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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
When writing a mathematical proof, one goal is to continue compressing the proof. The proof gets more elegant but not necessarily more readable. Compression translates to better understanding, as you weed out unnecessary characters and verbosity.
I often hear developers say you should make your code foot print as small as possible. This can very quickly yield unreadable code. In mathematics, it isn't such an issue since the exercise is purely academic. However, in production code where time is money, having people try to figure out what some very concise code is doing doesn't seem to make much sense. For a little more verbose code, you get readability and savings.
At what point do you stop compressing software code?
I try to reach a level of verbosity where my program statements read like a sentence any programmer could understand. This does mean heavily refactoring my code such that it's all short pieces of a story, so each action would be described in a separate method (an even further level might be to another class).
Meaning I would not reduce my number of characters just because it can be expressed in fewer. That's what code-golf competitions are for.
My rule is say what you mean. One common way I see people go wrong is "strength reduction." Basically, they replace the concept they are thinking with something that seems to skip steps. Unfortunately, they are leaving concepts out of their code, making it harder to read.
For example, changing
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
foo[i] = ...
to
int * p = foo, q = foo+n;
while ( *p++ = ... < q );
is an example of a strength reduction that seems to save steps, but it leaves out the fact that foo is an array, making it harder to read.
Another common one is using bool instead of an enum.
enum {
MouseDown,
MouseUp
};
Having this be
bool IsMouseDown;
leaves out the fact that this is a state machine, making the code harder to maintain.
So my rule of thumb would be, in your implementation, don't dig down to a lower level than the concepts you are trying to express.
You can make code smaller by seeing redundancy and eliminating it, or by being clever. Do the former and not the latter.
Here's a good article by Steve McConnell - Best Practices http://www.stevemcconnell.com/ieeesoftware/bp06.htm
I think short/concise are two results from well written code. There are many aspects to make code good and many results from well written code, realize the two are different. You don't plan for a small foot print, you plan for a function that is concise and does a single thing extremely well - this SHOULD lead to a small foot print (but may not). Here's a short list of what I would focus on when writing code:
single focused functions - a function should do only one thing, a simple delivery, multi featured functions are buggy and not easily reusable
loosely coupled - don't reach out from inside one function to global data and don't rely heavily on other functions
precise naming - use meaningful precise variable names, cryptic names are just that
keep the code simple and not complex - don't over use language specific technical wow's, good for impressing others, difficult to easily understand and maintain - if you do add something 'special' comment it so at least people can appreciate it prior to cursing you out
evenly comment - to many comments will be ignored and outdated to few have no meaning
formatting - take pride in how the code looks, properly indented code helps
work with the mind of a code maintenance person - think what it would be like to maintain the code you're writting
do be afraid or to lazy to refactor - nothing is perfect the first time, clean up your own mess
One way to find a balance is to seek for readability and not concise-ness. Programmers are constantly scanning code visually to see what is being done, and so the code should as much as possible flow nicely.
If the programmer is scanning code and hits a section that is hard to understand, or takes some effort to visually parse and understand, it is a bad thing. Using common well understood constructs is important, stay away from the vague and infrequently used unless necessary.
Humans are not compilers. Compilers can eat the stuff and keep moving on. Obscure code is not mentally consumed by humans as quickly as clearly understood code.
At times it is very hard to produce readable code in a complicated algorithm, but for the most part, human readability is what we should look for, and not cleverness. I don't think length of code is really a measure of clearness either, because sometimes a more verbose method is more readable than a concise method, and sometimes a concise method is more readable than a long one.
Also, comments should only supplement, and should not describe your code, your code should describe itself. If you have to comment a line because it isn't obvious what is done, that is bad. It takes longer for most experienced programmers to read an English explanation than it does to read the code itself. I think the book Code Complete hammers this one home.
As far as object names go, the thinking on this has gone through an evolution with the introduction of new programming languages.
If you take the "curly brace" languages, starting with C, brevity was considered the soul of wit. So, you would have a variable to hold a loan value named "lv", for instance. The idea was that you were typing a lot of code, so keep the keystrokes to a minimum.
Then along came the Microsoft-sanctioned "Hungarian notation", where the first letters of a variable name were meant to indicate its underlying type. One might use "fLV", or some such, to indicate that the loan value was represented by a float variable.
With Java, and then C#, the paradigm has become one of clarity. A good name for a loan value variable would be "loanValue". I believe part of the reason for this is the command-completion feature in most modern editors. Since its not necessary to type an entire name anymore, you might as well use as many characters as is needed to be descriptive.
This is a good trend. Code needs to be intelligible. Comments are often added as an afterthought, if at all. They are also not updated as code is updated, so they become out of date. Descriptive, well-chosen, variable names are the first, best and easiest way to let others know what you were coding about.
I had a computer science professor who said "As engineers, we are constantly creating types of things that never existed before. The names that we give them will stick, so we should be careful to name things meaningfully."
There needs to be a balance between short sweet source code and performance. If it is nice source and runs the fastest, then good, but for the sake of nice source it runs like a dog, then bad.
Strive to refactor until the code itself reads well. You'll discover your own mistakes in the process, the code will be easier to grok for the "next guy", and you won't be burdened by maintaining (and later forgetting to change) in comments what you're already expressed in code.
When that fails... sure, leave me a comment.
And don't tell me "what" in the comment (that's what the code is for), tell me "why".
As opposed to long/rambling? Sure!
But it gets to the point where it's so short and so concise that it's hard to understand, then you've gone too far.
Yes. Always.
DRY: Don't Repeat Yourself. That will give you a code that is both concise and secure. Writing the same code several times is a good way to make it hard to maintain.
Now that does not mean you should make a function of any blocks of code looking remotely alike.
A very common error (horror ?) for instance is factorizing code doing nearly the same thing, and to handle the differences between occurences by adding a flag to function API. This may look inocuous at first, but generates code flow hard to understand and bug prone, and even harder to refactor.
If you follow common refactoring rules (looking about code smells) your code will become more and more concise as a side effect as many code smells are about detecting redundancy.
On the other hand, if you try to make the code as short as possible not following any meaningfull guidelines, at some point you will have to stop because you just won't see any more how to reduce code.
Just imagine if the first step is removing all useless whitespaces... after that step code in most programming languages will become so hard to read you won't have much chance to find any other possible enhancement.
The example above is quite caricatural, but not so far from what you get when trying to optimise for size without following any sensible guideline.
There's no exact line that can be drawn to distinguish between code that is glib and code that is flowery. Use your best judgment. Have others look at your code and see how easily they can understand it. But remember, correctness is the number 1 goal.
The need for small code footprints is a throwback from the days of assembly language and the first slightly high level languages... there small code footprints where a real and pressing need. These days though, its not so much of a necessity.
That said, I hate verbose code. Where I work, we write code that reads as much as possible like a natural language, without any extra grammar or words. And we don't abbreviate anything unless its a very common abbreviation.
Company.get_by_name("ABC")
makeHeaderTable()
is about as terse as we go.
In general, I make things obvious and easy to work with. If concision/shortness serves me in that end, all the better. Often short answers are the clearest, so shortness is a byproduct of obvious.
There are a couple points to my mind that determine when to stop optimizing:
Worth of spending time performing optimizations. If you have people spending weeks and not finding anything, are there better uses of those resources?
What is the order of optimization priority. There are a few different factors that one could care about when it comes to code: Execution time, execution space(both running and just the compiled code), scalability, stability, how many features are implemented, etc. Part of this is the trade off of time and space, but it can also be where does some code go, e.g. can middleware execute ad hoc SQL commands or should those be routed through stored procedures to improve performance?
I think the main point is that there is a moderation that most good solutions will have.
The code optimizations have little to do with the coding style. The fact that the file contains x spaces or new lines less than at the beginning does not make it better or faster, at least at the execution stage - you format the code with white characters that are unsually ignored by the compiler. It even makes the code worse, because it becomes unreadable for the other programmers and yourself.
It is much more important for the code to be short and clean in its logical structure, such as testing conditions, control flow, assumptions, error handling or the overall programming interface. Of course, I would also include here smart and useful comments + the documentation.
There is not necessarily a correlation between concise code and performance. This is a myth. In mature languages like C/C++ the compilers are capable of optimizing the code very effectively. There is cause need in such languages to assume that the more concise code is the better performing code. Newer, less performance-optimized languages like Ruby lack the compiler optimization features of C/C++ compilers, but there is still little reason to believe that concise code is better performing. The reality is that we never know how well code will perform in production until it gets into production and is profiled. Simple, innocuous, functions can be huge performance bottlenecks if called from enough locations within the code. In highly concurrent systems the biggest bottlenecks are generally caused by poor concurrency algorithms or excessive locking. These issues are rarely solved by writing "concise" code.
The bottom line is this: Code that performs poorly can always be refactored once profiling determines it is the bottleneck. Code can only be effectively refactored if it is easy to understand. Code that is written to be "concise" or "clever" is often more difficult to refactor and maintain.
Write your code for human readability then refactor for performance when necessary.
My two cents...
Code should be short, concrete, and concentrated. You can always explain your ideas with many words in the comments.
You can make your code as short or compact as you like as long as you comment it. This way your code can be optimized but still make sence. I tend to stay in the middle somewhere with descriptive variables and methods and sparce comments if it is still unclear.
Related
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.
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 understand that this question could be answered with a simple sentence and that it may be viewed as subjective, however, I am a young student who is interested in pursuing a career in programming and wondered how long it took some of you to get to the level of experience you are now?.
I ask this because I am currently working on building an application in Java on the Android platform and it bothers me that I am constantly having to look up how to write a certain section of code in my application such as writing to a database, or how the if statement should be structured.
My question really is, how long did it take for you to become experienced enough to actually know exactly how your next line of code was going to look, before you even wrote it?
The speed at which you can quickly recall language syntax, common library functions, and best practice patterns is directly proportional to the amount of time you spend using them.
In other words you will find yourself getting faster the more you do it.
I have been a C++ programmer for the last 20 years. It has taken me that long to get to this expertise level. I'm mostly a Windows programmer, and I keep the msdn website up on one of my monitors all the time.
Doesn't matter how long you've been doing it. You will never know everything from memory. Don't sweat it.
I've been programing for almost half of my life and I sill can't always recall simple syntax, let alone entire tracks of code for more complex tasks. If you ask me that's what reference books and Google are for.
A far more important skill to have is the general knowledge of programming in any language, i.e. recursion, looping, object oriented design, working with APIs, error handling etc... Once you have all that down, you can apply it to any language and platform.
I can tell you that after 25 years there are lines of code that I don't know how they're exactly going to look like.
Want an example? I'm programming in Java since last century and I can honestly still make a mistake if I were to type hashcode() or hashCode().
Why? Because actually typing such a method name yourself is so last century. Your intention is to override Object's hashCode() method, so you use programming by intention.
You hit Ctrl-O then h and you get a list of the methods starting with an 'h' that you can override. Then you hit enter. As a bonus, the "#Override" gets inserted for you too.
4 keys. 4, to get this:
#Override
public int hashCode() {
}
And honestly, whether hashCode takes an uppercase 'c' or not... I couldn't care less. This is not what an hashcode is about and my intention is not to know all the inconsistencies languages and API designers came up with. My intention is to override the method that gives back an object's hashcode and my (modern) IDE allows me to get that skeleton in four keypresses, including hitting enter.
Another example: there are people who do really type this countless times a day:
for (int i = 0; i < ; i++) {
}
or the more tricky:
for (int i = ; i >= 0; i--) {
}
Note in that latter case I can still mess up and type "i++" instead of "i--" (a 'thinko' as its called).
But I don't care at all, because I type "fi<tab>" (three keys) and I get the first one or "fir<tab>" (four keys, "for i (in) reverse") and I get the second one. You ain't beating that (especially seen that I'm a touch typist so I type these three or four keys fast). In addition to speed, as an added bonus the autocompletion won't mess you "i--".
In many case I don't know exactly the line I'll get: sure, I know it "more or less" and that's exactly the way it should be.
Don't sweat it too much. As others have mentioned it eventually gets easier to write code without looking things up so much as you work with a particular language over time.
HOWEVER
There are a few reasons that even veteran programmers find themselves constantly using reference material:
(1) Unlike days of yore, most projects now require you to use a number of languages to get the job done. For example single web site-project a web-site may require C#, XML, JavaScript, SQL, HTML, XHTML, RegEx and CSS all in the same project. Switching between some of these languages can really throw you for a loop sometimes because many of them are just similar enough to be familiar, but just different enough to make you forget the subtle differences in syntax.
(2) Just when you start getting comfortable that you know a language inside and out, the vendor will release a new update that changes everything you knew about it. For example ASP->ASP.NET.
I still look up simple things fairly frequently and I've been at this almost 20 years. The important thing is that you understand the underlying concepts and principles.
It took me 12 years to get where I am at today, which is my experience in professional programming. You will always improve when working with some programming language, even if you have been working with it for the past 5 years.
About your question, it depends. I think that you should be comfortable with the syntax after a week, comfortable with the main libraries after a month, and comfortable with the platform after 6 months.
But when you get there, don't stop!
If you code every day with the same language, you'll probably have the common language elements and patterns memorized in a month or two. But there are plenty of things that you'll probably never memorize, simply because you don't use them often enough, and also because modern IDE's can help you so much that you don't really need to remember everything if you utilize all their features (like code snippets, shortcuts, intellisense).
I've been coding for 15 years, and doing C# for the last three, and I still use the MSDN reference material every day. However, as far as the basic building blocks of the language are concerned, I had them memorized in the first month or two.
Also, the more often you code, the better you'll commit it to memory.
There's a false assumption going on here I think...
At my job I end up working all over the stack in different languages and platforms. If I'm away from a project for 6 months I end up having to look at code to get even basic things done. The advantage of experience is reducing the re-ramp up time on productivity though.
So, instead of it taking weeks or months to get back to a point where I can write 80% of the code from memory it takes a few or several days (if that sometimes). I've been programming for about 5 years now. I'm just now getting to the point of being able to visualize small applications in their entirety.
As long as you're working on solving a problem that you haven't already solved (numerous times) you'll probably always have to look up code.
If it can be done I'm guessing it takes longer than 5 years for most people, unless they work in one language with one editor and in one area. (ex: C#, Visual Studio, file system operations) My company isn't big enough to employee someone that specific.
Don't be downhearted by having to consult documentation all the time man, that's what it's there for. Over time you get used to syntax and things like that but don't sweat it if you can't remember library methods or ways to connect to a DB.
Over time (with experience) you might remember these off the top of your head but in reality there's nothing wrong with taking a quick consultation of the documentation to refresh the memory.
Also remember that technology is ever changing so it's good to keep the mind fresh with new ways of thinking/ways to do things.
Question is not 100% clear. One of the best programmers I know doesn't remember anything and needs to look up printf formatting strings almost daily. On the other hand if you are having hard time figuring out how to write that for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) loop after doing this for 6 months -- that doesn't sound right.
the idea that one could every bit of code from even a single language and then type plainly from memory is pretty far out. the amount of pre-defined functions for, say PHP or Java alone is immense.
but that being said, its important to learn the programming structures, and know them the best you can. structures like foreach, if then else, switch, etc. are really the things that need to be integrated thoroughly. also, conceptual things like Object Orientation (not just "using" objects like mysqli, but understanding things like controlling code, client code, bottom-up and top-down architecture) are the real things that make good programmers great. for myself, i know that i have not the capacity to learn every defined function thats provided by language writers so i instead learn whether or not it can be done(and of course still try on occasion to do things that cant be done, lol). if you know that, then its a matter of google and books to find the "specific" mechanisms on how.
cheers my friend.
Not an answer per se, but I just wanted to say that as a novice myself, this q&a is one of the most useful things I've read on SO. It seems that yes, experts can probably code the basic stuff from memory, but even they revert to book for complex problems, and for beginners, that's what the book is for.
I feel like I'm just beginning
You should use code snippet if you are using certain piece of code repeatedly. I doesn't bother me if I cannot remember some piece of code from memory.
For me, it depends heavily on what I'm writing. For example, I doubt that most people ever quite memorize all the parameters to some Windows functions. I may know that I need to call CreateFile on the next line, but don't know all the parameters in order until they're typed in (with help from Intellisense, and sometimes MSDN).
With something that's doing simple computation, I'm a lot more likely to be limited by my typing speed (but I'm a fairly poor typist, so thinking faster than I can type doesn't take much).
That means it's really a question of how much of the time you need to refer to something to type the next line of code -- at first, it's a pretty small percentage, and over time it grows. I doubt it ever gets to 100% for anybody though. I, for one, don't think I'd want it to -- that would indicate I wasn't working on new and different things...
If you use eclipse and java, you may find yourself already there.
Other combinations may be a little slower to a lot slower.
Java has the advantage that it's pretty easy for the environment to build an entire parse tree while you are typing. At any place in your code, typing ctrl-space can give you an entire list of valid options.
Also syntax errors are always underlined.
If you want to go hard core though, I started in C before the day of decent editors and it took me about a year before I typed in more than a few lines and didn't get a compile error.
I don't know about memorization. Repetition is mother of all learning and that applies to all aspects of life. Look at the experienced accountant vs. the novice when filing taxes, who looks up stuff more. But what I did discover recently is that I navigate documentations much quicker and have a sense for going directly to where my question is answered. I got 6h sense - I can see the code! Seriously, it all comes with experience. Still, when learning something completely new, there's no shame in looking up how to do certain things. That's what separates humans right, learning from others. The more you work on something, the better you become.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having to lookup the documentation every time you want to write some code. I got lucky in that once I use a certain function, I don't forget it very easily. However, most of the time, especially when I'm coding in a language that I haven't used in a while,
I start out by writing a flowchart of the algorithm that I want to code - just the pure logic. The most important reason for doing this is so that I don't lose my train of thought and forget the algorithm that solves my problem in the midst of technical problems like syntax and < what library functions exist? >
Then I look at the documentation and check to see if there are simple function calls that will help me accomplish each task in my algorithm
If such functions do not exist, then I either modify my algorithm to accommodate for what functions the language does provide or write helper functions do fill in the gaps.
I only start coding NOW, which is not too difficult to do anymore, because I already have all the relevant functions written down. So now it's just a question of translating pure logic into syntactically accurate code.
Proper syntax usually does not elude me, but if that does happen (VERY rare), Google provides very nice code snippets if you ask nicely.
Hope this helps
May the Force be with you
I'm programming Java now for about 5 years, and I never have had any trouble remembering syntax. I can <brag>write almost all java.util.*, java.io.*, java.lang.* and javax.swing.* stuff out of my memory</brag>, but does it help me? Not very much. It doesn't make me a better programmer than someone who can't!
I'm using Netbeans, which greatly helps working with libraries. Also, the documentation, just in the place where you need it. Sometimes, it's quite unnecessary, but sometimes you'd wish the "auto complete" screen would popup faster!
The best thing as a student is to concentrate on what you are doing, not how fast you are doing it. Looking up things isn't bad; as it'll help your so-called "unconsciousness mind" process what you are really trying to accomplish. Having such breaks, e.g. by looking up a certain documentation or syntax reference, may even let you be better at programming (no proof for this, though).
Question is quite subjective.
With the great many IDE's available and the "newbie" tutorials on getting started, it won't take you long before you're off writing your own apps.
That said, unless you have a "thirst" for how stuff works kinda attitude all the time towards everything, you won't go far. In this field, you really have to have a passion for what you do to be great.
... It bothers me that I am continually having to look things up... How long did it take you to get to the level where you are now?
For me, and for most of the students I teach, the answer depends on two variables:
How many lines of code have I written?
Do I use the language or library every day?
(Reading other people's code is very helpful for learning a language and learning how to think in a language, but for me at least, it hasn't helped me become a fluent writer of programs in a language. Only writing code does that.) So my first comment is that time should be measured in lines of code written, not hours or years.
(Ray Bradbury once advised aspiring writers of fiction to write a thousand words a day six days a week, and after they've written a million words they might start to know something about their craft. This is good advice for programmers too.)
As for my own experience, across a half dozen languages that I currently know well or once knew well, it's been pretty consistent for me that
After writing 100 lines I am continually looking things up in the manual and don't really know what I am doing.
After writing 1,000 lines I use the manual occasionally and am starting to learn how to think in the language.
After writing 10,000 lines I am about as good as I'm going to get without making special efforts.
After writing 25,000 lines I probably will not need the manual again.
It's also true that
To learn to write 100 lines I had to read 100 to 1,000 lines that someone else wrote.
For the first 1,000 lines I write it is good for me to read 2,000 lines someone else wrote. For the next 1,000 lines it is good for me to read 1,000 lines someone else wrote.
After I've written 5,000 lines I learn the most by reading code written by world experts or by people who designed the language and understand what is there. I no longer have much to learn by reading just any program.
On the other hand, my experience about when I stop having to refer continually to the documentation is much less consistent.
I find it especially hard when two languages are very similar; I will never stop needing the ksh manual to tell me what is different from sh or bash, and I will never stop needing the Haskell manual to tell me what is different from Standard ML (though the need grows less with each additional 1,000 lines of Haskell that I write). I also find it interesting that while I have written over 35,000 lines of Lua code, and I will never need the manual again for a language question, I have to look up libraries and API functions almost every time I write something longer than 500 lines. (I've written a lot of short Lua programs and a couple of long ones, and I don't use the language every day, although I definitely use it at least several days each month.)
As for the unspoken question, when are you personally going to get better?, take some advice from Watts Humphrey: measure your own performance and track it over time. I think if each day you count the number of times you had to stop and look things up, and graph that against number of lines of code written or edited (which you can get from source-code control), you will be pleasantly surprised by objective evidence of improvement. And I think once you have such evidence, you will be able to focus more on continuing to improve, and not so much on where you are now or where you hope to be in a year.
It's true that after some years of programming you'll be able to remember a lot of thing without having to check the "manual". For me this is not an important milestone in your programming life though, the really important moment is when you reach the point where you don't know how to do something... but you're sure that can be done and you know where and how to research about it :-)
You made a very important step participating on this site. Exchanging ideas and helping each other it's a excellent way of learning.
Sociologist Malcolm Gladwell believes that ten thousand hours is a good benchmark for the amount of practice required to become world class at many fields of endeavour. I think that sort of number applies to programming as well. This isn't quite what you asked, though; being able to code competently certainly requires familiarity with your environment (language constructs, system libraries, third party libraries and perhaps something of the concepts underpinning them), but there are many soft skills involved which are harder to describe and can only really be acquired through practice.
As others have said, being good at programming is not about typing code from memory; it's about recognising patterns, understanding systems, solving problems. It's about choosing the right tools for the job (languages, libraries, algorithms, whatever) and being able to make proper use of them.
In all the jobs I've had, it's about adaptibility and flexibility; you might have to learn a new language or pick up somebody else's poorly documented code tomorrow, and a good programmer will be able to take this in their stride.
I've been coding professionally for nearly 10 years now; there's all sorts of code I use semi-regularly which I look up the options for at least some of the time. There are too many commands with too many options in too many languages for me to remember each and every last one in detail and Google is quite good enough at getting the information I want.
That said - there are some bits of routine code which I use all the time but can count on one hand the number of times I've written - the exact syntax for populating a dataset in .Net for example. One of the skills I've most come to value over this time and which saves me the most time is spotting when some code can be quickly and easily moved into utility libraries. If it's fiddly but routine, consider this approach to save yourself hassle and improve your overall code quality.
In the context of this question ; java, c++, javascript the languages are still evolving. I can't say about other languages.
The language standard/specification changes over time
Libraries are added to supplement the language constructs e.g Boost, Google Collections, Apache Commons, jQuery
Applications will rarely be bound to a single aspect of a language
Across organizations/projects, coding standards change
A project I worked upon recommended against using primitives
When unfamiliar with the constructs used, I put in pseudo-code flagged with //TODO first .. then go in and find the actual API to use.
IMO, the answer to your question is - there is no definite answer.
As a Java programmer the sheer size of the runtime library makes it impossible to remember everything. Swing is big, there is an XSLT engine (which contains TWO languages), the Concurrent support evolves and grows.
The direct access to the Javadoc API from within Eclipse combined with code completion makes it possible to find the information you cannot remember but you know is there, quickly and efficiently.
I have found the javaalmanac.com (which has been reworked into the more convoluted http://www.exampledepot.com/egs/index.html) invaluable in presenting short, concise and above all correct programs doing just one small thing. Strongly recommended.
Most weeks I program in Java, C#, Python, PHP, JavaScript, SQL, Smarty, Django Templating and occasionally C++ and Objective C. I'm a student so this is partially school work and partially my part-time job. Instead of learning syntax I've learned what concepts to look for.
Seeing patterns and concepts is key, once you know the concepts and what to look for the syntax is secondary.
I find that even when I am just being exposed to a language I can accomplish a lot just by looking for 'what ought to be there'
Why should you be able to remember all of this stuff? Personally I embrace the fact that I can't remember all of this stuff and simply try and remember where to find the information that I need. I find that much more useful. This takes the form of blogging, taking notes, keeping large amounts of 'sample' code and reusable libraries and writing about code that I find useful and interesting; oh and lots of books, some of which I hardly ever 'need' and some of which I hardly ever really read but they've been skimmed and I know where they live.
Technologies come and go and there's just no way I could have kept all of the things that I may one day find useful in my head; so I page them out and just keep the index in memory... For example; 9 years ago I was doing some stuff with Java and CORBA and whatever. There's no way that I could drop back into that now without the notes that I wrote up for my website back when I was doing it: http://www.lenholgate.com/blog/2001/02/corba---enumeration.html. Likewise I have code that I use on a daily basis that has been kicking around since 1997 or earlier. I don't remember how to type it in, I have it in a file with tests (if I'm lucky) and docs (if I'm even luckier).
Whilst I realise that most of what I'm talking about is 'big stuff' I also often have to go and look at some of my old code to simply work out how to structure a typedef...
Of course the day to day stuff will come with time and practice; but you need to work out that you have to page some of it out in a form that you can reload later very quickly. Embrace the fact that your memory is never going to be able to hold it all and outsource it :)
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!
Long methods are evil on several grounds:
They're hard to understand
They're hard to change
They're hard to reuse
They're hard to test
They have low cohesion
They may have high coupling
They tend to be overly complex
How to convince your fellow developer to write short methods? (weapons are forbidden =)
question from agiledeveloper
Ask them to write unit tests for the methods.
That depends on your definitions of "short" and "long".
When I hear someone say "write short methods", I immediately react badly because I've encountered too much spaghetti written by people who think the ideal method is two lines long: One line to do the tiniest possible unit of work followed by one line to call another method. (You say long methods are evil because "they're hard to understand"? Try walking into a project where every trivial action generates a call stack 50 methods deep and trying to figure out which of those 50 layers is the one you need to change...)
On the other hand, if, by "short", you mean "self-contained and limited to a single conceptual function", then I'm all for it. But remember that this can't be measured simply by lines of code.
And, as tydok pointed out, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Try telling them why your way is good instead of why their way is bad. If you can do this without making any overt comparisons or references to them or their practices (unless they specifically ask how your ideas would relate to something they're doing), it'll work even better.
You made a list of drawbacks. Try to make a list of what you'll gain by using short methods. Concrete examples. Then try to convince him again.
I read this quote from somewhere:
Write your code as if the person who has to maintain it is a violent psycho, who knows where you live.
In my experience the best way to convince a peer in these cases is by example. Just find opportunities to show them your code and discuss with them the benefits of short functions vs. long functions. Eventually they'll realize what's better spontaneously, without the need to make them feel "bad" programmers.
Code Reviews!
I suggest you try and get some code reviews going. This way you could have a little workshop on best practices and whatever formatting your company adhers to. This adds the context that short methods is a way to make code more readable and easier to understand and also compliant with the SRP.
If you've tried to explain good design and people just aren't getting it, or are just refusing to get it, then stop trying. It's not worth the effort. All you'll get is a bad rep for yourself. Some people are just hopeless.
Basically what it comes down to is that some programmers just aren't cut out for development. They can understand code that's already written, but they can't create it on their own.
These folks should be steered toward a support role, but they shouldn't be allowed to work on anything new. Support is a good place to see lots of different code, so maybe after a few years they'll come to see the benefits of good design.
I do like the idea of Code Reviews that someone else suggested. These sloppy programmers should not only have their own code reviewed, they should sit in on reviews of good code as well. That will give them a chance to see what good code is. Possibly they've just never seen good code.
To expand upon rvanider's answer, performing the cyclomatic complexity analysis on the code did wonders to get attention to the large method issue; getting people to change was still in the works when I left (too much momentum towards big methods).
The tipping point was when we started linking the cyclomatic complexity to the bug database. A CC of over 20 that wasn't a factory was guaranteed to have several entries in the bug database and oftentimes those bugs had a "bloodline" (fix to Bug A caused Bug B; fix to Bug B caused Bug C; etc). We actually had three CC's over 100 (max of 275) and those methods accounted for 40% of the cases in our bug database -- "you know, maybe that 5000 line function isn't such a good idea..."
It was more evident in the project I led when I started there. The goal was to keep CC as low as possible (97% were under 10) and the end result was a product that I basically stopped supporting because the 20 bugs I had weren't worth fixing.
Bug-free software isn't going to happen because of short methods (and this may be an argument you'll have to address) but the bug fixes are very quick and are often free of side-effects when you are working with short, concise methods.
Though writing unit tests would probably cure them of long methods, your company probably doesn't use unit tests. Rhetoric only goes so far and rarely works on developers who are stuck in their ways; show them numbers about how those methods are creating more work and buggy software.
Finding the right blend between function length and simplicity can be complex. Try to apply a metric such as Cyclomatic Complexity to demonstrate the difficulty in maintaining the code in its present form. Nothing beats a non-personal measurement that is based on testing factors such as branch and decision counts.
Not sure where this great quote comes from, but:
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it"
Force him to read Code Complete by Steve McConnell. Say that every good developer has to read this.
Get him drunk? :-)
The serious point to this answer is the question, "why do I consistently write short functions, and hate myself when I don't?"
The reason is that I have difficulty understanding complex code, be that long functions, things that maintain and manipulate a lot of state, or that sort of thing. I noticed many years ago that there are a fair number of people out there that are significantly better at dealing with this sort of complexity than I am. Ironically enough, it's probably because of that that I tend to be a better programmer than many of them: my own limitations force me to confront and clean up that sort of code.
I'm sorry I can't really provide a real answer here, but perhaps this can provide some insight to help lead us to an answer.
Force them to read the book "Clean Code", there are many others but this one is new, good and an easy read.
Asking them to write Unit tests for the complex code is a good avenue to take. This person needs to see for himself what that debt that complexity brings when performing maintenance or analysis.
The question I always ask my team is: "It's 11 pm and you have to read this code - can you? Do you understand under pressure? Can you, over the phone, no remote login, lead them to the section where they can fix an error?" If the answer is no, the follow up is "Can you isolate some of the complexity?"
If you get an argument in return, it's a lost cause. Throw something then.
I would give them 100 lines of code all under 1 method and then another 100 lines of code divided up between several methods and ask them to write down an explanation of what each does.
Time how long it takes to write both paragraphs and then show them the result.
...Make sure to pick code that will take twice or three times as long to understand if it were all under one method - Main() -
Nothing is better than learning by example.
short or long are terms that can be interpreted differently. For one short is a 2 line method while some else will think that method with no more than 100 lines of code are pretty short.
I think it would be better to state that a single method should not do more than one thing at the same time, meaning it should only have one responsibility.
Maybe you could let your fellow developers read something about how to practice the SOLID principles.
I'd normally show them older projects which have well written methods. I would then step through these methods while explaining the reasons behind why we developed them that way.
Hopefully when looking at the bigger picture, they would understand the reasons behind this.
ps. Also, this exercise could be used in conjuction as a mini knowledge transfer on older projects.
Show him how much easier it is to test short methods. Prove that writing short methods will make it easier and faster for him to write the tests for his methods (he is testing these methods, right?)
Bring it up when you are reviewing his code. "This method is rather long, complicated, and seems to be doing four distinct things. Extract method here, here, and here."
Long methods usually mean that the object model is flawed, i.e. one class has too many responsibilities. Chances are that you don't want just more functions, each one shorter, in the same class, but those responsibilies properly assigned to different classes.
No use teaching a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Just outshine someone.
When it comes time to fix a bug in the 5000 line routine, then you'll have a ten-line routine and a 4990-line routine. Do this slowly, and nobody notices a sudden change except that things start working better and slowly the big ball of mud evaporates.
You might want to tell them that he might have a really good memory, but you don't. Some people are able to handle much longer methods than others. If you both have to be able to maintain the code, it can only be done if the methods are smaller.
Only do this if he doesn't have a superiority complex
[edit]
why is this collecting negative scores?
You could start refactoring every single method they wrote into multiple methods, even when they're currently working on them. Assign extra time to your schedule for "refactoring other's methods to make the code maintanable". Do it like you think it should be done, and - here comes the educational part - when they complain, tell them you wouldn't have to refactor the methods if they would have made it right the first time. This way, your boss learns that you have to correct other's lazyness, and your co-workers learn that they should make it different.
That's at least some theory.
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 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Should I prepare my code for possible/predicted future changes so that it's easier to make these changes even if I don't really know if these changes will be required anytime?
I am likely to get lynched for my opinion on this, but here I go.
While I have had this hammered into me over years of reading idealistic articles and sitting through far too many seminars and lectures categorically stating the nirvana like benefits of this, I too had similar questions in my mind. This line of thought can lead to massive over-engineering of the code, adding many man hours or more to design, development and testing estimates, increasing cost and overheads, when in reality this is not often the case. How many times have you actually reused your code or a library. If it is going to be used in many places, through numerous projects, then yes you should.
However, most of the time this is not the case. You will often find it more economical (in time and money) to only refactor your code for reuse and configurability when you actually know that you are going to use it again. The rest of the time the real benefits are lost.
This is not, I repeat NOT, an excuse to write sloppy, poorly designed, poorly documented code. This should be a fundamental that is so wholly ingrained in you that you could not break it, but writing a class for reuse is a waste most of the time as it will never get reused.
There are obvious exceptions to this. If you are writing third party libraries then obviously this is not the case and reuse and expansion should be key to your design. Certain other types of code should be obvious for reuse (Logging, Configuration etc.)
I asked a similar question here Code Reusability: Is it worth it It might help.
Within reason and certainly if its not much effort.
I don't think you can always apply this, as it can make you over-engineer everything and then it takes too long and you don't make much money. Consider how likely the client is to implement something, how much extra it will take to prepare for it now and how much time it will save later.
If it requires a lot of work, but makes sense to save money, you could raise it with the client.
I seem to be in disagreement with a lot of people here, who say always - but I've seen a lot of things where effort has been put into make future features easy to implement ... but they've never been implemented. If a client hasn't paid for the time spent making the feature easy to implement, that's money straight off your bottom line.
Edit: I think its relevant to point out that I'm coming from an agency environment. If you are working on code for yourself, you can probably predict future development with a greater level of certainty, and so its probably feasible to do this in more cases.
yagni.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAGNI (*inserted by friendly editor :-) *)
fix the bugs in that horrenous code you're writing today.
refactor when the time comes.
If you work in a refactoring-friendly lanuguage I'd say NO. (In other languages I'm not sure)
You should make your code as loosley coupled as possible and keep things as simple as possible. Stay specific and dont generalize to unknown use cases.
This will make your code base prepared for the things the future will bring.
(And frankly, most anticipations of the future tend to be sufficiently off-mark not to warrant coding for it today)
Edit: It also depends on what you're doing. Designing apis for external users is not the same as developing a web app for your company
Yes -- by doing less.
You won't know what the future requirements for your code. The best preparation for the future is not to implement anything that's not needed right away, and have good unit-test coverage everything you do implement.
Scalability in your code is one thing you should always consider.
The more time you spent today in catering for scalable solutions, the less time you will spend in the future when actually expanding
Predicted or very likely changes - yes, generally it's good to have them in mind.
"Take anything that might ever happen in the universe into account" - no. You don't know what could happen, trying to cover for everything unknown is just over engineering.
Remember that most of you code will be changed/refactored. If you know that you will have to change your code within the next week, prepare it. But don't start making everything exchangeable and modular by default. Just because "maybe in the future" you shouldn't create a framework, if three lines of code do the job for now.
But think twice, if the system behind makes refactoring difficult (databases).
One thing I learned in my mere year of coding for the company I work for, everything you do, no matter how perfect you think it is will come back haunting you for an update or needs to be altered because client X suddenly decided not to like it.
Now I am making my code highly customizable so when that day comes to do some adjustments, it would be ready in no time and I can continue with my work.
In a word, yes.
In a few more words, you should always make your code as readable as possible, include comments, and always assume that at some time in the future, you will be called upon, or someone else will be, to modify the code.
If that someone in the future comes across a block of code, uncommented, unformatted, with no indication of what it does or should do, then they will curse you forever :)
No, never. Write good code that is easy to reuse/refactor but preparing for half thought out enhancements is, imo, the brother of premature optimisation; you'll likely end up doing things you don't need or that push you down a certain (possibly non-optimal) design path at a future date. As mfx says, do the minimum required now and unit test everything; it makes extending code a doddle.
In two words: yes, always.
What you describe is part and parcel of being a good developer.
See On Writing Maintainable Code
The obvious answer is YES. But the more important question is how!
Orthogonality, Reversibility, Flexible architecture, Decoupling, and Metaprogramming are some of the keywords that address this problem. Check out chapters 2 and 5 of "The Pragmatic Programmer"
I find it is generally a better strategy to design a "change-accommodating" architecture than trying to specify specific changes that might (or might not) happen. It is a good exercise, though, to ask "What may change in the future?", and then resist the temptation to prematurely implement potentially unnecessary features, but rather have such possibilities in mind when creating the application architecture.
I find that there is a parallel here to something I heard on test-driven development recently. The person talking about it had observed that while at first it could be a little annoying to always write unit tests and think about how your code can be written to be testable, it turned out that at some point it just begins to come naturally to write test friendly code.
The point is that if you always write with modifiability in mind, you might end up doing it more or less by reflex, thereby making the overhead of writing the extra code very small. If you can reach a state where high quality, extendable code is what comes naturally to you, I think that would definately be worth the initial cost. I do still believe, though, that you must to it in moderation and that sometimes it's just not the right thing to do for a given customer.
Two simple principles to follow:
KISS
Always avoid dependencies
Thats a good start
Yes, but only by writing maintainable, easily refactored code.
You should definitely NOT try to guess what might be required in the future. Such efforts are not only pointless and time-wasting for your current targets, but are more often than not counterproductive when any future changes become apparent.
This is really important. It needs to be done well, but takes experience.
If I count up the number of edits (via "diff") after implementing a typical requirements change, numbers like 10-50 are common.
If I make a mistake on any of them, I've inserted a bug.
So personally, I always try to design to keep that number down.
I also try to leave instructions in the code for how to make anticipated changes. If I'm maintaining code, I really appreciate it if the prior author also did this.
To balance the effort with the
benefits is the skill of design.
Not all our code needs to be flexible. Some things will not be changing.
No wasted effort. Finding the right parts to devote our attention to.
Tricky.
Yes, always think of where your code may need to evolve in the future. In the current project I am working on there are thousands of files and every single one of them has atleast one revision to it. Even leaving aside bug fixes plenty of those revisions are to make way for additional software features.
I wouldn't change my could to prepare for an unknown future feature.
But I would refactor to get the best solution to the current problem.
You can't design against an unknown (future), and as other people have said, trying to build a flexible design can easily lead to overengineering, so I think that the best pragmatic approach is think in terms of avoiding things that you know will make it harder for you to maintain your code in future. Every time that you make a design decision, just ask yourself whether you are making it harder to change things in future, and if so, what you are going to do to limit the problem.
Obvious things that will always cause problems:
Scattered configuration information - you need to be able to check and change this stuff easily
Untested code - you need tests to make changes with confidence
Mingling of storage and output concerns with the core logic - you will switch database instances and output formats, if only for testing
Complex architecture - you need to have a clear mental model of the system
Arrangements that require manual intervention or updates to keep them running