Related
I love Ruby, for past couple of years it is my language of choice.
But even since I started learning it, I was repelled with the fact that so often there are several ways to do the same (or equivalent) thing. I'll give couple of examples:
methods often have aliases, so you always have to bother to choose the most adequate, popular or commonly accepted alternative
and and or, besides && and || - just look at how much confusion precedence difference among them causes
for keyword, used almost exclusively by inexperienced non-native Ruby developers
What was the rationale behind such design decisions? Did they (Matz?) believe that the language will be easier to adopt, and therefore more popular that way?
Ruby is inspired by Perl, and one important Perl philosophy is "There is more than one way to do it", i.e. redunancies are fine since they give the programmer more freedom (and increases the odds that the functionality they want is available under the name they'd give it - not only under one). Your decision whether that's actually a good thing.
When Matz wrote Ruby, he tried to follow the 'Principle of Least Surprise'. Often this meant that there'd be more than one way to do the same thing, for example assigning to arrays by using square brackets, or an insert method. I enjoy it, because I find that rather than trying to remember which exact name to use in which situation (I always used to pause for a moment for size vs length in Java), I just just write what seems logical, and usually it will work. When reading the code, it's normally not a problem to use a different name, as the names are usually self-explanatory. So, I don't worry about which is most adequate or popular, I choose the most logical at the time.
Matz was also inspired by Perl, which has 'There's more than one way to do it' as its slogan.
I don't believe Matz was worried about what would be most popular, he just wanted to write the language he wanted to use.
I'm not going to try to explain and vs && though...
Beware that and vs. &&, though similar, have different precedence.
a = b && c # => equivalent to a = (b and c). a is set to a boolean.
a = b and c # => equivalent to (a = b) and c. a is set to b, and expression is a boolean.
There's more than one way to do it, but there may be subtle differences between them.
(update, just noticed you mentioned the precedence difference in your question... sorry. nothing to see here. move along.)
Do you use any metrics to make a decision which parts of the code (classes, modules, libraries) shall be consolidated or refactored next?
I don't use any metrics which can be calculated automatically.
I use code smells and similar heuristics to detect bad code, and then I'll fix it as soon as I have noticed it. I don't have any checklist for looking problems - mostly it's a gut feeling that "this code looks messy" and then reasoning that why it is messy and figuring out a solution. Simple refactorings like giving a more descriptive name to a variable or extracting a method take only a few seconds. More intensive refactorings, such as extracting a class, might take up to a an hour or two (in which case I might leave a TODO comment and refactor it later).
One important heuristic that I use is Single Responsibility Principle. It makes the classes nicely cohesive. In some cases I use the size of the class in lines of code as a heuristic for looking more carefully, whether a class has multiple responsibilities. In my current project I've noticed that when writing Java, most of the classes will be less than 100 lines long, and often when the size approaches 200 lines, the class does many unrelated things and it is possible to split it up, so as to get more focused cohesive classes.
Each time I need to add new functionality I search for already existing code that does something similar. Once I find such code I think of refactoring it to solve both the original task and the new one. Surely I don't decide to refactor each time - most often I reuse the code as it is.
I generally only refactor "on-demand", i.e. if I see a concrete, immediate problem with the code.
Often when I need to implement a new feature or fix a bug, I find that the current structure of the code makes this difficult, such as:
too many places to change because of copy&paste
unsuitable data structures
things hardcoded that need to change
methods/classes too big to understand
Then I will refactor.
I sometimes see code that seems problematic and which I'd like to change, but I resist the urge if the area is not currently being worked on.
I see refactoring as a balance between future-proofing the code, and doing things which do not really generate any immediate value. Therefore I would not normally refactor unless I see a concrete need.
I'd like to hear about experiences from people who refactor as a matter of routine. How do you stop yourself from polishing so much you lose time for important features?
We use Cyclomatic_complexity to identify the code that needs to be refactored next.
I use Source Monitor and routinely refactor methods when the complexity metric goes aboove around 8.0.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
Does anyone actually think this is a good reason to "Dumb down" your code?
When a manager asks you to make your code simple (in terms of technology skills required to understand it) at the cost of more verbose cluttered code what should you do?
I highly disagree. Junior developers will end up being Senior developers. How? By encountering advanced topics that aren't taught in school.
My code base now makes heavy use of Inversion of Control containers. I would never revert my code to the old way because a junior developer had issues groking IoC. Instead I would take them out for a beer after work and discuss it. The more the junior dev learns the less hand holding needs to be done.
Here's a blog post discussing this very topic.
If you're constantly dumbing down your code or designs, it's a pretty good way to make sure your junior developers stay dumb. Challenge them and use it as a mentoring opportunity. Of course, some will never learn, but you've got bigger problems at that point.
It's not just pointy-haired bosses either. As a senior dev, it's often difficult to resist the urge to mommy junior developers. "Oh I'll just do this part because it's way too hard for them", or it'll take them too long, or they'll get way off in the weeds.
And finally, make sure you strike a balance between idiomatic code that uses the full power of a language vs idiomatic code that abuses that power. There's no reason you need to override the || operator just to run its args in two separate threads. At least dumb the code down a little for your older, dumber, future self.
Well, I think it's reasonable to avoid using "clever" language constructs unless they really, really make the code better - at which point if a junior developer sees it, hopefully they'd ask rather than just being flumoxed.
Here's an alternative way of phrasing it though: "Write your code so that it's easy enough to understand that if you get called at 3am and asked to fix a bug in it, you can still understand it."
Seriously, make it as easy to understand as possible. That doesn't mean a comment every other line - it means a comment where the purpose of a piece of code isn't obvious, and only then where the preferred choice of "well make it obvious then" doesn't work.
There's a difference between puzzle code and complex code.
I've found that the single biggest issue is that there is a big difference between "easy to understand by reading" versus "well-factored", and that the two goals are often in direct tension with one another. In well-factored code, there is a lot more jumping around between classes and a lot of virtual dispatch, so the path through the code is very non-linear.
Yes readability and being able to easily understand code is a big part of maintainability in my opinion.
Well if you intend to maintain your code forever, never change jobs, never feel the urge to work on something new, and can assure everyone you will never be hit by a truck, then sure there is no need to dumb down that puzzle code.
No. In the past, I've learned a lot from seeing the tricks of more experienced developers. I'd much rather have had the opportunity to learn something new from them than have had them dumb things down for me.
Its a balancing act...
If any 3 people on your team can 'read' your code and know what its doing... no need to change. However if you're the only person who can understand your code (no matter how rad/clever you think it is).. maybe you should take it down a few notches.
Another guideline to help would be to 'Try the simplest thing that works.' All the latest buzz words are nice to know however what it is even more important is having the skill to spot where you could get by without using them. You don't need to spray paint your code with IOC or Frameworks or Design Patterns...
The manager's side of this argument is sorely missed in this thread :) (and for the record.. I'm not one). His/Her major concern being he doesn't want a dark area of code that no one else dares to venture into.. so if you can convince your boss that a few other people on the team can make an arbitrary fix (or better yet.. show an actual bug fixed by someone else) - the mgr should let you off the hook. Disagreeing with your boss is another art :).. but you can talk things out usually.
You dont have to go all the way backward to Lowest Common Denominator.. strike a balance.
Your goal should not be for your code to be easy to understand for a junior developer. Instead, it should be easy to understand for a maintainence programmer.
This means:
Local "complexity" is okay, when needed. If they see the complex code they'll know they need to dig deeper.
Hidden complexity is bad. If you can't see that changing a piece of code will have subtle side effects then maintaining the code will be a nightmare.
New technologies that are visible are also okay, when not taken to extremes.
This is because those that maintain code rarely have the same overall understanding of the system. Or the time to develop it.
I disagree with the manager: What needs to be simple is the code, not the technology used to write it.
I would, however, impose a closely related requirement:
The internal documentation states clearly what technologies are needed to understand this code, and it gives references to places where those technologies can be learned.
For example, even as a senior developer, I find all matrix codes baffling. But if somebody gives me a reference to the right part of Numerical Recipes, I can puzzle out the details.
Yes. It's a very valid reason to take it down a notch. The reality is that a very, very large number of developers (as in most) are at the junior level.
As far as what you should do... Say "Yes Sir" or "Yes Ma'am" and do it. There is only one boss in that relationship.
UPDATE:
As some people seem to think that having a jr dev learning advanced topics while wading through obfuscated code I want to throw one more thing in here.
When ANY developer (jr or otherwise) runs into code they don’t understand, their first approach is to refactor it into something that is understandable. This is called the “Wow that code is crap I must rewrite it!” syndrome. I’m willing to bet everyone on this board has experienced it. So, as a business owner, do I want to pay for code to be developed each time a new person comes by or do I want to pay for new features to be added?
Guess which person I’m going to keep around longer.
If you dumb down your code, you're going to be stuck working with dummy junior programmers who will never be familiar with advanced coding techniques. If there's any verbose code that's trying to express an inherently complex procedure that you wrote, the aforementioned junior developer probably wouldn't be able to see the forest for the trees anyways. And they'd probably screw up if they had to express a complex concept if all they knew were basic primitive constructs whereas if they knew how to express what they meant tersely and elegantly, the code has a better chance of being correct.
Scott Muc said:
"I've found that the single biggest issue is that there is a big difference between "easy to understand by reading" versus "well-factored", and that the two goals are often in direct tension with one another. In well-factored code, there is a lot more jumping around between classes and a lot of virtual dispatch, so the path through the code is very non-linear."
Quoted for truth, and I think this is one of the biggest problems with C++ code in general. If you're the one that wrote the code, it's pretty easy to come up with a very complicated set of stuff that is well factored, makes lots of sense if you already know it, works well, and generally resembles a diamond crystal, etc. but which, from the perspective of someone who's trying to figure out how you got there and why things are the way they are and how things work, and how one might make changes that fit into the existing system and satisfy new requirements, is almost completely opaque and impenetrable.
How does this kind of situation help maintainability? That situation is one of my main beefs with C++ programmers. Far better to have a mess of plain C code which can be hacked upon than a diamond crystal of inpenetrably super-factored code which nearly nobody can figure out how to sensibly modify without smashing the crystalline structure.
One way to "dumb down" code that I actually think is an excellent practice is to use longer variable names and longer function names. Naming variables and functions to make their purpose easily understandable is a significant engineering task, IMHO, and takes extra effort on the part of the original author of the code. Damian Conway has some excellent examples in "Perl Best Practices". Some examples include: Prefer "final_total" to "sum"; prefer "previous_appointment" to "previous_elem", prefer "next_client" to "next_elem". Prefer "sales_records" to "data". Etc. He also pushes for using grammatical templates (Noun-adjective) and staying consistent. Don't use max_displacement one place and then use VelocityMax in another. Index variables need real names too:
sales_record[i] vs sales_record[cancelled_transaction_number]
I frequently "refactor" my code at the end of a development cycle by finding new names for all my functions and variables. In a modern editor it's trivial to change them all, and it's only at the end that I really figure out what I used them for. "Dumbing down" code this way isn't classic C, but it's easier for me when I come back months later asking WTF did I do?
It depends on the code. Is this something being shipped in your flagship product that requires use of the features your manager wants you to remove for performance reasons? If the answer is yes I would try to have your manager let you keep the code and just write up a document explaining in detail the section of code that is hard to understand. If it's an internal app that needs to be maintained by lots of different people and the complex features can be removed with out negatively affecting the program remove them and pick more important battles to fight.
You should just remind your boss that you can build rocket ships or chicken coops, and he will have to pay you the same for either one. Do what they say but generally an environment like that lends itself to people looking for a new environment.
The old quote is appropriate here:
Make everything as simple as possible,
but not simpler.
I've known developers who wrote highly obfuscated code that they felt was advanced but which the rest of the team felt was unreadable and unmaintainable. Part of this involved overuse of advanced language features (in C, the ternary operator and the comma operator) and writing in an obscure personal idiom (for example, replacing ptr->item with (*ptr).item everywhere) that no-one else would ever be able to maintain. The author was trying to outsmart the optimizer (which to be fair, was far from good).
Note: I'm not suggesting that "x = (p == NULL) ? "default" : p->value;" is complicated, but when someone uses ternary operators that span many lines, are nested, and make heavy use of the comma operator, code quickly becomes unreadable.
In this sort of case, "dumbing down" the code would have been a good idea. The problem was not advanced algorithms nor advanced language features, but overuse and inappropriate use of advanced language features, and an obscure personal idiom.
However, in the case you are asking about, where the manager's changes make the code more difficult to read and maintain, I agree with you and the others who have responded. I just wanted to point out the alternative that no-one else has mentioned.
I suggest keeping the code in a "Geeky-level" and comment it well so that the juniors can understand the intention behind the code and simultaneously learn a better way (or a right way) to code, so we have the best of both he worlds.
I think it is the manager's way of politely telling you that your code is too obfuscated/complex/jumbled/puzzle code...whatever you want to call it. Sometimes we get so involved writing our codes that we forget that someone else will have to come along and read it later.
I learned it the hard way and, in retrospect, find that it was the better way. Let the cycle repeat itself.
I agree 100% with the argument. With one major addition: Train your junior developers until they understand your code ;-)
I'm talking about using "unusual" technologies. In this case it's JQuery.
This issue came up when I was writing a wizard control for user registration.
The navigation menu needed to be customised and the current step in the wizard had to have a different css class in the menu. This meant I needed to get access to the currently selected step when generating the menu. My solution was to output the current step index in a hidden html field which could then be read by JQuery in order to customise the css.
I thought that this was much nicer and cleaner than using the databinding syntax in ASP.NET which doesn't have compile-time checking and messes up the layout of the html.
The databinding solutions is "standard" while the JQuery one is "unusual" which means that it's less likely to be understood by a junior.
I'm trying more and more these days to provide the required data for the UI rather than hack it into the UI with databinding which is why I added the hidden field with the current step index.
It is simply impossible to make progress or to innovate in any industry without doing things that others don't understand. Innovation is necessarily blasphemous. Why? Because if you're doing things that make sense to everyone else around you, the odds are you're not the first one doing it. ;)
That being said, there is a significant difference between doing something that is difficult to understand simply because it's a new or complicated problem versus doing something that's difficult to understand because you're trying to show off or you think confusing people will somehow gain you job security (which I've never seen work, but I've heard of people trying).
Should you make things easy to understand? Yes absolutely, as much as humanly possible. However a program that works and does its job well is the higher priority.
The manager's complaint should never be "don't do this because our junior guys don't understand it" -- it should only ever be "do x instead of y whenever feasible because x is easier to read / understand". This also assumes that x and y are equivalent (accept the same input and produce the same result).
I can't stand when managers do that... I've had three different managers bawl me out for using perfectly normal code the way it was designed to work, not because I was doing anything complicated, but rather only because they felt like it was too much effort for the other guys on our team to go RTFM on the language we were using. As a management strategy, that's totally backwards. It's like being the Holy Roman Catholic church and insisting that the laymen are too dumb to be trusted with literacy.
If you want to know really how ridiculous some of these managers get, try this: I had one manager bawl me out for declaring a variable as a type of "boolean" because he didn't feel the other programmers could handle it. Actually when I asked why, his answer was "because we don't do that here", which is a non-answer, but I interpreted it to mean "dumb it down". They were also berating me for that and similar practices as though it should be obvious that good programming habits were actually "bad" and that I should already know why even though they had never expressed a preferred programming style (either formally or informally). Needless to say, it was a bad job.
Make sure you can understand what it does 6 months down the road.
When in doubt, COMMENT your code. That's what comments are for.
One of my personal programming demons has always been complex logic that needs to be controlled by if statements (or similiar). Not always necessarily that complex either, sometimes just a few states that needs to be accounted for.
Are there any tools or steps a developer can perform during design time to help see the 'states' and take measures to refactor the code down to simplify the resulting code? I'm thinking drawing up a matrix or something along those lines...?
I'd recommend a basic course in propositional logic for every aspiring programmer. At first, the notation and Greek letters may seem off-putting to the math-averse, but it is really one of the most powerful (and oft-neglected) tools in your skillset, and rather simple, at the core.
The basic operators, de Morgan's and other basic laws, truth tables, and existence of e.g. disjunctive and conjunctive normal forms were an eye-opener to me. Before I learned about them, conditional expressions felt like dangerous beasts. Ever since, I know that I can whip them into submission whenever necessary by breaking out the heavy artillery!
Truth tables are basically the exhaustive approach and will (hopefully) highlight all the possibilities.
You might like to take a look at Microsoft Pex, which can be helpful for spotting the fringe cases you hadn't thought of.
I think that the developer is asking how to make his life easier when dealing with complex if code.
The way that I handle complex if code is to code as flat as possible and weed out all negations first. If you can get rid of compound if by placing a portion of it above, then do that.
The beauty of simplicity is that it doesn't take a book or a class to learn it. If you can break it up, do so. If you can remove any part of it, do so. If you don't understand it, do it differently. And flat is almost always better than nested (thanks python!).
It's simpler to read:
if(broken){
return false;
}
if (simple){
doit();
return true;
}
if(complicated){
divide();
conquor();
}
if(extra){
extra();
}
than it is to read:
if(!broken && (simple || complicated)){
....
}
return false;
Truth tables and unit tests - draw up the tables (n dimensional for n variables), and then use these as inputs to your unit test, which can test each combination of variables and verify the results.
The biggest problem I've seen through the years with complex IFs is that people don't test all the branches. Make sure to write a test for each possible branch no matter how unlikely it seems that you will hit it.
You might also want to try Karnaugh maps, which are good for up to 4 variables.
If you haven't already, I'd highly suggest reading Code Complete. It has a lot of advice on topics such as this. I don't have my copy handy at the moment, otherwise I'd post a summary of this section in the book.
Split the logic down into discrete units (a && b, etc.), each with their own variable. Then build these up using the logic you need. Name each variable with something appropriate, so that your complex statement is fairly readable (although it may take up several extra lines and a fair few temporary variables).
Any reason you cannot just handle the logic with guard statements?
Karnaugh maps can be nice ways of taking information from a truth table (suggested by Visage) and turning them into compact and/or/not expressions. These are typically taught in an EE digital logic course.
Have you tried a design pattern? You might look into what is known as the Strategy pattern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_pattern
Check out the nuclear option: Drools. There's quite a lot to it-- took me a day or two of perusing the literature just to get a handle on its capabilities. But if you have applications where your complex if-then logic is an evolving part of the project (for example, an application with modular algorithms) it might be just the thing.
Back in college, only the use of pseudo code was evangelized more than OOP in my curriculum. Just like commenting (and other preached 'best practices'), I found that in crunch time psuedocode was often neglected. So my question is...who actually uses it a lot of the time? Or do you only use it when an algorithm is really hard to conceptualize entirely in your head? I'm interested in responses from everyone: wet-behind-the-ears junior developers to grizzled vets who were around back in the punch card days.
As for me personally, I mostly only use it for the difficult stuff.
I use it all the time. Any time I have to explain a design decision, I'll use it. Talking to non-technical staff, I'll use it. It has application not only for programming, but for explaining how anything is done.
Working with a team on multiple platforms (Java front-end with a COBOL backend, in this case) it's much easier to explain how a bit of code works using pseudocode than it is to show real code.
During design stage, pseudocode is especially useful because it helps you see the solution and whether or not it's feasible. I've seen some designs that looked very elegant, only to try to implement them and realize I couldn't even generate pseudocode. Turned out, the designer had never tried thinking about a theoretical implementation. Had he tried to write up some pseudocode representing his solution, I never would have had to waste 2 weeks trying to figure out why I couldn't get it to work.
I use pseudocode when away from a computer and only have paper and pen. It doesn't make much sense to worry about syntax for code that won't compile (can't compile paper).
I almost always use it nowadays when creating any non-trivial routines. I create the pseudo code as comments, and continue to expand it until I get to the point that I can just write the equivalent code below it. I have found this significantly speeds up development, reduces the "just write code" syndrome that often requires rewrites for things that weren't originally considered as it forces you to think through the entire process before writing actual code, and serves as good base for code documentation after it is written.
I and the other developers on my team use it all the time. In emails, whiteboard, or just in confersation. Psuedocode is tought to help you think the way you need to, to be able to program. If you really unstand psuedocode you can catch on to almost any programming language because the main difference between them all is syntax.
If I'm working out something complex, I use it a lot, but I use it as comments. For instance, I'll stub out the procedure, and put in each step I think I need to do. As I then write the code, I'll leave the comments: it says what I was trying to do.
procedure GetTextFromValidIndex (input int indexValue, output string textValue)
// initialize
// check to see if indexValue is within the acceptable range
// get min, max from db
// if indexValuenot between min and max
// then return with an error
// find corresponding text in db based on indexValue
// return textValue
return "Not Written";
end procedure;
I've never, not even once, needed to write the pseudocode of a program before writing it.
However, occasionally I've had to write pseudocode after writing code, which usually happens when I'm trying to describe the high-level implementation of a program to get someone up to speed with new code in a short amount of time. And by "high-level implementation", I mean one line of pseudocode describes 50 or so lines of C#, for example:
Core dumps a bunch of XML files to a folder and runs the process.exe
executable with a few commandline parameters.
The process.exe reads each file
Each file is read line by line
Unique words are pulled out of the file stored in a database
File is deleted when its finished processing
That kind of pseudocode is good enough to describe roughly 1000 lines of code, and good enough to accurately inform a newbie what the program is actually doing.
On many occasions when I don't know how to solve a problem, I actually find myself drawing my modules on a whiteboard in very high level terms to get a clear picture of how their interacting, drawing a prototype of a database schema, drawing a datastructure (especially trees, graphs, arrays, etc) to get a good handle on how to traverse and process it, etc.
I use it when explaining concepts. It helps to trim out the unnecessary bits of language so that examples only have the details pertinent to the question being asked.
I use it a fair amount on StackOverflow.
I don't use pseudocode as it is taught in school, and haven't in a very long time.
I do use english descriptions of algorithms when the logic is complex enough to warrant it; they're called "comments". ;-)
when explaining things to others, or working things out on paper, i use diagrams as much as possible - the simpler the better
Steve McConnel's Code Complete, in its chapter 9, "The Pseudocode Programming Process" proposes an interesting approach: when writing a function longer than a few lines, use simple pseudocode (in the form of comments) to outline what the function/procedure needs to do before writing the actual code that does it. The pseudocode comments can then become actual comments in the body of the function.
I tend to use this for any function that does more than what can be quickly understood by looking at a screenful (max) of code. It works specially well if you are already used to separate your function body in code "paragraphs" - units of semantically related code separated by a blank line. Then the "pseudocode comments" work like "headers" to these paragraphs.
PS: Some people may argue that "you shouldn't comment what, but why, and only when it's not trivial to understand for a reader who knows the language in question better then you". I generally agree with this, but I do make an exception for the PPP. The criteria for the presence and form of a comment shouldn't be set in stone, but ultimately governed by wise, well-thought application of common sense anyway. If you find yourself refusing to try out a slight bent to a subjective "rule" just for the sake of it, you might need to step back and realize if you're not facing it critically enough.
Mostly use it for nutting out really complex code, or when explaining code to either other developers or non developers who understand the system.
I also flow diagrams or uml type diagrams when trying to do above also...
I generally use it when developing multiple if else statements that are nested which can be confusing.
This way I don't need to go back and document it since its already been done.
Fairly rarely, although I often document a method before writing the body of it.
However, If I'm helping another developer with how to approach a problem, I'll often write an email with a pseudocode solution.
I don't use pseudocode at all.
I'm more comfortable with the syntax of C style languages than I am with Pseudocode.
What I do do quite frequently for design purposes is essentially a functional decomposition style of coding.
public void doBigJob( params )
{
doTask1( params);
doTask2( params);
doTask3( params);
}
private void doTask1( params)
{
doSubTask1_1(params);
...
}
Which, in an ideal world, would eventually turn into working code as methods become more and more trivial. However, in real life, there is a heck of a lot of refactoring and rethinking of design.
We find this works well enough, as rarely do we come across an algorithm that is both: Incredibly complex and hard to code and not better solved using UML or other modelling technique.
I never use or used it.
I always try to prototype in a real language when I need to do something complex, usually writting unit tests first to figure out what the code needs to do.