Related
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 10 years ago.
In a recent code review I spotted a few lines of duplicated logic in a class (less than 15 lines). When I suggested that the author refactor the code, he argued that the code is simpler to understand that way. After reading the code again, I have to agree extracting the duplicated logic would hurt readability a little.
I know DRY is guideline, not an absolute rule. But in general, are you willing to hurt readability in the name of DRY?
Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code
The Rule of Three
The first time you do something, you
just do it. The second time you do
something similar, you wince at the duplication, but you do the duplicate
thing anyway. The third time you do something similar, you refactor.
Three strikes and you refactor.
Coders at Work
Seibel: So for each of these XII calls you're writing an
implementation.
Did you ever find that you were accumulating lots of
bits of very similar code?
Zawinski: Oh, yeah, definitely. Usually by the second or third time
you've cut and pasted
that piece of code it's like, alright, time to stop
cutting and pasting and put it in a
subroutine.
I tolerate none. I may end up having some due to time constraints or whatnot. But I still haven't found a case where duplicated code is really warranted.
Saying that it'll hurt readability only suggests that you are bad at picking names :-)
Personally, I prefer keeping code understandable, first and foremost.
DRY is about easing the maintenance in code. Making your code less understandable in order to remove repeated code hurts the maintainability more, in many cases, than having some repeated lines of code.
That being said, I do agree that DRY is a good goal to follow, when practical.
If the code in question has a clear business or technology-support purpose P, you should generally refactor it. Otherwise you'll have the classic problem with cloned code: eventually you'll discover a need to modify code supporting P, and you won't find all the clones that implement it.
Some folks suggest 3 or more copies is the threshold for refactoring. I believe that if you have two, you should do so; finding the other clone(s) [or even knowing they might exist] in a big system is hard, whether you have two or three or more.
Now this answer is provided in the context of not having any tools for finding the clones. If you can reliably find clones, then the original reason to refactor (avoiding maintenance errors) is less persausive (the utility of having a named abstraction is still real). What you really want is a way to find and track clones; abstracting them is one way to ensure you can "find" them (by making finding trivial).
A tool that can find clones reliably can at least prevent you from making failure-to-update-clone maintenance errors. One such tool (I'm the author) is the CloneDR. CloneDR finds clones using the targeted langauge structure as guidance, and thus finds clones regardless of whitespace layout, changes in comments, renamed variables, etc. (It is implemented for a number a languages including C, C++, Java, C#, COBOL and PHP). CloneDR will find clones across large systems, without being given any guidance. Detected clones are shown, as well as the antiunifier, which is essentially the abstraction you might have written instead. Versions of it (for COBOL) now integrate with Eclipse, and show you when you are editing inside a clone in a buffer, as well as where the other clones are, so that you may inspect/revise the others while you are there. (One thing you might do is refactor them :).
I used to think cloning was just outright wrong, but people do it because they don't know how the clone will vary from the original and so the final abstraction isn't clear at the moment the cloning act is occurring. Now I believe that cloning is good, if you can track the clones and you attempt to refactor after the abstraction becomes clear.
As soon as you repeat anything you're creating multiple places to have make edits if you find that you've made a mistake, need to extend it, edit, delete or any other of the dozens of other reasons you might come up against that force a change.
In most languages, extracting a block to a suitably named method can rarely hurt your readability.
It is your code, with your standards, but my basic answer to your "how much?" is none ...
you didn't say what language but in most IDEs it is a simple Refactor -> Extract Method. How much easier is that, and a single method with some arguments is much more maintainable than 2 blocks of duplicate code.
Very difficult to say in abstract. But my own belief is that even one line of duplicated code should be made into a function. Of course, I don't always achieve this high standard myself.
Refactoring can be difficult, and this depends on the language. All languages have limitations, and sometimes a refactored version of duplicated logic can be linguistically more complex than the repeated code.
Often duplications of code LOGIC occur when two objects, with different base classes, have similarities in the way they operate. For example 2 GUI components that both display values, but don't implement a common interface for accessing that value. Refactoring this kind of system either requires methods taking more generic objects than needed, followed by typechecking and casting, or else the class hierarchy needs to be rethought & restructured.
This situation is different than if the code was exactly duplicated. I would not necessarily create a new interface class if I only intended it to be used twice, and both times within the same function.
The point of DRY is maintainability. If code is harder to understand it's harder to maintain, so if refactoring hurts readability you may actually be failing to meet DRY's goal. For less than 15 lines of code, I'd be inclined to agree with your classmate.
In general, no. Not for readability anyway. There is always some way to refactor the duplicated code into an intention revealing common method that reads like a book, IMO.
If you want to make an argument for violating DRY in order to avoid introducing dependencies, that might carry more weight, and you can get Ayende's opinionated opinion along with code to illustrate the point here.
Unless your dev is actually Ayende though I would hold tight to DRY and get the readability through intention revealing methods.
BH
I accept NO duplicate code. If something is used in more than one place, it will be part of the framework or at least a utility library.
The best line of code is a line of code not written.
It really depends on many factors, how much the code is used, readability, etc. In this case, if there is just one copy of the code and it is easier to read this way then maybe it is fine. But if you need to use the same code in a third place I would seriously consider refactoring it into a common function.
Readability is one of the most important things code can have, and I'm unwilling to compromise on it. Duplicated code is a bad smell, not a mortal sin.
That being said, there are issues here.
If this code is supposed to be the same, rather than is coincidentally the same, there's a maintainability risk. I'd have comments in each place pointing to the other, and if it needed to be in a third place I'd refactor it out. (I actually do have code like this, in two different programs that don't share appropriate code files, so comments in each program point to the other.)
You haven't said if the lines make a coherent whole, performing some function you can easily describe. If they do, refactor them out. This is unlikely to be the case, since you agree that the code is more readable embedded in two places. However, you could look for a larger or smaller similarity, and perhaps factor out a function to simplify the code. Just because a dozen lines of code are repeated doesn't mean a function should consist of that dozen lines and no more.
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 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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I don't know if I'm the only person in the world which gets a bad feeling in my stomach if my code isn't "pretty". For example if I get a assignment that another person has been doing before me. I can't help it to clean the code and make it look "pretty". I don't know if it's some kind of OCD.
It's like I see the code as some kind of art that has be perfect in my own code convention to look good. I don't know if you understand what I'm trying to explain here.
But are you like me, trying always to make my code look good in a aesthetical point of view even though it won't make the code better?
Yes, I care about code aesthetics.. Code that is aestheticly pleasing is easy to read and therefore easy to understand.
No, I stopped trying anymore. You can't defeat an army of code monkeys.
Only with my personal project I'm aspired to make it perfect.
I think Robert Martin described it best in his Book Clean Code:A Handbook of Agile
Software Craftsmanship
It’s not enough to write the code
well. The code has to be kept clean
over time. We’ve all seen code rot and
degrade as time passes. So we must
take an active role in preventing this
degradation.
The Boy Scouts of America have a
simple rule that we can apply to our
profession.
Leave the campground cleaner than you
found it.
If we all checked-in our code a little
cleaner than when we checked it out,
the code simply could not rot. The
cleanup doesn’t have to be something
big. Change one variable name for the
better, break up one function that’s a
little too large, eliminate one small
bit of duplication, clean up one
composite if statement.
Can you
imagine working on a project where the
code simply got better as time passed?
Do you believe that any other option
is professional? Indeed, isn’t
continuous improvement an intrinsic
part of professionalism?
If you mean identation, I think it is essential.
If you mean readable (which for me is different from aesthetically pretty), it is also essential.
If you want what's written to look like flowers and birds flying, then no. I'm not concerned. :P
I hate that my collegues always write one letter variables, short named methods that start with underscores and generally ugly code. It seems to be the standard practice around these parts.
I always make my code look good. It's a visual representation of who I am, so I have to maintain it nice and neat, and properly indented.
I'm not so much concerned with whether or not it looks nice as much as with how readable it is. It just so happens that "prettier" code is usually easier to read and maintain.
Formatting code is one way (and possibly the most bang for your buck way at that) to make your code readable. Being confronted with readable code makes stepping through your program easier (whether in a debugger or code review). The same goes for sensible variable names and thinking about variable scope.
If, however, you're spending all of your time changing some perfectly acceptable notation for fields, locals, pointers etc. into some very personal Ancide-notation, then I'd be inclined to say that isn't really necessary.
I too find myself in such a position. Since clean code is easy to read and maintain, I always try to clean up and style my code.
I do that as well. I find that making the code look good makes it easier to read and understand.
Yes, I like to make the code look better, because it makes easier to maintain and it looks like people are concerned on making a good system.
When the code looks ugly, you don't feel yourself motivated to keep it cool.
And I feel i'm so concerned that i think my co-workers hate me =P
I make very good use of the build-in code formatter within Visual Studio. In Delphi, I even use an add-in that allows me to format my Delphi code. I also try to keep each source file below the 1000 lines of code, although I'm not worried if some files are becoming longer. I use descriptive variable names and occasionally add some additional comments when I suspect that the code (and names for fields, classes and parameters) isn't clear enough for the next one reading my code.
The result is very rewarding since I once had to maintain a piece of code that I wrote 5 years earlier. It's readability made my own pieces of code in the project still very readable. Others have been more careless, though. It gave me an easy trick to recognize my own code from the garbage that was added by some inexperienced semi-programmer/manager who was only capable of writing macro's in Word and Excel...
"Pretty" and "code aesthetics" are sort of proxy words - those terms sound trivial, but (at least to me) really mean "clearly and logically expressed ideas". Clearly and Logically expressed ideas matter.
Tidy code is more maintainable. Your brain is able to do amazing automated pattern matching on code, so you will often find that you spot bugs and problems in code just because it is the wrong "shape". I find tidiness so important I wrote a VS addin (AtomineerUtils) for adding and formatting doc comments to minimise the work I need to go to in order to keep my code tidy.
Of course, that's no reason to reformat someone else's code - you'll only upset other programmers if you change their code to your style for aesthetic reasons, not to mention you're spending a lot of time that could be put into new code, and every line of code you change is another potential bug that needs to be re-tested. So try to stop yourself going "too far".
I wouldn't go so far as to make things look aesthetically good purely for the aesthetic value, but I do think it's really important to write code that's readable and easily understood at a glance. Especially when writing things like XML/HTML, things like proper nesting and indentation can really make it easy to quickly get a sense of the structure and allow you to spend your time zeroing in on the areas that you care about. A short, well-organized method that's easy to read visually will save time and energy vs. something that takes ten minutes to understand.
Yeah, I have to have the code indented with spaces and tab 4 spaces wide and if it is C/C++/Java code put curly brace in its own line, Emacs macros do the rest :-)
Yes, I do. And because "you can't [indeed] fight an army of monkey" (if I may borrow this from one answer), I tend to try making this less painful and to automate what can be automated, e.g. performing cosmetic checks during the build (that will break if necessary). Another option would be to format code automatically on commit but I prefer the first one.
PS: I'm using Jalopy and Maven for this when doing Java.
Define "aesthetics." I think it means different things to different people.
The absolute most important thing to me about any code that I write (despite hasty code samples posted here) is that it works as intended. Once it works as intended, then, and only then, do I worry about the aesthetics.
Aesthetics are subjective. I may spend labor to make my code a work of art in my eyes, and someone else may come behind me and labor to change it to conform to their sense of what constitutes "beautiful code." After all, do you include design patterns, coding standards, naming conventions, and who-knows-what-else in that? Or is it a simple matter of indentation, curly brace alignment, type-alignment in variable declaration, and so forth?
No two developers will completely agree on what constitutes aesthetically pleasing code. That's not to say that you shouldn't strive to create it; but it should not be your number one priority. Writing working, maintainable code should be your number one priority. If it happens to be aesthetically pleasing as a result of that, so be it.
So your the guy making merging a complete nightmare? Undoing all the formatting that is aesthetically pleasing to me, the writer and primary maintainer of that code you just checked in?
Yes, I am shamelessly trying to acquire StackOverflow karma with silly questions.
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 10 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.
I am a hobbyist programmer (started with VBA to make excel quicker) and have been working with VB.NET / C#.NET and am trying to learn ADO.NET.
A facet of programming that has always frustrated me is what does 'good' look like? I am not a professional so have little to compare against. What makes a better programmer?
Is it:
They have a better understanding of
all the objects / classes / methods
in a given language?
Their programs are more efficient?
The design of their programs are much
better in terms of better
documentation, good choice of names
for functions etc.?
Put another way, if I were to look at the code of a professional programmer, what is the first thing that I would notice about their code relative to mine? For example, I read books like 'Professional ASP.NET' by Wrox press. Are the code examples in that book 'world class'? Is that the pinnacle? Would any top-gun programmer look at that code and think it was good code?
The list below is not comprehensive, but these are the things that I thought of in considering your question.
Good code is well-organized. Data and operations in classes fit together. There aren't extraneous dependencies between classes. It does not look like "spaghetti."
Good code comments explain why things are done not what is done. The code itself explains what is done. The need for comments should be minimal.
Good code uses meaningful naming conventions for all but the most transient of objects. the name of something is informative about when and how to use the object.
Good code is well-tested. Tests serve as an executable specification of the code and examples of its use.
Good code is not "clever". It does things in straightforward, obvious ways.
Good code is developed in small, easy to read units of computation. These units are reused throughout the code.
I haven't read it yet, but the book I'm planning to read on this topic is Clean Code by Robert C. Martin.
The first thing you'd notice is that their code follows a consistent coding-style. They always write their structure blocks the same, indent religiously and comment where appropriate.
The second things you'd notice is that their code is segmented into small methods / functions spanning no more than a couple dozen lines at the most. They also use self describing method names and generally their code is very readable.
The third thing you'd notice, after you messed around with the code a little is that the logic is easy to follow, easy to modify - and therefore easily maintainable.
After that, you'll need some knowledge and experience in software design techniques to understand the specific choices they took constructing their code architecture.
Regarding books, I haven't seen many books where the code could be considered "world-class". In books they try mostly to present simple examples, which might be relevant to solving very simple problems but aren't reflective of more complex situations.
Quoting Fowler, summizing readability:
Any fool can write code that a computer can understand.
Good programmers write code that humans can understand.
'nough said.
Personally, I'll have to quote "The Zen of Python" by Tim Peters. It tells Python programmers what their code should look like, but I find that it applies to basically all code.
Beautiful is better than ugly. Explicit is better than
implicit. Simple is better than complex. Complex is better
than complicated. Flat is better than nested. Sparse is
better than dense. Readability counts. Special cases
aren't special enough to break the rules. Although practicality
beats purity. Errors should never pass silently. Unless
explicitly silenced. In the face of ambiguity, refuse the
temptation to guess. There should be one-- and preferably only
one --obvious way to do it. Although that way may not be obvious
at first unless you're Dutch. Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than right now. If the
implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea. If the
implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
Code is poetry.
Start from this point of logic and you can derive many of the desirable qualities of code. Most importantly, observe that code is read far more than it is written, hence write code for the reader. Rewrite, rename, edit, and refactor for the reader.
A follow on corollary:
The reader will be you at time n from the code creation date. The payoff of writing code for the reader is a monotonically increasing function of n. A reader looking at your code for the first time is indicated by n == infinity.
In other words, the larger the gap of time from when you wrote the code to when you revisit the code, the more you will appreciate your efforts to write for the reader. Also, anyone you hand your code off to will gain great benefit from code written with the reader as the foremost consideration.
A second corollary:
Code written without consideration for the reader can be unnecessarily difficult to understand or use. When the consideration for the reader drops below a certain threshold, the reader derives less value from the code than the value gained by rewriting the code. When this occurs the previous code is thrown away and, tragically, much work is repeated during the rewrite.
A third corollary:
Corollary two has been known to repeat itself multiple times in a vicious cycle of poorly documented code followed by forced rewrites.
I've been programming for 28 years and I find this a tough question to answer. To me good code is a complete package. The code is cleanly written, with meaningful variable and method names. It has well placed comments that comment the intent of the code and doesn't just regurgitate the code you can already read. The code does what it is supposed to in an efficient manner, without wasting resources. It also has to be written with an eye towards maintainability.
The bottom line though is that it means different things to different people. What I might label as good code someone else might hate. Good code will have some common traits which I think I've identified above.
The best thing you can do is expose yourself to code. Look at other people's code. Open Source projects are a good source for that. You will find good code and bad code. The more you look at it, the better you will recognize what you determine to be good code and bad code.
Ultimately you will be your own judge. When you find styles and techniques you like adopt them, over time you will come up with your own style and that will change over time. There is no person on here that can wave a wand and say what is good and that anything else is bad.
Read the book Code Complete. This explains a lot of ideas about how to structure code and the the reasons for doing so. Reading it should short-circuit your time to aquiring the experience necessary to tell good from bad.
http://www.amazon.com/Code-Complete-Practical-Handbook-Construction/dp/0735619670/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229267173&sr=8-1
Having been programming for nearly 10 years now myself and having worked with others I can say without bias that there is no difference between a good programmer and an average programmers code
All programmers at a competent level:
Comment Correctly
Structure Efficiently
Document Cleanly
I once overheard a co-worker say "I've always been very logical and rational minded. I think that's why I enjoy developing"
That in my opinion, is the mind of an average programmer. One who sees the world in terms of rules and logic and ultimately obeys those rules when designing and writing a program.
The expert programmer, understands the rules, but also their context. This ultimately leads to them coming up with new ideas and implementations, the mark of an expert programmer. Programming is ultimately an art form.
Succinctly put, a good programmer's code can be read and understood.
In my opinion, a good programmer's code is language-agnostic; well-written code can be read and understood in a short amount of time with minimal thinking, regardless of the programming language used. Whether the code is in Java, Python, C++ or Haskell, well-written code is understandable by people who don't even program in that particular language.
Some characteristics of code that is easy to read are, methods that are well-named, absence of "tricks" and convoluted "optimization", classes are well-designed, to name a few. As others have mentioned, coding style is consistent, succinct and straight-forward.
For example, the other day, I was taking a look at the code for TinyMCE to answer one of the questions on Stack Overflow. It is written in JavaScript, a language that I've hardly used. Yet, because of the coding style and the comments that are included, along with the structuring of the code itself, it was fairly understandable, and I was able to navigate through the code in a few minutes.
One book that was quite an eye-opener for me in the regard of reading good programmer's code is Beautiful Code. It has many articles written by authors of various programming projects in various programming languages. Yet, when I read it, I could understand what the author was writing in his code despite the fact that I've never even programmed in that particular language.
Perhaps what we should keep in mind is that programming is also about communication, not only to the computer but to people, so good programmer's code is almost like a well-written book, which can communicate to the reader about the ideas it wants to convey.
Easy to read
easy to write
easy to maintain
everything else is filigree
Good code should be easily understood.
It should be well commented.
Difficult parts should be even better commented.
Good code is readable. You'd have no trouble understanding what the code is doing on the first read through of code written by a good professional programmer.
Rather then repeat everyone else's great suggestions, I will instead suggest that you read the book Code Complete by Steve McConnell
Essentially it is a book packed full of programming best practices for both functionality and style.
[Purely subjective answer]
For me, good code is a form of art, just like a painting. I might go further and say that it's actually a drawing that includes characters, colors, "form" or "structure" of code, and with all this being so readable/performant. The combination of readability, structure (i.e. columns, indentation, even variable names of the same length!), color (class names, variable names, comments, etc.) all make what I like to see as a "beautiful" picture that can make me either very proud or very detestful of my own code.
(As said before, very subjective answer. Sorry for my English.)
I second the recommendation of Bob Martin's "Clean Code".
"Beautiful Code" was highly acclaimed a couple of years ago.
Any of McConnell's books are worth reading.
Perhaps "The Pragmatic Programmer" would be helpful, too.
%
Just wanted to add my 2 cents... comments in your code -- and your code itself, generally -- should say what your code does, now how it does it. Once you have the concept of 'client' code, which is code that calls other code (simplest example is code that calls a method), you should always be most worried about making your code comprehensible from the "client's" perspective. As your code grows, you'll see that this is... uh, good.
A lot of the other stuff about good code is about the mental leaps that you'll make (definitely, if you pay attention)... 99% of them have to do with doing a bit more work now to spare you a ton of work later, and reusability. And also with doing things right: I almost always want to run the other way rather than using regular expressions, but every time I get into them, I see why everybody uses them in every single language I work in (they're abstruse, but work and probably couldn't be better).
Regarding whether to look at books, I would say definitely not in my experience. Look at APIs and frameworks and code conventions and other people's code and use your own instincts, and try to understand why stuff is the way it is and what the implications of things are. The thing that code in books almost never does is plan for the unplanned, which is what error checking is all about. This only pays off when somebody sends you an email and says, "I got error 321" instead of "hey, the app is broke, yo."
Good code is written with the future in mind, both from the programmer's perspective and the user's perspective.
This is answered pretty well in Fowler's book, "Refactoring", It's the absence of all the "smells" he describes throughout the book.
I haven't seen 'Professional ASP.NET', but I'd be surprised if it's better than OK. See this question for some books with really good code. (It varies, of course, but the accepted answer there is hard to beat.)
This seems to be (should be) a FAQ. There is an ACM article about beautiful code recently. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on easy to read/understand. I'd qualifier this with "easy to read/understand by domain experts". Really good programmers tend to use the best algorithms (instead of naive easy to understand O(n^2) algorithms) for any given problems, which could be hard to follow, if you're not familiar with the algorithm, even if the good programmer gives a reference to the algorithm.
Nobody is perfect including good programmers but their code tend to strive for:
Correctness and efficiency with proven algorithms (instead of naive and adhoc hacks)
Clarity (comment for intent with reference to non-trivial algorithms)
Completeness to cover the basics (coding convention, versioning, documentation, unit tests etc.)
Succinctness (DRY)
Robustness (resilient to arbitrary input and disruption of change requests)
i second the recommendation for uncle bob's "clean code". but you may wish to take a look at http://www.amazon.com/Implementation-Patterns-Addison-Wesley-Signature-Kent/dp/0321413091 as i think this deals with your specific question a bit better. good code should leap off the page and tell you what it does/how it works.
Jeff Atwood wrote a nice article about how coders are Typists first reference:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001188.html
When being a typist you always need to be elegant in your work, having strucutre and proper "grammar" is highly important. Now converting this to "programming"-typing would catch the same outcome.
Structure
Comments
Regions
I'm a software engineere which means during my education i've come across many different languages but my programming always "feel" the same, as my writing does on fekberg.wordpress.com, i have a "special" way for typing.
Now programming different applications and in different languages, such as Java, C#, Assembler, C++,C i've come to the "standard" of writing that i like.
I see everything as "boxes" or regions and each region has it's explaining commenting. A region might be "class Person" and inside this Region i have a couple of methods for properties, which i may call "Access Methods" or such and each property and region has it's own explaining commenting.
This is highly important, i always see my code that i do, as "being a part of an api", when creating an API structure and elegance is VERY important.
Think about this. Also read my paper on Communication issues when adapting outsourcing which explains in rough, how bad code can conflict, Enterpret as you like: http://fekberg.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/communication-issues-when-adapting-outsourcing/
Good code is easy to understand, easy to maintain, and easy to add to. Ideally, it is also as efficient as possible without sacrificing other indicators.
Great code to me is something that is simple to grasp yet sophisticated. The things that make you go, "wow, of course, why didn't I think of it that way?". Really good code is not hard to understand, it simply solves the problem at hand in a straight-forward way (or a recursive way, if that is even simpler).
Good code is where you know what the method does from the name. Bad code is where you have to work out what the code does, to make sense of the name.
Good code is where if you read it, you can understand what it's doing in not much more time than it takes to read it. Bad code is where you end up looking at it for ages trying to work out wtf it does.
Good code has things named in such a way as to make trivial comments unnecessary.
Good code tends to be short.
Good code can be reused to do what it does anywhere else, since it doesn't rely on stuff that is really unrelated to its purpose.
Good code is usually a set of simple tools to do simple jobs (put together in well organised ways to do more sophisticated jobs). Bad code tends to be huge multi-purpose tools that are easy to break and difficult to use.
Code is a reflection of a programmer's skills and mindset. Good programmers always have an eye on the future - how the code will function when requirements or circumstances are not exactly what they are today. How scalabale it will be? How convenient it will be when I am not the one maintaining this code? How reusable the code will be, so that someone else doing similar stuff can reuse the code and not write it again. What when someone else is trying to understand the code that I have written.
When a programmer has that mindset, all the other stuff falls in place nicely.
Note: A code base is worked on by many programmers over time and typically there is not a specific designation of code base to a programmer. Hence good code is a reflection of all the company's standards and quality of their workforce.
(I use "he" below because this is the person that I aspire to be, sometimes with success).
I believe that the core of a good programmer's philosophy is that he is always thinking "I am coding for myself in the future when I will have forgotten all about this task, why I was working on it, what were the risks and even how this code was supposed to work."
As such, his code has to:
Work (it doesn't matter how fast code gets to the wrong answer. There's no partial credit in the real world).
Explain how he knows that this code works. This is a combination of documentation (javadoc is my tool of choice), exception handling and test code. In a very real sense, I believe that, line for line, test code is more valuable than functional code if for no other reason than it explains "this code works, this is how it should be used, and this is why I should get paid."
Be maintained. Dead code is a nightmare. Legacy code maintenance is a chore but it has to be done (and remember, it's "legacy" the moment that it leaves your desk).
On the other hand, I believe that the good programmer should never do these things:
Obsess over formatting. There are plenty of IDEs, editors and pretty-printers that can format code to exactly the standard or personal preference that you feel is appropriate. I use Netbeans, I set up the format options once and hit alt-shift-F every now and then. Decide how you want the code to look, set up your environment and let the tool do the grunt work.
Obsess over naming conventions at the expense of human communication. If a naming convention is leading you down the road of naming your classes "IElephantProviderSupportAbstractManagerSupport" rather than "Zookeeper", change the standard before you make it harder for the next person.
Forget that he works as a team with actual human beings.
Forget that the primary source of coding errors is sitting at his keyboard right now. If there's a mistake or an error, he should look to himself first.
Forget that what goes around comes around. Any work that he does now to make his code more accessible to future readers will almost certainly benefit him directly (because who's going to be the first person asked to look at his code? He is).
It works
It has unit tests that prove that it works
The rest is icing...
The best code has a certain elegance that you recognise as soon as you see it.
It looks crafted, with care and attention to detail. It's obviously produced with someone with skill and has an art about it - you could say it looks sculpted and polished, rather than rough and ready.
It's consistent and reads easily.
It's split into small, highly cohesive functions each of which do one thing and do it well.
It's minimally coupled, meaning that dependencies are few and strictly controlled,
usually by...
Functions and classes have dependencies on abstractions rather than implementations.
Ironically the better the programmer the less indispensable he/she becomes because the code produced is better maintainable by anyone (as stated by general consent by Eran Galperin).
My experience tells the opposite is also true. The worse the programmer the more difficult to maintain his/her code is, so more indispensable he/she becomes, since no other soul can understand the riddles produced.
I have a good example :
Read GWT (google web tookit) Source code, you will see that every fool understand it (some english books are harder to read than this code).
Reading this question I found this as (note the quotation marks) "code" to solve the problem (that's perl by the way).
100,{)..3%!'Fizz'*\5%!'Buzz'*+\or}%n*
Obviously this is an intellectual example without real (I hope to never see that in real code in my life) implications but, when you have to make the choice, when do you sacrifice code readability for performance? Do you apply just common sense, do you do it always as a last resort? What are your strategies?
Edit: I'm sorry, seeing the answers I might have expressed the question badly (English is not my native language). I don't mean performance vs readability only after you've written the code, I ask about before you write it as well. Sometimes you can foresee a performance improvement in the future by making some darker design or providing with some properties that will make your class darker. You may decide you will use multiple threads or just a single one because you expect the scalability that such threads may give you, even when that will make the code much more difficult to understand.
My process for situations where I think performance may be an issue:
Make it work.
Make it clear.
Test the performance.
If there are meaningful performance issues: refactor for speed.
Note that this does not apply to higher-level design decisions that are more difficult to change at a later stage.
I always start with the most readable version I can think of. If performance is a problem, I refactor. If the readable version makes it hard to generalize, I refactor.
The key is to have good tests so that refactoring is easy.
I view readability as the #1 most important issue in code, though working correctly is a close second.
Readability is most important. With modern computers, only the most intensive routines of the most demanding applications need to worry too much about performance.
My favorite answer to this question is:
Make it work
Make it right
Make it fast
In the scope of things no one gives a crap about readability except the next unlucky fool that has to take care of your code. However, that being said... if you're serious about your art, and this is an art form, you will always strive to make your code the most per formant it can be while still being readable by others. My friend and mentor (who is a BADASS in every way) once graciously told me on a code-review that "the fool writes code only they can understand, the genius writes code that anyone can understand." I'm not sure where he got that from but it has stuck with me.
Reference
Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
machines to execute. — Abelson & Sussman, SICP
Well written programs are probably easier to profile and hence improve performance.
You should always go for readability first. The shape of a system will typically evolve as you develop it, and the real performance bottlenecks will be unexpected. Only when you have the system running and can see real evidence - as provided by a profiler or other such tool - will the best way to optimise be revealed.
"If you're in a hurry, take the long way round."
agree with all the above, but also:
when you decide that you want to optimize:
Fix algorithmic aspects before syntax (for example don't do lookups in large arrays)
Make sure that you prove that your change really did improve things, measure everything
Comment your optimization so the next guy seeing that function doesn't simplify it back to where you started from
Can you precompute results or move the computation to where it can be done more effectively (like a db)
in effect, keep readability as long as you can - finding the obscure bug in optimized code is much harder and annoying than in the simple obvious code
I apply common sense - this sort of thing is just one of the zillion trade-offs that engineering entails, and has few special characteristics that I can see.
But to be more specific, the overwhelming majority of people doing weird unreadable things in the name of performance are doing them prematurely and without measurement.
Choose readability over performance unless you can prove that you need the performance.
I would say that you should only sacrifice readability for performance if there's a proven performance problem that's significant. Of course "significant" is the catch there, and what's significant and what isn't should be specific to the code you're working on.
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
Readability always wins. Always. Except when it doesn't. And that should be very rarely.
at times when optimization is necessary, i'd rather sacrifice compactness and keep the performance enhancement. perl obviously has some deep waters to plumb in search of the conciseness/performance ratio, but as cute as it is to write one-liners, the person who comes along to maintain your code (who in my experience, is usually myself 6 months later) might prefer something more in the expanded style, as documented here:
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/01/16/regexps.html
There are exceptions to the premature optimization rule. For example, when accessing an image in memory, reading a pixel should not be an out-of-line function. And when providing for custom operations on the image, never do it like this:
typedef Pixel PixelModifierFunction(Pixel);
void ModifyAllPixels(PixelModifierFunction);
Instead, let external functions access the pixels in memory, though it's uglier. Otherwise, you are sure to write slow code that you'll have to refactor later anyway, so you're doing extra work.
At least, that's true if you know you're going to deal with large images.