear involved in making changes to
large code bases is fear of
introducing subtle bugs; fear of
changing things inadvertently. With
tests, you can make things better with
impunity. To me, the difference is so
critical, it overwhelms any other
distinction. With tests, you can make
things better. Without them, you just
don’t know whether things are getting
better or worse.
Nobody is gonna read this, but I feel the other answers don't get it quite right:
It has value, if it wasn't useful it would've been thrown away long ago
Its hard to reason about because either of
Lack of documentation,
Original author cannot be found or forgot (yes 2 months later your code can be legacy code too!!),
Lack of tests or typesystem
Doesn't follow modern practices (ie no context to hold on too)
There is a requirement to change or extend it.
If there isn't a requirement to change it, it isn't legacy code
since nobody cares about it. It does its thing and there is nobody
around to call it legacy code.
A colleague once told me that legacy code was any code that you hadn't written yourself.
Arguably, it's just a pejorative term for code that we don't like any more for whatever reason (typically because it's not cool or fashionable but it works).
The TDD brigade might suggest that any code without tests is legacy code.
Legacy code is source code that relates to a no-longer supported or manufactured operating system or other computer technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_code
"Legacy code is source code that relates to a no-longer supported or manufactured "
Any code with support (or documentation) missing. Be it:
inline comments
technical documentation
spoken documentation (the person who wrote it)
unit tests documenting the workings of the code
For me legacy code is code that was written prior to some paradigm shift.
It may still be very much in use but it is in the process of being refactored to bring it into line.
e.g. Old procedural code hanging around in an otherwise OO system.
Code (or anything else, really) becomes "legacy" when it has been replaced by something newer/better, and yet despite this it's still used and kept alive "in the wild".
Preserving legacy code is not so much an academic ideal as it is keeping code that works, no matter how poorly. In many conservative enterprise situations, that would be considered more practical than throwing it away and starting again from scratch. Better the devil you know...
Legacy code is code that is painful/expensive to keep current with changing requirements.
There are two ways that this can happen:
The code is unsuitable for change
The semantics of the code have been swapped out to silicon
1) is the easier of the two to recognize. It is software that has fundamental limits making it unable to keep up with the ecosystem around it. For example, a system built around O(n^2) algorithm won't scale beyond a certain point and must be re-written if requirements move in that direction. Another example is code using libraries that are not supported on the latest OS versions.
2) Is harder to recognize, but all code of this kind shares the characteristic that people are afraid to change it. This could be because it was badly written/documented to begin with, because it is untested, or because it is non-trivial and the original authors who understood it left the team.
The ASCII/Unicode chars that comprise living code have semantic meaning, the "why's", "what's" and to some degree the "how's", in the minds of people associated with it. Legacy code is either un-owned or the owners do not have meaning associated with large portions of it. Once this happens (and it could happen the next day with really poorly-written code), to change this code, someone must learn it and understand it. This process is a significant fraction of the time it takes to write it in the first place.
The day you're afraid to refactor your code is the day when your code has become legacy.
I consider code "legacy" if any or all of the following conditions apply:
It was written using a language or methodology that is a generation behind current standards
The code is a complete mess with no planning or design behind it
It is written in outdated languages and in an outdated, non object-oriented style
It is difficult to find developers who know the language because it is so old
Unlike some of the other opinions here, I've seen plenty of modern applications that work decently without unit tests. Unit testing still has not caught on with everyone. Perhaps ten years from now the next generation of programmers will look at our current applications and consider them "legacy" for not containing unit tests, just as I consider non object-oriented applications to be legacy.
If few changes need to be made to a legacy codebase, it's better to simply leave it as-is and go with the flow. If the application needs drastic functionality changes, a GUI overhaul, and/or you can't find anyone who knows the programming language, it's time to throw away and start over. A word of warning, however: rewriting from scratch can be very time-consuming, and it's difficult to know if you've replicated all functionality. You'll probably want to have test cases and unit tests written for the legacy application and the new application.
Quite honestly legacy code is any code, framework, api, of other software construct thta's not "cool" anymore. For example COBOL is unanimously regarded as legacy while APL is not. Now one can also make the case that COBOL is consideed legacy and APL not because it has about 1m times the install base as APL. However, if you say that you need to work on APL code the reply would not be "oh no, that legacy stuff" but rather "oh my god, guess you won't be doing anything for the next century" see the difference?
This is a general term thrown around quite often (and quite generically) in the software ecosystem.
Well, I like to think of legacy code as inherited code. This is simply code that was written in the past. In most cases, legacy code do not follow new/current practices and is often considered archaic.
Legacy code is anything written more than a month ago :-)
It's often any code that isn't written in the trendy scripting language du jour, and I'm only half joking.