Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I often find that I do a less than complete work on a feature, especially in the Design phase. I detect several reasons:
I'm over-optimistic
I feel the need to provide quick solutions, so sometimes I fool myself into thinking the design is fool-proof when in fact it's still full of holes, just to get the job done faster. Of course I end up paying dearly later.
I'm aware of this behavior of mine for some time, yet I still find I don't manage to compensate. Have you encountered similar problems? How do you approach solving them?
I use a couple of techniques. The first is a simple paper to-do list. In the morning I write down my tasks for the day. I try to work on a task until I can cross it off. I cross it off only when I'm done to my own satisfaction. My to-do list helps me stay focused. When an interruption comes in, I can consciously choose whether it is important enough to interrupt what I'm doing now.
The second technique I use is to give up on the idea of "done" for a design. Instead, I focus on what I've started calling "successions", where a design goes through predictable stages. Each stage supports the current functionality well and will be succeeded at some point by the next stage. This lets me do a good job, a job I can be proud of, without over-designing.
I have the intuition that there is a small catalog of such successions (like http://www.threeriversinstitute.org/FirstOneThenMany.html) that would cover most of design. In the meantime, I try to remember that "sufficient to the day are the troubles thereof".
I run into this problem a lot.
My solution is a notebook. (The old fashioned paper kind).
I write out how I'm planning on implementing the solution as an bulleted overview list, and then I try and flesh out each point on the list.
Often, during that process, I come across issues I hadn't thought of.
Of course, the 80/20 rule still applies... I still come across things when I'm actually doing the implementation that hadn't occurred to me, but with experience these tend to diminish.
EDIT: If I'm still not sure at the end of this process, I put together a throwaway prototype testbed... It's important to make sure it's throwaway, because otherwise you run the risk of including some nasty hacks in your real codebase.
It's very common to miss edge-cases and detail when you're in the planning phase of a project, especially in the software development field. Please don't feel that this is a personal failing; it's something endemic.
To counter this, many software development methodologies have emerged. Most recently there has been a shift by many development teams to 'agile' methods, where there is a focus on rapid development with little up-front technical design (after all, many complexities are only discovered when you actually begin developing). I'm currently using the Scrum system, which has been excellent in my small team:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_methods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_%28development%29
If you find that your organisation will not accept what they may regard as a radical shift in approach, it may be worth investigating whether they will agree to the development of a prototype system. This means that you could code up a feature to investigate the technologies involved and judge whether it's feasible, without having to commit to full development, a quality bar, testing schedules etc. The prototype should be thrown away once the feasibility has been proved or disproved, then proper development may begin, including all that you've learned in the process.
If your problem is more related to time management, then I'd recommend the Getting Things Done approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_things_done). This is pragmatic and simple, concentrating on making you productive without overloading you with information that isn't immediately relevant to your current work. I've found that I get overwhelmed with project/feature ideas at times and it really helps to write everything down and file it for a later time when I have the resources available to work effectively.
I hope this helps and best of luck!
Communication.
The best way to not rush yourself into programming mistakes is communication. Yes, good ol' fashioned accountability. If another person in the office is involved in the process, the better the outcome. If a programmer just takes on the task without any concern for anybody else, then there is a higher possiblity for mistakes.
Accountability Checklist:
How do we support this?
Who needs to know what has changed?
Why are we doing this in the first place?
Will there be anybody who doesn't want this changed?
Will someone else understand how I did this?
How will the user perceive and use this change?
A skepticle comrad is usually good enough to help. Functional Specifications are good, they usually answer all of these thoughts. But, sometimes a conversation with another person can help you with it and you can get changes out the door faster.
I have learned, through years of mistakes (though still making them), that almost anything I want to use repeatedly, or distribute, needs to be designed properly. So getting burned enough times will end your optimism.
When getting pressure from management, I tell them I will have to put in the thought anyway, so I should do it when it's cheap. I think on paper as well, so I can actually prove that I'm doing something and it keeps my fingers on the keyboard, both of which provides a soothing effect to management. ;-)
At the risk of sounding obvious - be pessimistic. I had a few experiences where I thought "that should take a few hours" and it ended up taking a couple days because of all the little things that pop up unexpectedly.
By far the best way I've found to manage things is to (much like Andrew's answer) write out the design and requirements as a starting point. Then I go through and look for weak points in the design, gotchas and additional use cases etc. I try to look at this as a critical exercise - there's no code written yet, so this is the time to be totally ruthless and look for every weak point. Look for error conditions you'll have to handle, and whatever amount of time you think it will take to complete each feature/function, pad that amount by a lot. I've had times where I've doubled my initial estimate and still not been that far off the mark.
It's very hard as a programmer to realistically project debugging time - writing the code is easy to estimate, but debugging that into functioning, valid code is something else entirely. Therefore I find there's no exact science to it but I just pad tasks by a whole bunch, so that I have plenty of breathing room for debugging.
See also Evidence Based Scheduling which is a fascinating concept in scheduling developed by FogCreek for their FogBugz product.
You and the rest of the world.
You need more a more detailed design, more accurate estimate, and the willingness to accept that sometimes the optimal solution is not necessarily the best solution (e.g., you could code some loop in assembler to get optimal performance, but that's going to take a lot longer than just doing
for (i=1; i<=10; i++) {}
). Is the time spent doing it really worth it for an accounting package over a missile system.
I like to designing, but over time I've found that much design up front is a lot like building castles into the sky - it's too much speculation, however well-educated, missing critical feedback from actually implementing and using the design.
So today I'm much more into accepting that while implementing a design I will learn a lot of new stuff about it, and need to feed that learning back into the design. Doing that is a skill that is fun to learn, including the skills to keep a design flexible by keeping it simple, free of duplication and cohesive and decoupled, of changing the design in small, controlled steps (=refactoring), and writing the necessary extensive suite of automated tests that make this kind of changes safe.
This seems to be a much more effective approach to me than getting better at "up front design speculation" - and addtionally it makes me equally well prepared for the inevitable moment when the design needs to be changed due to a simply unforseeable change in the requirements.
Divide, divide, divide. List all the steps that will be required to finish the project, then list all the steps those steps will require to be concluded, and so on until you reach atomic items you are absolutely sure you can finish in a day or less. Add the duration of all these values to arrive at a length of time.
Then double it. Now you have a number that, if depressing, is at least somewhat realistic.
If possible "Sleep on your design" before publishing it. I find after I leave work, I usually think of things I have missed. This usually happens while I am lying in bed before falling asleep or even while showering the next day.
I also find it valuable to have a peer/friend that I trust review what I have before distributing it. Somebody else almost always sees something I didn't think of or miscommunicated.
I like to do as others stated here. Write down in pseudo code what the flow of your app will be. This immediately highlights some detailed areas that may require further attention that where not apparent up front.
Pseudo code is also readable to business users who can verify your approach meets their needs.
Using pseudo code also creates a nice set of methods that could be put to use as an interface in the final solution. Once the pseudo code is fairly tight, look for patterns and review some common GOF patterns. They do not have to be perfect but using them will sheild you from having to rewrite the code later during the revisions that are bound to come along.
Just taking an hour or two write psuedo code, yields some invaluable time saving pieces later on:
1. An object model emerges
2. The program's flow is clearly defined for others
3. It can be used as documentation of your design with some refinement
4. Comments are easier to add and will be clearer for someone else reviewing your code.
Best of luck to you!
I've found that the best way to make sure you've chosen a good design is to make sure that you understand the problem, know the limitations you have, and know what things are must-haves vs. nice-to-haves.
Understanding the problem will involve talking to the people who have the need and keeping them anchored to what needs to get done first instead of how they think it ought to get done. Once you know what actually has to happen, you can go back and talk over requirements about how.
Knowing your limitations may be quite easy: needs to run on the iPhone; has to be a web application; needs to integrate with the already-existing Java code and deployment setup; and so on. It may be quite difficult: you don't know what the potential size of your user base is (hundreds? thousands? millions?); you don't know whether you'll need to localize it (though if you're not sure, assume you will have to).
Must-haves vs, nice-to-haves: this is possibly the most difficult part. Users very often have emotional attachments to "requirements" ("It should look just like Excel") that are not actually part of the "has to happen" stuff. You often have to juggle functionality vs. desires to get an acceptable implementation. You can't always give everyone a pony.
Make sure you write all this down! Even if it evolves along the way, or the design is small, having a "this is what we're planning to do now" guide to refer to when you need ot make a decision about committing resources makes it easier to restrain yourself from implementing a really cool whiz-bang feature instead of a boring must-do.
Since you recognize that you feel the need to provide a quick solution, perhaps it will slow you down to realize that you can probably solve the problem faster and deliver it sooner if you spend more upfront time in design. For instance if you spend 3 hours designing and 30 hours writting code, it probably means that if you spend 6 hours designing you might need to only spend 10 hours writing code. (These are not actual figures just examples). You might try to quantify this for yourself on the next few projects you do. Do a couple where you behave as you normally would and see what ratio of design/codewriting/testing&debugging you actually do. Then on the next project deliberately increase the percentage of time you spend on design phase and see if it does shorten the time needed for the other phases. You will have to try for several projects on this as well to get a true baseline since the projects may be quite different. Do it as a test to see if you can improve your performance on the the other phases and thus deliver a faster product if you spend 20% more time or 50% more time or 100% more time on design.
Remember the later in the process you find the problem with a design the harder (and more time-consuming) it is to fix.
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
When do you start to consider a code base to be getting too large and unwieldy?
-when a significant amount of your coding time is devoted to "where do I put this code?"
-when reasoning about side-effects starts to become really hard.
-when there's a significant amount of code that's just "in there", and nobody knows what it does or if it's still running but it's too scary to remove
-when lots of team members spend significant chunks of their time chasing down intermittent bugs caused by some empty string somewhere in the data where it wasn't expected, or something that you think would usually be caught in a well-written application, in some edge case
-when, in considering how to implement a new feature, "complete rewrite" starts to seem like a good answer
-when you dread looking at the mess of code you need to maintain and wish you could find work building something clean and logical instead of dumpster diving through the detritus of someone else's poorly organized thinking
When it's over 100 lines. Joke. This is probably the hardest question to answer, because it's very individual.
But if you structure the application well and use different layers for i.e. interfaces, data, services and front-end you will automaticly get a nice "base"-structure. Then you can dividie each layer into different classes and then inside the classes you point out the appropriet methods for the class.
However, there's not an "x amount of lines per method is bad" but think of it more like this, if there is possibility of replication, split it from the current peice and make it re-usable.
Re-using code is the basics of all good structure.
And splitting up into different layers will help the base to become more and more flexible and modular.
There exist some calculable metrics if that's what you're searching for. Static code analysis tools can help with that:
Here's one list: http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_metrics.html
Other factors can be the time it takes to change/add something.
Other non-calculable factors can be
the risk associated to changes
the level intermingling of features.
if the documentation can keep up with the features / code
if the documentation represent the application.
the level of training needed.
the quantity of repeat instead of reuse.
Ah, the god-program anti-pattern.
When you can't remember at least the
outline of sections of it.
When you have to think about how
changes will affect itself or
dependencies.
When you can't remember all the
things it's dependant on or depend
on it.
When it takes more than a few
minutes(?) to download the source or
compile.
When you have to worry about how to
deploy new versions.
When you encounter classes which are
functionally identical to other
classes elsewhere in the app.
So many possible signs.
I think there are many thoughts to why some code base is too large.
It is hard to remain in a constant naming convention. If classes/methods/atributes can't be named consistently or can't be found consistently, then it's time to reorganize.
When your programmers are surfing the web and going to lunch in order to compile. Keeping compiling/linking time to a minimum is important for management. The last thing you want is a programmer to get distracted by twiddling their thumbs for too long.
When small changes start to affect many MANY other places of code. There is a benefit to consolidation of code, but there is also a cost. If a small change to fix one bug causes a dozen more, and this is commonly happens, then your code base needs to be spread out (versioned libraries) or possibly unconsolidated (yes, duplicate code).
If the learning curve of new programmers to the project is obviously longer than acceptable (usually 90 days), then your code base/training isn't set up right.
..There are many many more, I'm sure. If you think about it from these three perspectives:
Is it hard to support?
Is it hard to change?
Is it hard to learn?
...Then you will have an idea if your code fits the "large and unwieldy" category
For me, code becomes unwieldy when there's been a lot of changes made to the codebase that weren't planned for when the program was initially written or last refactored significantly. At this point, stuff starts to get fitted into the existing codebase in odd places for expediency and you start to get a lot of design artifacts that only make sense if you know the history of the implementation.
Short answer: it depends on the project.
Long answer:
A codebase doesn't have to be large to be unwieldy - spaghetti code can be written from line 1. So, there's not really a magic tripping point from good to bad - it's more of a spectrum of great <---> awful, and it takes daily effort to keep your codebase from heading in the wrong direction. What you generally need is a lead developer that has the ability to review others' code objectively, and keep an eye on the architecture and design of the code as a whole - no one line developer can do that.
When I can't remember what a class does or what other classes it uses off the top of my head. It's really more a function of my cognitive capacity coupled with the code complexity.
I was trying to think of a way of deciding based on how your collegues perceive it to be.
During my first week at a gig a few years ago, I said during a stand-up that I had been tracking a white rabbit around the ContainerManagerBean, the ContainerManagementBean and the ContextManagerBean (it makes me shudder just recalling these words!). At least two of the developers looked at their shoes and I could see them keeping in a snigger.
Right then and there, I knew that this was not a problem with my lack of familiarity with the codebase - all the developers perceived a problem with it.
If over years of development different people code change requests and bug fixes you will sooner or later get parts of code with duplicated functionality, very similar classes, some spaghetti etc.
This is mostly due to the fact that a fix is needed fast and the "new guy" doesn't know the code base. So he happily codes away something which is already there.
But if you have automatic checks in place checking the style, unit test code coverage and similar you can avoid some of it.
A lot of the things that people have identified as indicating problems don't really have to do with the raw size of the codebase, but rather its comprehensibility. How does size relate to comprehensibility? If at all...
I've seen very short programs that are just a mess -- easier to throw away and redo from scratch. I've also seen very large programs whose structure is transparent enough that it is comprehensible even at progressively more detailed views of it. And everything in between...
I think look at this question from the standpoint of an entire codebase is a good one, but it probably pays to work up from the bottom and look first at the comprehensibility of individual classes, to multi-class components, to subsystems, and finally up to an entire system. I would expect the answers at each level of detail to build on each other.
For my money, the simplest benchmark is this: Can you explain the essence of what X does in one sentence? Where X is some granularity of component, and you can assume an understanding of the levels immediately above and below the component.
When you come to need a utility method or class, and have no idea whether someone else has already implemented it or have any idea where to look for one.
Related: when several slightly different implementations of the same functionality exist, because each author was unaware of other authors' work.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I've inherited a project where the class diagrams closely resemble a spider web on a plate of spaghetti. I've written about 300 unit tests in the past two months to give myself a safety net covering the main executable.
I have my library of agile development books within reach at any given moment:
Working Effectively with Legacy Code
Refactoring
Code Complete
Agile Principles Patterns and Practices in C#
etc.
The problem is everything I touch seems to break something else.
The UI classes have business logic and database code mixed in. There are mutual dependencies between a number of classes. There's a couple of god classes that break every time I change any of the other classes. There's also a mutant singleton/utility class with about half instance methods and half static methods (though ironically the static methods rely on the instance and the instance methods don't).
My predecessors even thought it would be clever to use all the datasets backwards. Every database update is sent directly to the db server as parameters in a stored procedure, then the datasets are manually refreshed so the UI will display the most recent changes.
I'm sometimes tempted to think they used some form of weak obfuscation for either job security or as a last farewell before handing the code over.
Is there any good resources for detangling this mess? The books I have are helpful but only seem to cover half the scenarios I'm running into.
It sounds like you're tackling it in the right way.
Test
Refactor
Test again
Unfortunately, this can be a slow and tedious process. There's really no substitute for digging in and understanding what the code is trying to accomplish.
One book that I can recommend (if you don't already have it filed under "etc.") is Refactoring to Patterns. It's geared towards people who are in your exact situation.
I'm working in a similar situation.
If it is not a small utility but a big enterprise project then it is:
a) too late to fix it
b) beyond the capabilities of a single person to attempt a)
c) can only be fixed by a complete rewriting of the stuff which is out of the question
Refactoring can in many cases be only attempted in your private time at your personal risk. If you don't get an explicit mandate to do it as part of you daily job then you're likely not even get any credit for it. May even be criticized for "pointlessly wasting time on something that has perfectly worked for a long time already".
Just continue hacking it the way it has been hacked before, receive your paycheck and so on. When you get completely frustrated or the system reaches the point of being non-hackable any further, find another job.
EDIT: Whenever I attempt to address the question of the true architecture and doing the things the right way I usually get LOL in my face directly from responsible managers who are saying something like "I don't give a damn about good architecture" (attempted translation from German). I have personally brought one very bad component to the point of non-hackability while of course having given advanced warnings months in advance. They then had to cancel some promised features to customers because it was not doable any longer. Noone touches it anymore...
I've worked this job before. I spent just over two years on a legacy beast that is very similar. It took two of us over a year just to stabilize everything (it's still broke, but it's better).
First thing -- get exception logging into the app if it doesn't exist already. We used FogBugz, and it took us about a month to get reporting integrated into our app; it wasn't perfect right away, but it was reporting errors automatically. It's usually pretty safe to implement try-catch blocks in all your events, and that will cover most of your errors.
From there fix the bugs that come in first. Then fight the small battles, especially those based on the bugs. If you fix a bug that unexpectedly affects something else, refactor that block so that it is decoupled from the rest of the code.
It will take some extreme measures to rewrite a big, critical-to-company-success application no matter how bad it is. Even you get permission to do so, you'll be spending too much time supporting the legacy application to make any progress on the rewrite anyway. If you do many small refactorings, eventually either the big ones won't be that big or you'll have really good foundation classes for your rewrite.
One thing to take away from this is that it is a great experience. It will be frustrating, but you will learn a lot.
I have (once) come across code that was so insanely tangled that I couldn't fix it with a functional duplicate in a reasonable amount of time. That was sort of a special case though, as it was a parser and I had no idea how many clients might be "using" some of the bugs it had. Rendering hundreds of "working" source files erroneous was not a good option.
Most of the time it is imminently doable, just daunting. Read through that refactoring book.
I generally start fixing bad code by moving things around a bit (without actually changing implementation code more than required) so that modules and classes are at least somewhat coherent.
When that is done, you can take your more coherent class and rewrite its guts to perform the exact same way, but this time with sensible code. This is the tricky part with management, as they generally don't like to hear that you are going to take weeks to code and debug something that will behave exactly the same (if all goes well).
During this process I guarantee you will discover tons of bugs, and outright design stupidities. It's OK to fix trivial bugs while recoding, but otherwise leave such things for later.
Once this is done with a couple of classes, you will start to see where things can be modularized better, designed better, etc. Plus it will be easier to make such changes without impacting unrelated things because the code is now more modular, and you probably know it thoroughly.
Mostly, that sounds pretty bad. But I don't understand this part:
My predecessors even thought it would
be clever to use all the datasets
backwards. Every database update is
sent directly to the db server as
parameters in a stored procedure, then
the datasets are manually refreshed so
the UI will display the most recent
changes.
That sounds pretty close to a way I frequently write things. What's wrong with this? What's the correct way?
If your refactorings are breaking code, particularly code that seems to be unrelated, then you're trying to do too much at a time.
I recommend a first-pass refactoring where all you do is ExtractMethod: the goal is simply to name each step in the code, without any attempts at consolidation whatsoever.
After that, think about breaking dependencies, replacing singletons, consolidation.
If your refactorings are breaking things, then it means you don't have adequate unit test coverage - as the unit tests should have broken first. I recommend you get better unit test coverage second, after getting exception logging into place.
I then recommend you do small refactorings first - Extract Method to break large methods into understandable pieces; Introduce Variable to remove some duplication within a method; maybe Introduce Parameter if you find duplication between the variables used by your callers and the callee.
And run the unit test suite after each refactoring or set of refactorings. I'd say run them all until you gain confidence about which tests will need to be rerun every time.
No book will be able to cover all possible scenarios. It also depends on what you'll be expected to do with the project and whether there is any kind of external specification.
If you'll only have to do occasional small changes, just do those and don't bother starting to refactor.
If there is a specification (or you can get someone to write it), consider a complete rewrite if it can be justified by the foreseeable amount of changes to the project
If "the implementation is the specification" and there are a lot of changes planned, then you're pretty much hosed. Write LOTS of unit tests and start refactoring in small steps.
Actually, unit tests are going to be invaluable no matter what you do (if you can write them to an interface that's not going to change much with refactorings or a rewrite, that is).
See blog post Anatomy of an Anti-Corruption Layer, Part 1 and Anatomy of an Anti-Corruption Layer, Part 2.
It cites Eric Evans, Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software:
Access the crap behind a facade
You could extract and then refactor some part of it, to break the dependencies and isolate layers into different modules, libraries, assemblies, directories. Then you re-inject the cleaned parts in to the application with a strangler application strategy. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Good luck, that is the tough part of being a developer.
I think your approach is good, but you need to focus on delivering business value (number of unit tests is not a measure of business value, but it may give you an indication if you are on or off track). It's important to have identified the behaviors that need to be changed, prioritize, and focus on the top ones.
The other piece of advise is to remain humble. Realize that if you wrote something so large under real deadlines and someone else saw your code, they would probably have problems understanding it as well. There is a skill in writing clean code, and there is a more important skill in dealing with other people's code.
The last piece of advise is to try to leverage the rest of your team. Past members may know information about the system you can learn. Also, they may be able to help test behaviors. I know the ideal is to have automated tests, but if someone can help by verifying things for you manually consider getting their help.
I particularly like the diagram in Code Complete, in which you start with just legacy code, a rectangle of fuzzy grey texture. Then when you replace some of it, you have fuzzy grey at the bottom, solid white at the top, and a jagged line representing the interface between the two.
That is, everything is either 'nasty old stuff' or 'nice new stuff'. One side of the line or the other.
The line is jagged, because you're migrating different parts of the system at different rates.
As you work, the jagged line gradually descends, until you have more white than grey, and eventually just grey.
Of course, that doesn't make the specifics any easier for you. But it does give you a model you can use to monitor your progress. At any one time you should have a clear understanding of where the line is: which bits are new, which are old, and how the two sides communicate.
You might find the following post useful:
http://refactoringin.net/?p=36
As it is said in the post, don't discard a complete overwrite that easily. Also, if at all possible, try to replace whole layers or tiers with third-party solution like for example ORM for persistence or with new code. But most important of all, try to understand the logic (problem domain) behind the code.
Say you have a program that currently functions the way it is supposed to. The application has very poor code behind it, eats up a lot of memory, is unscalable and would take major rewriting to implement any changes in functionality.
At what point does refactoring become less logical then a total rebuild?
Joel wrote a nice essay about this very topic:
Things You Should Never Do, Part 1
The key lesson I got from this is that although the old code is horrible, hurts your eyes and your aesthetic sense, there's a pretty good chance that a lot of that code is patching undocumented errors and problems. Ie., it has a lot of domain knowledge embedded in it and it will be difficult or impossible for you to replicate it. You'll constantly be hitting against bugs-of-omission.
A book I found immensely useful is Working Effectively With Legacy Code by Michael C. Feathers. It offers strategies and methods for approaching even truly ugly legacy code.
One benefit of refactoring over rebuilding is that IF you can do refactoring step by step, i.e. in increments, you can test the increments in the context of the whole system, making development and debugging faster.
Old and deployed code, even when ugly and slow, has the benefit of having been tested thoroughly, and this benefit is lost if you start from scratch.
An incremental refactoring approach also has helps to ensure that there is always a product available which can be shipped (and it's improving constantly).
There is a nice article on the web about how Netscape 6 was written from scratch and it was business-wise a bad idea.
Robert L. Glass suggests that
Modification of reused code is particularly error-prone. If more than 20 to 25 percent of a component is to be revised, it is more efficient and effective to write it from scratch.
Well, the simplest answer is if it will take longer to refactor than it will to rebuild, then you should just rebuild.
If it's a personal project then you might want to rebuild it anyway as you will probably learn more from building from scratch than you would from refactoring, and that's one big objective of personal projects.
However, in a professional time-limited environment, you should always go with whatever costs the company the least amount of money (for the same payoff) in the long run, which means choosing whichever takes less time.
Of course, it can be a little more complicated than that. If other people can be working on features while the refactoring is being done, then that might be a better choice over having everyone wait for a completely new version to be built. In that case rebuilding might take less time than just the refactoring would have taken, but you need to take the entire project and all contributors of the project in to account.
When you spend more time refactoring than actually writing code.
At the point where the software doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Refactoring (changing the code without changing the functionality) makes sense if and only if the functionality is "as intended".
If you can afford the time to completely rebuild the app, don't need to improve functionality incrementally, and don't wish to retain any of the existing code then rewriting is certainly a viable alternative. You can, on the other hand, use refactoring to do an incremental rewrite by slowly replacing the existing functions with equivalent functions that are better written and more efficient.
If the application is very small, then you can rewrite it from scratch. If the application is big, never do it. Rewrite it progressively, one step at a time validating you didn't break anything.
The application is the specification. If your rewrite it from scratch you will most likely run into a lots of insidious bugs because "no one knew that the call to this function was supposed to return 3 in that very specific case" (undocumented behaviour...).
It's always more fun to rewrite from scratch so your brain might trick you into thinking it's the right choice. Be careful, it's most likely not.
I've worked with such applications in the past. The best approach I've found is a gradual one: When you are working on the code, find things that are done multiple times, group them together in functions. Keep a notebook (you know, a real one, with paper, and a pencil or pen) so that you can mark your progress. Use that in combination with your VCS, not instead of it. The notebook can be used to provide an overview of the new functions you've created as part of the refactoring, and the VCS of course fills in the blanks for the details.
Over time, you will have consolidated a lot of code into more appropriate places. Code duplication during this period of time is going to be next to impossible, so just do it as best as you can until you've reached a point where you can really start the refactoring process, auditing the entire code base and working on it as a whole.
If you've not enough time for that process (which will take a very long time), then rewriting from scratch using a test-first approach is probably better.
One option would be to write unit tests to cover the existing application and then start to refactor it bit by bit, using the unit tests to make sure everything works as before.
In an ideal world you'd already have unit tests for the program, but given your comments about the quality of the app I'm guessing you don't...
No document, no original writer, no test case, and a bunch of remaining bugs.
Uncle Bob weighs in with the following:
When is a redesign the right strategy?
I’m glad you asked that question. Here’s the answer. Never.
Look, you made the mess, now clean it up.
I’ve not had much luck with small incremental changes when the code I inherit is really bad. In theory the small incremental approach sounds good, but in practice all it ends up with is a better, but still poorly designed application that everyone thinks is now YOUR design. When things break, people no longer think it is because of the previous code, it now becomes YOUR fault. So, I would not use the word redesign, refactor or anything else that implies to a manager type that you are changing things to your way unless I was really going to do it my way. Otherwise, even though you may have fixed dozens of problems, any problems that still existed (but weren’t discovered) are now going to be attributed to your rework. And be assured that if the code is bad then your fixes will uncover a lot more bugs that were simply ignored before because the code was so bad to begin with.
If you truly know how to develop software systems then I would do a redesign of the whole system. If you don’t TRULY know how to design GOOD software then I’d say stick with the small incremental changes as you may otherwise end up with a code base that is just as bad as the original.
One mistake that is often made when redesigning is that people ignore the original code base. However, redesign does not have to mean totally ignore the old code. The old code still had to do what your new code has to do, so in many cases the steps you need are already in the old code. Copy and Paste then tweak works wonders when redesigning systems. I have found that in many cases, redesigning and rewriting an application and stealing snippets from the original code is far quicker and much more reliable than small incremental changes.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Many times we find ourselves working on a problem, only to figure out the solution being created is far more complex than the problem requires. Are there controls, best practices, techniques, etc that help you control over complication in your workplace?
Getting someone new to look at it.
In my experience, designing for an overly general case tends to breed too much complexity.
Engineering culture encourages designs that make fewer assumptions about the environment; this is usually a good thing, but some people take it too far. For example, it might be nice if your car design doesn't assume a specific gravitational pull, nobody is actually going to drive your car on the moon, and if they did, it wouldn't work, because there is no oxygen to make the fuel burn.
The difficult part is that the guy who is developed the "works-on-any-planet" design is often regarded as clever, so you may have to work harder to argue that his design is too clever.
Understanding trade-offs, so you can make the decision between good assumptions and bad assumptions, will go a long way into avoiding a needlessly complicated design.
If its too hard to test, your design is too complicated. That's the first metric I use.
Here are some ideas to get design more simpler:
read some programming books and articles, and then apply them in your work and write code
read lots of code (good and bad) written by other people (like Open Source projects) and learn to see what works and what does not
build safety nets (unit tests) to enable experimentations with your code
use version control to enable rollback, if those experimentations take wrong turn
TDD (test driven development) and BDD (behaviour driven development)
change your attitude, ask how you can make it so, that "it simply works" (convention over configuration could help there; or ask how Apple would do it)
practice (like jazz players -- jam with code, try Code Kata)
write same code multiple times, with different languages and after some time has passed
learn new languages with new concepts (if you use static language, learn dynamic one; if you use procedural language, learn functional one; ...) [one language per year is about right]
ask someone to review you code and actively ask how you can make your code simpler and more elegant (and then make it)
get years under your belt by doing above things (time helps active mind)
I create a design etc., and then I look at it and try and remove (agressively) everything that doesn't seem to be needed. If it turns out I need it later when I am polishing the design I add it back in. I do this over several iterations, refining as I go along.
Read "Working Effectively With Legacy Code" by Michael C. Feathers.
The point is, if you have code that works, and you need to change the design, nothing works better than making your code unit testable, and breaking your code into smaller pieces.
Using Test Driven Development and following Robert C. Martin's Three Rules of TDD:
You are not allowed to write any production code unless it is to make a failing unit test pass.
You are not allowed to write any more of a unit test than is sufficient to fail; and compilation failures are failures.
You are not allowed to write any more production code than is sufficient to pass the one failing unit test.
In this way you are not likely to get much code that you don't need. You will always be focused on making one important thing work and won't ever get too far ahead of yourself in terms of complexity.
Test first may help here, but it is not suitable for all situation. And it's not a panacea anyway.
Start small is another great idea. Do you really need to stuff all 10 design patterns into this thing? Try first to do it "stupid way". Doesn't quite cut it? Okay, do it "slightly less stupid way". Etc.
Get it reviewed. As someone else wrote, two pairs of eyes are better. Even better are two brains. Your mate may just see a room for simplification, or a problematic area you thought was fine just because you spend many hours hacking it.
Use lean language. Languages such as Java, or sometimes C++ sometimes seem to encourage nasty, convoluted solutions. Simple things tend to span over multiple lines of code, and you just need to use 3 external libraries and a big framework to manage it all. Consider using Python, Ruby, etc. - if not for your project, then for some private use. It can change your mindset to favor simplicity, and to be assured that simplicity is possible.
Reduce the amount of data you're working with by serialising the task into a series of smaller tasks. Most people can only hold half a dozen (plus or minus) conditions in their head while coding, so make that the unit of implementation. Design for all the tasks you need to accomplish, but then ruthlessly hack the design so that you never have to play with more than half a dozen paths though the module.
This follows from Bendazo's post - simplify until it becomes easy.
It is inevitable once you have been a programmer that this will happen. If you seriously have unestimated the effort or hit a problem where your solution just doesn't work then stop coding and get talking to your project manager. I always like to take the solutions with me to the meeting, problem is A, you can do x which will take 3 days or we can try y which will take 6 days. Don't make the choice yourself.
Talk to other programmers every step of the way. The more eyes there are on the design, the more likely an overcomplicated aspect is revealed early, before it becomes too ossified in the codebase.
Constantly ask yourself how you will use whatever you are currently working on. If the answer is that you're not sure, stop to rethink what you're doing.
I've found it useful to jot down thoughts about how to potentially simplify something I'm currently working on. That way, once I actually have it working, it's easier to go back and refactor or redo as necessary instead of messing with something that's not even functional yet.
This is a delicate balancing act: on the one hand you don't want something that takes too long to design and implement, on the other hand you don't want a hack that isn't complicated enough to deal with next week's problem, or even worse requires rewriting to adapt.
A couple of techniques I find helpful:
If something seems more complex than you would like then never sit down to implement it as soon as you have finished thinking about it. Find something else to do for the rest of the day. Numerous times I end up thinking of a different solution to an early part of the problem that removes a lot of the complexity later on.
In a similar vein have someone else you can bounce ideas off. Make sure you can explain to them why the complexity is justified!
If you are adding complexity because you think it will be justified in the future then try to establish when in the future you will use it. If you can't (realistically) imagine needing the complexity for a year or three then it probably isn't justifiable to pay for it now.
I ask my customers why they need some feature. I try and get to the bottom of their request and identify the problem they are experiencing. This often lends itself to a simpler solution than I (or they) would think of.
Of course, if you know your clients' work habits and what problems they have to tackle, you can understand their problems much better from the get-go. And if you "know them" know them, then you understand their speech better. So, develop a close working relationship with your users. It's step zero of engineering.
Take time to name the concepts of the system well, and find names that are related, this makes the system more familiar. Don't be hesitant to rename concepts, the better the connection to the world you know, the better your brain can work with it.
Ask for opinions from people who get their kicks from clean, simple solutions.
Only implement concepts needed by the current project (a desire for future proofing or generic systems make your design bloated).