What do you do when you're assigned to work on code that's
atrocious and antiquated to the point where it's almost incomprehensible?
For example: hardware interface code, mixed with logic, AND user interface code, ALL in the same functions?
We see bad code all the time, but what do you actually do about it?
Do you try to refactor it?
Try to make it OO if it's not?
Or do you try to make some sense of it, make the necessary changes and move on?
Depends on a few factors for me:
Will I be maintaining this code in the future, or is it a one-off fix?
How long until this system is replaced entirely?
How busy am I at the moment?
Ideally, I'd refactor all bad code I had to maintain, but the reality is there are only so many hours in the day.
As is frequently the case, "It Depends".
I tend to ask myself some of the following questions:
Are there unit tests for the existing code?
Is refactoring the code an acceptable risk for my project?
Is the author still available to clarify any questions I might have about the code?
Will my employer consider the time spent on changing existing, functioning code to be an acceptable use of my time?
And so on...
But assuming that I have the capacity to do so, refactoring is preferential as the up front cost of fixing the code now will likely save me a lot of time and effort later in maintenance and development time.
There are other benefits as well, including the fact that the more clean and well maintained you keep your code base, the more likely other developers are to keep it that way. The Pragmatic Programmer calls this the Broken Window Theory.
Developers have an instinct to assume that code is always ugly because of other, inferior developers. Sometimes, code is ugly because the problem space is ugly. All that ugliness isn't just ugliness - it is sometimes institutional memory. Each line of ugly in your code probably represents a bug fix. So think very carefully before you rip it all out.
Basically, I would say that you shouldn't touch code like this unless you actually have to. If there's a real bug that you can solve, refactoring is reasonable, if you can be sure you're maintaining the same amount of functionality. But refactoring for the sake of refactoring (eg, "make the code OO") is what I would generally classify as a classic newbie mistake.
The book Working Effectively with Legacy Code discusses the options you can do. In general the rule is not to change code until you have to (to fix a bug or add a feature). The book describes how to make changes when you can't add testing and how to add testing to complex code (which allows more substantial changes).
You try to refactor it, in the strict sense on the word, where you're not changing the behaviour.
The first target is usually to break up giant methods.
Given the strength of some of the adjectives you use, i.e. atrocious, antiquated and incomprehensible, I'd bin it!
If it is in such a state, like the example you give, it's probably not got any test code for it either. Refactoring is mentioned in many of the other answers but, sometimes, it is not appropriate. I always find that, when refactoring, you generally need a clear path through which the old code can be gradually morphed into the new in a number of well defined steps.
When the old code is so far removed from how you want it to look, such as the extreme cases you seem to be suggesting, you could probably redesign, rewrite and test the new code in a shorter time than it would to take to refactor it.
Scrap it and start over, using the compiled legacy application as a business requirements document.
And spending time in analysis with the users to see what they want changed.
Post it to www.worsethanfailure.com!!!
If no modifications are needed, I don't touch it.
If at all possible, I write automated unit tests first, especially focused on the areas that need modification.
If automated unit tests are not possible, I do what I can to document manual unit tests.
I am just using the tests to document "current" behavior at this point.
If possible, I always keep a version of the code and executable environment that runs things the "original" way (before I touched it) so I can always add new "behavior documentation" tests and better detect regressions I may have caused later.
Once I start changing things, I want to be very careful not to introduce regressions. I do this by continually rerunning (and or adding new tests) to the tests I wrote before I started writing code.
When possible, I leave bugs as-is if there is no business need for them to be fixed. Those bugs may be "features" to some users and may have unclear side effects that wouldn't be clear until the code was redeployed to production.
As far as refactoring, I do that as aggressively as possible, but only in the code that I need to change otherwise anyway. I may refactor more aggressively in my own personal copy of the code that will never be checked in, just to improve the readability of the code for me personally. It's often times difficult to properly test changes that are only made for readability reasons, so for safety reasons, I generally don't check those changes in / deploy them unless I can confidently test that the code changes are completely safe (it's really bad to introduce bugs when you are making changes that are unnecessary for anything but readability).
Really, it's a risk management problem. Proceed with caution. The users do not care if the code is atrocious, they just care that it gets better without getting worse. Your need for beautiful code is not important in this scenario, get past it.
Just like any other code, you leave it slightly better when you leave it than it was when you entered it. You do not ever, ever rewrite the whole code. If that is the work it takes for some reason, then you start a project (small or large) for it.
I am assuming we are talking about a substantial amount of code here.
Not every day is a great day at work you know :)
The first question to ask is: does it work?
If the answer is yes, that would be a huge disincentive to simply ditch it and start over. There may be thousands of man-hours in that code which address edge cases and nasty bugs. Worse yet, there may be other modules in the system that depend on the current incorrect (but known and possibly documented) behavior. Don't mess with it if it isn't broken.
If you are keen on cleaning it up, start by writing test cases for the current behavior. When you run across an instance where the behavior differs from the specification, you must decide whether to accept the behavior as "correct" or go with what the spec say it ought to do.
Only once you have written test cases that all pass should you begin to refactor. The tests will tell you whether your efforts are breaking anything.
I'd talk to my manager and describe the code. Most managers would not want a program held together by banding wire and duct tape per se. If the code is really that bad there are sure to be some business logic errors, hardcoding etc. stuffed in there that will eventually just destroy productivity.
I've come across some pretty bad code before (single letter variable names, no comments, everything crammed onto one line, etc.) and once I mentioned/showed it to my manager they almost always said "go ahead and re-write it", because not only are you taking the hit for reading and changing the code but future co-workers will have to go through the same pain. Better that you take a longer period of time just once to rewrite it rather than having each person who touches the code in the future have to go through and comprehend and decipher it first.
There is an old saying. If is isn't broke, do not fix it. If you have to maintain it then reverse engineer it and document it so the next time you come across it you will know what it does.
You do not know the situation the developer was in when he or she wrote the code. He or she may have been under a time crunch when it was written, (management was all over the developer, etc)
There are also situations where he or she wrote the code per the spec, The spec then changed several times, the developer had to patch the code, as rewrite is out of the question due to time constraints. This happens all of the time.
If the code impacts the performance of robustness of the application and is modular then you can re factor or re-write. Document the situation to assist future programmers in understanding.
Also many programmers consider reverse engineering other developers code as beneath them.
they would rather rewrite without considering the ramifications of doing so.
If you have never done so, try it sometime, it will make you a better developer.
Thanks
Joe
Kill it with fire.
Depends on your time frame and how important that code is to you. If you have to "just make it work" then do that and rewrite the module when time allows.
If its an important or integral part of what you do then refactor refactor refactor.
Then find the guy/girl who wrote it and send them a rude postcard!
The worst offender (in my experience) of really AWFUL code is the ease with which people can do cut & paste these days. Cut & paste should be used rarely. If you think that's the right solution, it's generally better to step back and generalize the problem a little.
Anytime you see code that is "nearly incomprehensible", PROCEED WITH CAUTION. You need to assume that any major re-factoring will result in new bugs being introduced that you'll need to find and correct.
Additionally, I've seen this scenario many times (even fell victim to it myself once or twice): Programmer inherits legacy code, decides code is ancient & unmaintainable and decides to refactor it, ends up deleting key "fixes" or "business rules" subtly patched in over the years, ends up spending a lot of time tracking down and re-introducing similar code when users complain about "a problem fixed years ago is happening again".
Re-factoring (and debugging) almost always takes longer than expected and should never be considered as a "freebie" that comes along with whatever task you're supposed to be doing.
"If it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it" still has a lot of truth.
Im my company we always Refactor Mercilessly. so we still come across atrocious code but LESS and Less and less ...
We write a lot of in-house code and the company is run for about 100 years by the same family. Management usually tells us we have to maintain the code base (evolve) for another 50 years or so. In this setting having code you don't dare to touch is considered a bigger risk to the long term survival of the company then the prospect of downtime because some under-tested code broke because of refactoring.
I run copy-paste detector and findbugs on all legacy code that comes my way.
I then plan my initial refactoring:
remove unused code, unused variable and unused methods
refactor duplicated code
set up a single step build
build a basic functional test
By that point the code meets the basic minimum for maintainability. It can be easily built and basic errors can be found via an automated test.
I often add code like this:
log.debug("is foo null? " + (foo == null));
log.debug("is discount < raw price ? " + (foo.getDiscount() < foo.getRawPrice()));
Some of that code will be recovered for unit tests when I can refactor to it.
I've worked places where we ship that kind of code.
I try to make sense of it, make the necessary changes, and move on.
Of course, making sense of it usually involves some changes; at the very least, I move around the whitespace and line up corresponding braces in the same column like so:
if(condition){
doSomething(); }
// becomes...
if(condition)
{
doSomething();
}
I'll also often change variable names.
And very often, "the necessary changes" require refactoring. :)
Get the idea of what they're doing and the deadline to finish. A larger deadline, typically rebuild much of the code from the ground up, as I find it a very worthwhile experience to not only decipher terrible code and make it legible and document, but somewhere in your brain those neurons are pressed to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
Related
I need some advice on how to work with legacy code.
A while ago, I was given the task to add a few reports to a reporting app. written in Struts 1, back in 2005. No big deal, but the code is quite messy. No usage of Action forms, and basically the code is one huge action, and a lot of if-else statements inside. Also, no one here has functional knowledge on this. We just happened to have it in our contract.
I'm quite unhappy about this, and not sure how to proceed. This application is invisible: Few people (but all very important) use it, so they don't care whether my eyes bleed while reading the code, standards, etc.
However, I feel that a technical debt is to be paid. How should I proceed on this? Continue down the if-else road, or try to do this requirement the right way, ignoring the rest of the project? Starting a huge refactor, risking my deadline?
Legacy code is a big issue, and I'm sure people will not agree!
I would say that starting a big re-factor could be a mistake.
A big re-factor means doing a lot of work to make it function exactly the way that it does now. If you choose to take this on on your own, there won't be a lot of visibility of what you are doing. If it works, no one will know the hours of work you put it. If it does NOT work, and you end up with tidy code, but add some bugs (and who has ever written code without adding some bugs) then you will get 'why did this change' type questions.
I have currently nearly completed a project working on a 10 year old code base. We have done quite a few bits of re-factoring along the way. But for each re-factor we have made we can justify 'this specific change will make the actual task we are doing now easier'. Rather than 'this is now cleaner for future work'. We have found that as we worked on the code, fixing the issues that we actually come up against one at a time, we have cleaned up a lot of it, without breaking it (much).
And I would say before you can re-factor much, you will need automated tests, so you can be fairly happy that you have put it back together right!
Most re-factoring is done to 'make maintenance and future development easier'. Your project sounds like there is not a lot of future development coming. That limits the advantage a re-factor will give the company.
Rule #1: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Rule #2: When in doubt, reread rule #1.
Unfortunately, legacy code can very rarely be described as "it ain't broke." Therefor we must tweak the existing code to correct a newly found bug, tweak the existing code to modify behavior that was previously acceptable, or tweak the existing code to add new functionality.
My experience has taught me that any refactoring must be done in 'infinitesimally' small increments. If you must break rule #2, I suggest that you start your search with the inner-most nested loop or IF structure and expand outward until you find a clean, logical separation point and create a new function/method/subroutine that contains only the guts of that loop or structure. This won't make anything more efficient but it should give you a clearer view of the underlying logic and structure. Once you have several new, smaller functions/methods/subroutines you can refactor and consolidate those into something more manageable.
Rule #3: Ignore my previous paragraph and reread the first two rules.
I agree with other comments. If you don't have to, then don't do it. It usually cost far more then it's worth if the code base is more or less dead any way.
On the other hand, if you feel that you cannot get your head around the code then a refactor is probably unavoidable. If this is the case then, since it's a web application, can you create a solid suite of functional tests using selenium? If so this is the fastest and most rewarding test approach for such code and will catch most bugs for the buck.
Second, start with the extract method refactoring to create compose methods of the big difficult methods. Every time you think to your self "This should have a comment to explain what it does" you should extract it to a method with a name that replaces the comment.
Once this has been done, if you still can't add the functionality required, you can go for more advanced refactorings, and perhaps even adding some unit tests. But I usually find that I can add what is required/fix the bug in legacy code by just creating self documenting code.
In a few words: before make any modifications to legacy code its good idea to start from automated unit tests.
This will give developer understanding about key things: dependencies this piece of code has, input data, output results, boundary conditions so on.
When it’s done most likely you will better understand what this code does and how it works.
After that its make sense (but not must) clean code a bit giving more accurate names to local variables, moving some functionality (repetitive code, if any) in to functions with clear human friendly names.
A simple clean up could make code more readable and at the same time save developer from regression issues with unit tests help.
Refactoring – make small changes, step by step, when you have a time and understanding of the requirements and functionality, regularly unit testing the code.
But do not start from refactoring
I'm currently working on a small short-lived project. But despite the size it's complicated enough with very unclear logic. That's why it was started by more experienced developers. They work on it from time to time because it's not their main project.
They made some code drafts with numerous places which 'would be rewritten in the nearest future'. After that they added several another 'temporary pieces'. And then again..
So, now the project is a mess of 'half-working' pieces of code with some hardcoded values, like file names or some constants which 'will be replaced latter with working parts'. The API is awful (nobody thinks about it actually).
And it's really, really hard to do development now (for me it's the main and only project). I caught myself thinking that I spent about an hour every day just to understand again all that tricky 'temporary' things and API weaknesses. And after that hour my brain melts.
I can't just say "guys, your code smells like a trash dump". What's the correct way?
It seems like the ultimate problem is they are writing code and not taking responsibility for its quality.
If this goes against the culture of the organization, it's a matter of making the situation known others. If the developers don't know, and have a modicum of empathy, I would take the "I don't quite understand this. Could you spend a few minutes walking me through it?" with them. They should soon realize what they are doing to you, and good programmers will adjust their practices. This may also have to be done via the management hierarchy-- "In order to progress on project X, I need Y hours of the programmers' time to work with their code effectively." It should either happen or bring up a "Why" conversation that should lead to changes.
If this is the culture of the organization, that's unfortunate. It may mean that the programmers producing the code don't care, and nor do any of the management. This is a bit of a political question-- who is most capable and/or interested in seeing this change? Find allies and proceed best you can. A candid conversation with the developers may be the best choice, as they are the people capable of change and no one else is going to induce them to-- so just ask outright.
Hope this helps.
Push for implementation of a formal code review process. Then they won't dare write code like that in the first place. I recommend using a collaborative tool like SmartBear's Code Collaborator or the free ReviewBoard.
Just like people drive slower when they know the cops are watching, they write better code if they know someone is going to be looking at it.
Are these 'other developers' no longer working on the project? And if so, are you the main person working on it? If the answer to both of these is "yes" the the project is yours. Start to make incremental improvements to make it more readable.
You might also like to show the code to a more experienced developer who didn't work on the project. See if they agree that the code is hard to maintain. Suggest to your boss that you set some time aside to 'finish off' the temporary work and bring it to a point where it is maintainable.
Implementing a formal code review process is also a good idea if you want to prevent this happening again.
And remember it may not have been the other developers fault. Sometimes people are told to spend the minimum amount of time, or are told that the code will be thrown away.
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 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Do you do it when you’re in the code doing something else?
When your manager approves it? (Seems this never happens)
I guess some of this depends on the impact of the changes. If I change the code and it affects nothing outside of the class, to me that is low impact.
What does it become a design change? When it effect X object or X projects?
I’m just curious how others teams tackle this...
As part of original development (red/green/refactor)
When suggested by a code reviewer
When we've noticed a design pain-point
When making another change, if the refactoring is low impact, i.e. typically not affecting any other files.
If it affects the public API, I generally like to make the refactoring a single source code commit which doesn't change behaviour (and then build new behaviour into another commit). If it affects other projects too, there needs to be consensus over it and I would want to get permission to change their code to go in the same refactoring commit.
I find I refactor when revisiting code (presumably to add/extend functionality) more than 3 months after it was written.
If it takes me more than 2 minutes to discern what a chunk of code is doing, I'll break it apart to make it more immediately understandable (or just add some more comments.)
as soon as all of the tests run.
I work in a large system, so I only change things I have to. It is easy to have bad side effects to changes.
I will refactor sections of code that are performing poorly, not working properly, or needs new functionality.
I never just decide to fix things, I would never be done. if it works, and no one is asking for changes or complaining about problems, move on. life is too short to fix everything.
I often refactor my code when there is a user requirement change or bug fixes. Then there will be a chance for people to review your changes.
Otherwise, I normally don't touch the workable code even it smells.
We found small refactorings are best done while we were working on a bit of code - do what's required, preferably paired.
For bigger things, we had a Technical Debt section on the wall - if you spotted something and didn't have the time to address it, or it was going to take some discussion to solve, you'd add it to the wall and they would be scheduled for future iterations (or when free time cropped up).
Refactoring while you're already in the code is sometimes easiest, especially if your manager does not support the initiative, but if you only change a small part it will break consistency with surrounding parts. In these cases it's better to be selective and, as you suggested, do things that are low-impact. It may also be helpful to refactor long select/switch statements into functions and delay on refactoring the inner code until sometime later.
At a previous job, I was the manager, so I refactored whenever I wanted. At my current job, I'm an analyst so most of the code is not directly my responsibility. When I do write code, I avoid impacting anything that I'm not writing. I have one project which is entirely under my own control and I refactor any time I learn a better way to do something.
We refactor as often as we can. Having unit tests to ensure that everything works pre- and post- refactoring really helps.
Code review processes often help with this. If I touch some code, it gets reviewed, reviewer asks, "why did you do it this way?", I say, "I had to because of (insert ugliness here)". This is a sign that the code should be refactored right after the review is done.
To look at our company, we have decided that our upcoming application release is mostly dedicated to performance optimizations rather than new functionality. This was something we felt was needed and also was requested by some clients.
Therefore we have spent a lot of time identifying performance bottlenecks in our app and reviewing code and refactoring it to make things run faster.
So in our case we did it because management approved us doing it for this new release, because we showed to them how much performance improvement could be gained.
Refactor when needed:
when you need a better understanding of the code you are working on (pairing often helps here), examples are: renaming, method extraction etc.
when the current design doesn't allow for a 'clean' change: at this point you can actually argue with your manager on a value basis (e.g. what is this new feature worth to the project)
I am always making small refactorings in my code. I know as long as I have my unit tests to verify that everything is still functioning properly afterward, I see no harm in doing it as I go. That way you don't get that vague "needs refactoring" feeling every time you work on it.
Now if it requires a large refactoring, it's best to plan for that and set aside some time.
Seems most other posters are resistant to refacotring mercilessly. Of course this isn't possible if the system you're working on doesn't support this through extensive unit tests. But in general, If I can see an opportunity to make the code tighter without spending more than a few minutes or hours at most, I go for it. If I'm not sure what I should be working on, I look for something to refactor.
I refactor when I'm fixing a bug or adding a feature and the process of refactoring makes the code easier to read and easier to maintain.
Following DRY principles vehemently will often be a trigger for me to refactor.
Insufficiently often, thus building up technical debt.
Sad, but so.
Do as I say, not as the team I work on does.
When inheriting applications at a new job do you tend to stick to the original developers coding practices or do you start applying your own?
I work in a small shop with no guidelines and always wondered what the rule was here. Some applications are written very well but do not follow the standards I use (variable names etc...) and I do not want to "dirty" them up. I find my self taking a little extra time being consistent.
Others are written very poorly and it looks like the developer was changing his mind every keystroke...
ADDITIONAL THOUGHT
What about when I start my own projects? So now I have introduced a new coding standard to the mix:
The good code - but not my style
The bad code with bad practices and lack of standards
My own standards
If there are standards evident in the code, you should stick to them. If there aren't, start introducing your own.
If there are multiple developers who work on the same module, don't change the style.
If you will hand it off to another developer in the near future (this role is temporary), don't change the style.
If you are taking complete, exclusive, permanent ownership of the module, change it, but follow these rules:
One change at a time.
Fix all indentation to your liking at once, and commit that change.
Fix all brace placement to your liking at once, and commit that change.
Fix all other formatting to your liking at once, and commit that change.
Fix all naming to your liking at once, and commit that change.
Don't spend a lot of time on it.
If it takes more than an hour or two, then cut back.
Make the commit description clear.
So you can quickly ignore these changes when analyzing change history.
Use automated tools
to make sure the result is consistent and complete, so you don't have to mess with it again.
Run your tests
Just because your changes shouldn't affect behavior doesn't mean they won't. (Triple negative, ouch!)
Make sure everyone knows what you're doing
Someone might have a change hanging around that they want to commit now, and it'll be painful to merge with your changes. Also, you don't want anyone to get surprised and go tell your boss before you do.
Don't do it again
This is a one-time thing.
Publish a style guide that follows best practices, and build consensus around following it. Refactor old code as you need to maintain it.
I'm in the same boat as you. Lone developer who inherited some apps from the last guy. I
I've been sticking to what appear to be his standards for existing projects for consistency, and using my own preferences for new stuff.
I've noticed that most people think whoever came before them had no idea how to write code. Then whoever comes after them thinks the same thing. Some things are common sense, but most things are just personal preference.
For major problems, i.e. using comments v.s. not using comments, updating the code will probably make it easier to work with, and easier for anyone else to work with. Even then, your time is probably best-spent updating the code as you come across it, instead of embarking on a huge project to refactor everything (introducing new problems in the process).
For things like indentation, line spacing, variable names, one-line ifs v.s. multi-line ifs, the reality is that your coding style is likely just as bad as you think theirs is.
I think it depends on what you mean by "coding practices". If you mean things like code formatting and naming conventions and things that I would personally consider "cosmetic", then stick with whats already there. If you mean things like coding best prcatices and writing code correctly in the first place, then go back and fix the problems if possible, but at the very least make your new code follow best practices.
Given that most of the applications I've inherited have been hacked together by "cowboy coders" who didn't apply even the most basic of coding practices, my opinion is a little biased.
I say introduce coding standards if there are none or the ones that exist are blatantly wrong and/or stupid (e.g. "All variables must be no more than 4 characters in length", "Every database column is varchar(255) null", etc.). Obviously if you have a team then you'll need to come to an agreement as to what practices to implement, but if you're a solo dev then you have free reign and IMO you should introduce order to the chaos.
If the code works, and seems to have had a clean format. Don't waste time changing the style.
If the code is badly written. By all means change it when you have some down time, or the next time you work on the project.
For new projects do them your way, since there is no standard. As with the other well written programs yours should be easy enough to maintain.
composition is often preferred over inheritance
:-P
If it's just you, go for it. If it's a team, especially if any of the original developers are still around (or likely to be called in for consulting), keep with the existing style and practices as much as you can. Don't follow them down a rat hole - if you think they're doing something stupid, change it, but if it's just a stylistic thing, keep to their style as much as you can.
On several jobs I've been on, we had no rule on coding style other than "if you're making changes to an existing file/class, use the existing style, even for new code."
I follow company standards if there are any.
If there aren't any and the changes are small, I adopt to the used style of coding.
If there are larger changes to be made and I don't like the coder's style, I will use my own.
And if the existing code is bad I will change that too.
Will you ever have a better opportunity to update existing code with a standard style? Probably not. When you are new to the code you are going to have the best chance of taking some extra time to make non-new-feature and non-bug-fix changes. The lack of standards may be discouraging but you are unlikely to have a better chance to standardize than when you first inherit the code.
It sounds like we're talking about a situation with no official style guides / best practices. In that case, as Sean said, I'd take the lead on establishing some. But... if at all possible, pick an existing, widely-used standard. It's more likely to be accepted, all the arguments are done with, and the odds of out-of-the-box tool support (editors, code review tools, etc.) greatly increase.
Getting others to adopt it will often work best from the bottom up -- write new code to the new standards, mention to others that you've done so, ask for feedback. Much easier than trying to get approval and buy-in in advance.
Within the existing, ugly project, avoid wholesale changes to existing modules. For one thing, diffs and version control will get quite confusing if a file is suddenly reindented.
If the chunk you're working on is so bad as to be unreadable, I'd do an initial checkin just to reformat it; follow that up with actual code changes.
I would apply the same refactoring standards to the code as I would if it DID match my style standards. That is, I'd ignore the style and just go on about my business.
If it's not terribly difficult to follow the style that is in the code - with regards to naming conventions, I'd go ahead and use those for new code.
However, I wouldn't bother trying to follow stuff like 'tabs should not be used', 'every line should be indented 2 spaces', etc. There are plenty of editors out there where you can 'pretty' the code whenever you need it these days.
G-Man
I think it depends highly on the specific case.
If you are a consultant on a project for a short time you should stick to the way thing are.
If you are on for a long time. Try to refactor bad code into your own scheme.
If you are on for a short time but you are working on an isolated module, then use your own scheme.
Short answer is, "It depends." Here are a few factors that I'd consider important in determining whether to keep the old style or not:
1) Scope of changes. If it is close to a total re-write of the application, then it may make more sense to put in a new standard if you have one that you feel works well for you.
2) Likelihood of future changes. Will this be changed over and over again? If so, then taking some time early on may well be worth it in the end. This does require a bit of judgement and predicting the future, but it may be easy in some cases to see that there will be changes over and over again for some systems that are fairly complex.
3) How much of the code is a customization on a 3rd party codebase, e.g. a company's specific customizations of Oracle products for their business processes, compared to a completely home grown application. The impact here is that when new versions are relased and an upgrade is requested, how much pain may there be on what breaks since it was customized so much.
When starting your own projects, put in the best standard that you know.
If I inherit code that has obviously never been refactored, I would take that as an opportunity to impose some of my own structure.
If people expect me to make time and cost estimates for adding functionality to the code, I'll need to be intimately familiar it, and make sure it lives up to my standards.
If the code is already well-written, that would be a blessing that I would not mess with. But in my experience, this hasn't happened very often.
As you work in a legacy codebase what will have the greatest impact over time that will improve the quality of the codebase?
Remove unused code
Remove duplicated code
Add unit tests to improve test coverage where coverage is low
Create consistent formatting across files
Update 3rd party software
Reduce warnings generated by static analysis tools (i.e.Findbugs)
The codebase has been written by many developers with varying levels of expertise over many years, with a lot of areas untested and some untestable without spending a significant time on writing tests.
Read Michael Feather's book "Working effectively with Legacy Code"
This is a GREAT book.
If you don't like that answer, then the best advice I can give would be:
First, stop making new legacy code[1]
[1]: Legacy code = code without unit tests and therefore an unknown
Changing legacy code without an automated test suite in place is dangerous and irresponsible. Without good unit test coverage, you can't possibly know what affect those changes will have. Feathers recommends a "stranglehold" approach where you isolate areas of code you need to change, write some basic tests to verify basic assumptions, make small changes backed by unit tests, and work out from there.
NOTE: I'm not saying you need to stop everything and spend weeks writing tests for everything. Quite the contrary, just test around the areas you need to test and work out from there.
Jimmy Bogard and Ray Houston did an interesting screen cast on a subject very similar to this:
http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2008/05/06/pablotv-eliminating-static-dependencies-screencast.aspx
I work with a legacy 1M LOC application written and modified by about 50 programmers.
* Remove unused code
Almost useless... just ignore it. You wont get a big Return On Investment (ROI) from that one.
* Remove duplicated code
Actually, when I fix something I always search for duplicate. If I found some I put a generic function or comment all code occurrence for duplication (sometime, the effort for putting a generic function doesn't worth it). The main idea, is that I hate doing the same action more than once. Another reason is because there's always someone (could be me) that forget to check for other occurrence...
* Add unit tests to improve test coverage where coverage is low
Automated unit tests is wonderful... but if you have a big backlog, the task itself is hard to promote unless you have stability issue. Go with the part you are working on and hope that in a few year you have decent coverage.
* Create consistent formatting across files
IMO the difference in formatting is part of the legacy. It give you an hint about who or when the code was written. This can gave you some clue about how to behave in that part of the code. Doing the job of reformatting, isn't fun and it doesn't give any value for your customer.
* Update 3rd party software
Do it only if there's new really nice feature's or the version you have is not supported by the new operating system.
* Reduce warnings generated by static analysis tools
It can worth it. Sometime warning can hide a potential bug.
I'd say 'remove duplicated code' pretty much means you have to pull code out and abstract it so it can be used in multiple places - this, in theory, makes bugs easier to fix because you only have to fix one piece of code, as opposed to many pieces of code, to fix a bug in it.
Add unit tests to improve test coverage. Having good test coverage will allow you to refactor and improve functionality without fear.
There is a good book on this written by the author of CPPUnit, Working Effectively with Legacy Code.
Adding tests to legacy code is certianly more challenging than creating them from scratch. The most useful concept I've taken away from the book is the notion of "seams", which Feathers defines as
"a place where you can alter behavior in your program without editing in that place."
Sometimes its worth refactoring to create seams that will make future testing easier (or possible in the first place.) The google testing blog has several interesting posts on the subject, mostly revolving around the process of Dependency Injection.
I can relate to this question as I currently have in my lap one of 'those' old school codebase. Its not really legacy but its certainly not followed the trend of the years.
I'll tell you the things I would love to fix in it as they bug me every day:
Document the input and output variables
Refactor the variable names so they actually mean something other and some hungarian notation prefix followed by an acronym of three letters with some obscure meaning. CammelCase is the way to go.
I'm scared to death of changing any code as it will affect hundreds of clients that use the software and someone WILL notice even the most obscure side effect. Any repeatable regression tests would be a blessing since there are zero now.
The rest is really peanuts. These are the main problems with a legacy codebase, they really eat up tons of time.
I'd say it largely depends on what you want to do with the legacy code...
If it will indefinitely remain in maintenance mode and it's working fine, doing nothing at all is your best bet. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
If it's not working fine, removing the unused code and refactoring the duplicate code will make debugging a lot easier. However, I would only make these changes on the erring code.
If you plan on version 2.0, add unit tests and clean up the code you will bring forward
Good documentation. As someone who has to maintain and extend legacy code, that is the number one problem. It's difficult, if not downright dangerous to change code you don't understand. Even if you're lucky enough to be handed documented code, how sure are you that the documentation is right? That it covers all of the implicit knowledge of the original author? That it speaks to all of the "tricks" and edge cases?
Good documentation is what allows those other than the original author to understand, fix, and extend even bad code. I'll take hacked yet well-documented code that I can understand over perfect yet inscrutable code any day of the week.
The single biggest thing that I've done to the legacy code that I have to work with is to build a real API around it. It's a 1970's style COBOL API that I've built a .NET object model around, so that all the unsafe code is in one place, all of the translation between the API's native data types and .NET data types is in one place, the primary methods return and accept DataSets, and so on.
This was immensely difficult to do right, and there are still some defects in it that I know about. It's not terrifically efficient either, with all the marshalling that goes on. But on the other hand, I can build a DataGridView that round-trips data to a 15-year-old application which persists its data in Btrieve (!) in about half an hour, and it works. When customers come to me with projects, my estimates are in days and weeks rather than months and years.
As a parallel to what Josh Segall said, I would say comment the hell out of it. I've worked on several very large legacy systems that got dumped in my lap, and I found the biggest problem was keeping track of what I already learned about a particular section of code. Once I started placing notes as I go, including "To Do" notes, I stopped re-figuring out what I already figured out. Then I could focus on how those code segments flow and interact.
I would say just leave it alone for the most part. If it's not broken then don't fix it. If it is broken then go ahead and fix and improve the portion of the code that is broken and its immediately surrounding code. You can use the pain of the bug or sorely missing feature to justify the effort and expense of improving that part.
I would not recommend any wholesale kind of rewrite, refactor, reformat, or putting in of unit tests that is not guided by actual business or end-user need.
If you do get the opportunity to fix something, then do it right (the chance of doing it right the first time might have already passed, but since you are touching that part again might as well do it right time around) and this includes all the items you mentioned.
So in summary, there's no single or just a few things that you should do. You should do it all but in small portions and in an opportunistic manner.
Late to the party, but the following may be worth doing where a function/method is used or referenced often:
Local variables often tend to be poorly named in legacy code (often owing to their scope expanding when a method is modified, and not being updated to reflect this). Renaming these in line with their actual purpose can help clarify legacy code.
Even just laying out the method slightly differently can work wonders - for instance, putting all the clauses of an if on one line.
There might be stale/confusing code comments there already. Remove them if they're not needed, or amend them if you absolutely have to. (Of course, I'm not advocating removal of useful comments, just those that are a hindrance.)
These might not have the massive headline impact you're looking for, but they are low risk, particularly if the code can't be unit tested.