Search Results

Search found 88435 results on 3538 pages for 'code reuse'.

Page 1/3538 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Reusable VS clean code - where's the balance?

    - by Radek Šimko
    Let's say I have a data model for a blog posts and have two use-cases of that model - getting all blogposts and getting only blogposts which were written by specific author. There are basically two ways how I can realize that. 1st model class Articles { public function getPosts() { return $this->connection->find() ->sort(array('creation_time' => -1)); } public function getPostsByAuthor( $authorUid ) { return $this->connection->find(array('author_uid' => $authorUid)) ->sort(array('creation_time' => -1)); } } 1st usage (presenter/controller) if ( $GET['author_uid'] ) { $posts = $articles->getPostsByAuthor($GET['author_uid']); } else { $posts = $articles->getPosts(); } 2nd one class Articles { public function getPosts( $authorUid = NULL ) { $query = array(); if( $authorUid !== NULL ) { $query = array('author_uid' => $authorUid); } return $this->connection->find($query) ->sort(array('creation_time' => -1)); } } 2nd usage (presenter/controller) $posts = $articles->getPosts( $_GET['author_uid'] ); To sum up (dis)advantages: 1) cleaner code 2) more reusable code Which one do you think is better and why? Is there any kind of compromise between those two?

    Read the article

  • Code Reuse and Abstraction in FP vs OOP

    - by Electric Coffee
    I've been told that code reuse and abstraction in OOP is far more difficult to do than it is in FP, and that all the claims that have been made about Object Orientedness (for lack of a better term) being great at reusing code have been flat out lies So I was wondering if anyone here could tell me why that is, and perhaps show me some code to back up these claims, I'm not saying I don't believe you Functional programmers, it's just that I've been "indoctrinated" to think Object Orientedly, and thus can't (yet) think Functionally enough to see it myself To quote Jimmy Hoffa (from an answer to one of my previous questions): The cake is a lie, code reuse in OO is far more difficult than in FP. For all that OO has claimed code reuse over the years, I have seen it follow through a minimum of times. (feel free to just say I must be doing it wrong, I'm comfortable with how well I write OO code having had to design and maintain OO systems for years, I know the quality of my own results) That quote is the basis of my question, I want to see if there's anything to the claim or not

    Read the article

  • How to promote code reuse and documentation?

    - by Graviton
    As a team lead of about 10+ developers, I would want to promote code reuse. We have written a lot of code-- a lot of them are repetitive over the past few years. The problem now is that a lot of these code are just duplicate of some other code or a slight variation of them. I have started the movement ( discussion) on how to make code into components so that they can be reused for the future projects, but the problem is that I afraid the new developers or other developers who are ignorant of the components will just go forward and write their own thing. Is there anyway to remind the developers to reuse the components/ improve the documentation/ contribute to the underlying component instead of duplicating the existing code and tweaking on it or just write their own? How to make the components easily discover-able, easily usable so that everyone will use it? Edit: I think every developer knows about the benefit of reusable components and wants to use them, it's just that we don't know how to make them discoverable. Also, the developers when they are writing code, they know they should write reusable code but lack of the motivation to do so.

    Read the article

  • code metrics for .net code

    - by user20358
    While the code metrics tool gives a pretty good analysis of the code being analyzed, I was wondering if there was any such benchmark on acceptable standards for the following as well: Maximum number of types per assembly Maximum number of such types that can be accessible Maximum number of parameters per method Acceptable RFC count Acceptable Afferent coupling count Acceptable Efferent coupling count Any other metrics to judge the quality of .Net code by? Thanks for your time.

    Read the article

  • What code smell best describes this code?

    - by Paul Stovell
    Suppose you have this code in a class: private DataContext _context; public Customer[] GetCustomers() { GetContext(); return _context.Customers.ToArray(); } public Order[] GetOrders() { GetContext(); return _context.Customers.ToArray(); } // For the sake of this example, a new DataContext is *required* // for every public method call private void GetContext() { if (_context != null) { _context.Dispose(); } _context = new DataContext(); } This code isn't thread-safe - if two calls to GetOrders/GetCustomers are made at the same time from different threads, they may end up using the same context, or the context could be disposed while being used. Even if this bug didn't exist, however, it still "smells" like bad code. A much better design would be for GetContext to always return a new instance of DataContext and to get rid of the private field, and to dispose of the instance when done. Changing from an inappropriate private field to a local variable feels like a better solution. I've looked over the code smell lists and can't find one that describes this. In the past I've thought of it as temporal coupling, but the Wikipedia description suggests that's not the term: Temporal coupling When two actions are bundled together into one module just because they happen to occur at the same time. This page discusses temporal coupling, but the example is the public API of a class, while my question is about the internal design. Does this smell have a name? Or is it simply "buggy code"?

    Read the article

  • Reuse the data CRUD methods in data access layer, but they are updated too quickly

    - by ValidfroM
    I agree that we should put CRUD methods in a data access layer, However, in my current project I have some issues. It is a legacy system, and there are quite a lot CRUD methods in some concrete manager classes. People including me seem to just add new methods to it, rather than reuse the existing methods. Because We don't know whether the existing method is what we need Even if we have source code, do we really need read other's code then make decision? It is updated too quickly. Do not have time get familiar with the DAO API. Back to the question, how do you solve that in your project? If we say "reuse", it really needs to be reusable rather than just an excuse.

    Read the article

  • Logistics of code reuse (OOP)

    - by Ominus
    One of the driving points behind OOP is code reuse. I am curious about the actual logistics of this and how others both in team or solo handle it. For example lets say you have 5 projects you have worked on and between them you have a ton of classes that you think would be useful in other projects. How do you store them? Are they just in the normal project repository or do you break out the relevant classes and have them (as now copies) in another unique source repository that only houses code pieces that are intended to be reused? How do you go about finding or even knowing that there is a good piece of code out there that you should reuse? It's easier if your solo because you remember that you have coded something similar but even then it becomes kind of a stretch. If there is some way that you are storing these pieces of code do you then also have them indexed and searchable by tag or something. I fear that it just boils down to some tribal knowledge that you just know that for situation A i need solution B and we have a good piece of code that already can help here. A bit verbose but I hope you get what I am aiming at. If you think of a better way to make the question clearer please have at it :) TIA!

    Read the article

  • Java code critique request [closed]

    - by davidk01
    Can you make sense of the following bit of java code and do you have any suggestions for improving it? Instead of writing four almost identical setOnClickListener method calls I opted to iterate over an array but I'm wondering if this was the best way to do it. Here's the code: /* Set up the radio button click listeners so two categories are not selected at the same time. When one of them is clicked it clears the others. */ final RadioButton[] buttons = {radio_books,radio_games,radio_dvds,radio_electronics}; for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) { final int k = i; buttons[i].setOnClickListener(new OnClickListener() { @Override public void onClick(View v) { for (int j = 0; j < 4; j++) { if (buttons[j] != buttons[k]) { buttons[j].setChecked(false); } } } }); }

    Read the article

  • Good fix vs Quick fix [duplicate]

    - by Andrea Girardi
    This question already has an answer here: Does craftsmanship pay off? [duplicate] 16 answers Good design: How much hackyness is acceptable? [duplicate] 9 answers How do you balance between “do it right” and “do it ASAP” in your daily work? 14 answers Let's start from this principle: quality is a feature that you can't add to a project in the middle of the development process. This is the scenario: two weeks to go live with my project and, one of the developers added a specific method used only for one web application to our framework (Our framework is a bounce of java classes used to extract content from MongoDB, Alfresco, mySql and it's used by web applications). I'm the team leader and I told him to generalize the method to keep the framework to keep reusable but he said "no, I prefer don't do that because there are a lot of bugs that need to be fixed". The manager is agree with him and of course I'm not. Is it better to made extra effort to keep a framework free from any specific implementation (probably used only by one web application) or just add the methods because it works? So, my question is: is it correct to write code that only works or is better to write code that works but it doesn't sucks (i.e. adding embedded value, specific methods, extra classes, add column to database, etc)? How is it possible to justify the extra time (to be honest, this kind of fix requires 10 minutes extra to write a good generic code) to the management? How is possible to argue it's the right way to write code to young developers and PM? in general, good fix or quick fix? Ah, 10 minutes after I get the email from PM, he asked me why on a url of application 2 there was the name of application 1 during the login? I like to quote Jeff Atwood: "Don't leave "broken windows" (bad designs, wrong decisions, or poor code) unrepaired. Fix each one as soon as it is discovered. " Excerpt From: Hyperink. "How-To-Stop-Sucking-And-Be-Awesome-Instead." iBooks.

    Read the article

  • Should we enforce code style in our large codebase?

    - by eighttrackmind
    By "code style" I mean 2 things: Style, eg. // bad if(foo){ ... } // good if (foo) { ... } Conventions and idiomaticity, where two ways of writing the same thing are functionally equivalent, but one is more idiomatic. eg. // bad if (fooLib.equals(a, b)) { ... } // good if (a == b) { ... } I think it makes sense to use an auto-formatter to enforce #1 automatically. So my question is specifically about #2. I like to break things down into pros and cons, here's what I've come up with so far: Pros: Used by many large codebases (eg. Google, jQuery) Helps make it a bit easier to work on new areas of the codebase Helps make code more portable (this is not necessarily true) Code style is automatic once you get used to it Makes it easier to fast-decline pull requests Cons: Takes engineers’ and code reviewers’ time away from more important things (like developing features) Code should ideally be rewritten every 2-3 years anyway, so it’s more important to focus on getting the architecture right, and achieving high test coverage Adds strain to code reviews (eg. “don’t do it this way, I like this other way better”) Even if I’ve been using a code style for a while, I still sometime have to pause and think about how to write a line better Having an enforced, uniform code style makes it hard to experiment with potentially better styles Maintaining a style guide takes a lot of incremental effort Engineers rarely read through the style guide. More often, it's cited in code reviews And as a secondary question: we also have many smaller repositories - should the same code style be enforced there?

    Read the article

  • Adding complexity to remove duplicate code

    - by Phil
    I have several classes that all inherit from a generic base class. The base class contains a collection of several objects of type T. Each child class needs to be able to calculate interpolated values from the collection of objects, but since the child classes use different types, the calculation varies a tiny bit from class to class. So far I have copy/pasted my code from class to class and made minor modifications to each. But now I am trying to remove the duplicated code and replace it with one generic interpolation method in my base class. However that is proving to be very difficult, and all the solutions I have thought of seem way too complex. I am starting to think the DRY principle does not apply as much in this kind of situation, but that sounds like blasphemy. How much complexity is too much when trying to remove code duplication? EDIT: The best solution I can come up with goes something like this: Base Class: protected T GetInterpolated(int frame) { var index = SortedFrames.BinarySearch(frame); if (index >= 0) return Data[index]; index = ~index; if (index == 0) return Data[index]; if (index >= Data.Count) return Data[Data.Count - 1]; return GetInterpolatedItem(frame, Data[index - 1], Data[index]); } protected abstract T GetInterpolatedItem(int frame, T lower, T upper); Child class A: public IGpsCoordinate GetInterpolatedCoord(int frame) { ReadData(); return GetInterpolated(frame); } protected override IGpsCoordinate GetInterpolatedItem(int frame, IGpsCoordinate lower, IGpsCoordinate upper) { double ratio = GetInterpolationRatio(frame, lower.Frame, upper.Frame); var x = GetInterpolatedValue(lower.X, upper.X, ratio); var y = GetInterpolatedValue(lower.Y, upper.Y, ratio); var z = GetInterpolatedValue(lower.Z, upper.Z, ratio); return new GpsCoordinate(frame, x, y, z); } Child class B: public double GetMph(int frame) { ReadData(); return GetInterpolated(frame).MilesPerHour; } protected override ISpeed GetInterpolatedItem(int frame, ISpeed lower, ISpeed upper) { var ratio = GetInterpolationRatio(frame, lower.Frame, upper.Frame); var mph = GetInterpolatedValue(lower.MilesPerHour, upper.MilesPerHour, ratio); return new Speed(frame, mph); }

    Read the article

  • What ever happened to the Defense Software Reuse System (DSRS)?

    - by emddudley
    I've been reading some papers from the early 90s about a US Department of Defense software reuse initiative called the Defense Software Reuse System (DSRS). The most recent mention of it I could find was in a paper from 2000 - A Survey of Software Reuse Repositories Defense Software Repository System (DSRS) The DSRS is an automated repository for storing and retrieving Reusable Software Assets (RSAs) [14]. The DSRS software now manages inventories of reusable assets at seven software reuse support centers (SRSCs). The DSRS serves as a central collection point for quality RSAs, and facilitates software reuse by offering developers the opportunity to match their requirements with existing software products. DSRS accounts are available for Government employees and contractor personnel currently supporting Government projects... ...The DoD software community is trying to change its software engineering model from its current software cycle to a process-driven, domain-specific, architecture-based, repository-assisted way of constructing software [15]. In this changing environment, the DSRS has the highest potential to become the DoD standard reuse repository because it is the only existing deployed, operational repository with multiple interoperable locations across DoD. Seven DSRS locations support nearly 1,000 users and list nearly 9,000 reusable assets. The DISA DSRS alone lists 3,880 reusable assets and has 400 user accounts... The far-term strategy of the DSRS is to support a virtual repository. These interconnected repositories will provide the ability to locate and share reusable components across domains and among the services. An effective and evolving DSRS is a central requirement to the success of the DoD software reuse initiative. Evolving DoD repository requirements demand that DISA continue to have an operational DSRS site to support testing in an actual repository operation and to support DoD users. The classification process for the DSRS is a basic technology for providing customer support [16]. This process is the first step in making reusable assets available for implementing the functional and technical migration strategies. ... [14] DSRS - Defense Technology for Adaptable, Reliable Systems URL: http://ssed1.ims.disa.mil/srp/dsrspage.html [15] STARS - Software Technology for Adaptable, Reliable Systems URL: http://www.stars.ballston.paramax.com/index.html [16] D. E. Perry and S. S. Popovitch, “Inquire: Predicate-based use and reuse,'' in Proceedings of the 8th Knowledge-Based Software Engineering Conference, pp. 144-151, September 1993. ... Is DSRS dead, and were there any post-mortem reports on it? Are there other more-recent US government initiatives or reports on software reuse?

    Read the article

  • How to know whether to create a general system or to hack a solution

    - by Andy K
    I'm new to coding , learning it since last year actually. One of my worst habits is the following: Often I'm trying to create a solution that is too big , too complex and doesn't achieve what needs to be achieved, when a hacky kludge can make the fit. One last example was the following (see paste bin link below) http://pastebin.com/WzR3zsLn After explaining my issue, one nice person at stackoverflow came with this solution instead http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25304170/update-a-field-by-removing-quarter-or-removing-month When should I keep my code simple and when should I create a 'big', general solution? I feel stupid sometimes for building something so big, so awkward, just to solve a simple problem. It did not occur to me that there would be an easier solution. Any tips are welcomed. Best

    Read the article

  • Is code maintenance typically a special project, or is it considered part of daily work?

    - by blueberryfields
    Earlier, I asked to find out which tools are commonly used to monitor methods and code bases, to find out whether the methods have been getting too long. Most of the responses there suggested that, beyond maintenance on the method currently being edited, programmers don't, in general, keep an eye on the rest of the code base. So I thought I'd ask the question in general: Is code maintenance, in general, considered part of your daily work? Do you find that you're spending at least some of your time cleaning up, refactoring, rewriting code in the code base, to improve it, as part of your other assigned work? Is it expected of you/do you expect it of your teammates? Or is it more common to find that cleanup, refactoring, and general maintenance on the codebase as a whole, occurs in bursts (for example, mostly as part of code reviews, or as part of refactoring/cleaning up projects)?

    Read the article

  • Copyrights concerning code snippets and larger amounts of code

    - by JustcallmeDrago
    I am designing a public code repository. Users will be allowed to post and edit whatever amount of code they want, from code snippets to entire multi-file projects. I have a few major legal concerns about this: Not getting sued/shut down - I feel the site would be a much easier target than tracking down an individual user to sue. I have looked around a bit and see links to legal info in the footer of each page is common. What specific things should I do--and what does does a site such as YouTube (which I see copyrighted material on all the time) do--for protection? Citing sources and editing sourced code - If a user wants to post code that isn't theirs, what concerns/safeguards should I have? Will a link suffice, and what do I need further to allow the code to be edited (to improve it for example)? What can happen if a user posts copyrighted code without citing it? Large chunks of code - What legal differences should I look out for as the amount grows? Not having a mess of licenses for the site - I would like to have a single license (like RosettaCode) that keeps things simple for interaction on the site. I want the code to be postable and editable. I have looked into StackOverflow's CreativeCommons license a little and it says that If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. And on RosettaCode: All software found on Rosetta Code should be considered potentially hazardous. Use at your own risk. Be aware that all code on Rosetta Code is under the GNU Free Documentation License, as are any edits made by contributors. See Rosetta Code:Copyrights for details. What other licenses are like this? Commercializing the site - In what ways can I and can't I make money off of a site that contains code like this? All code will be publicly visible. Initial thoughts are having ads or making money by charging for advanced features.

    Read the article

  • Code Reuse is (Damn) Hard

    - by James Michael Hare
    Being a development team lead, the task of interviewing new candidates was part of my job.  Like any typical interview, we started with some easy questions to get them warmed up and help calm their nerves before hitting the hard stuff. One of those easier questions was almost always: “Name some benefits of object-oriented development.”  Nearly every time, the candidate would chime in with a plethora of canned answers which typically included: “it helps ease code reuse.”  Of course, this is a gross oversimplification.  Tools only ease reuse, its developers that ultimately can cause code to be reusable or not, regardless of the language or methodology. But it did get me thinking…  we always used to say that as part of our mantra as to why Object-Oriented Programming was so great.  With polymorphism, inheritance, encapsulation, etc. we in essence set up the concepts to help facilitate reuse as much as possible.  And yes, as a developer now of many years, I unquestionably held that belief for ages before it really struck me how my views on reuse have jaded over the years.  In fact, in many ways Agile rightly eschews reuse as taking a backseat to developing what's needed for the here and now.  It used to be I was in complete opposition to that view, but more and more I've come to see the logic in it.  Too many times I've seen developers (myself included) get lost in design paralysis trying to come up with the perfect abstraction that would stand all time.  Nearly without fail, all of these pieces of code become obsolete in a matter of months or years. It’s not that I don’t like reuse – it’s just that reuse is hard.  In fact, reuse is DAMN hard.  Many times it is just a distraction that eats up architect and developer time, and worse yet can be counter-productive and force wrong decisions.  Now don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of reusable code when it makes sense.  These are in the few cases where you are designing something that is inherently reusable.  The problem is, most business-class code is inherently unfit for reuse! Furthermore, the code that is reusable will often fail to be reused if you don’t have the proper framework in place for effective reuse that includes standardized versioning, building, releasing, and documenting the components.  That should always be standard across the board when promoting reusable code.  All of this is hard, and it should only be done when you have code that is truly reusable or you will be exerting a large amount of development effort for very little bang for your buck. But my goal here is not to get into how to reuse (that is a topic unto itself) but what should be reused.  First, let’s look at an extension method.  There’s many times where I want to kick off a thread to handle a task, then when I want to reign that thread in of course I want to do a Join on it.  But what if I only want to wait a limited amount of time and then Abort?  Well, I could of course write that logic out by hand each time, but it seemed like a great extension method: 1: public static class ThreadExtensions 2: { 3: public static bool JoinOrAbort(this Thread thread, TimeSpan timeToWait) 4: { 5: bool isJoined = false; 6:  7: if (thread != null) 8: { 9: isJoined = thread.Join(timeToWait); 10:  11: if (!isJoined) 12: { 13: thread.Abort(); 14: } 15: } 16: return isJoined; 17: } 18: } 19:  When I look at this code, I can immediately see things that jump out at me as reasons why this code is very reusable.  Some of them are standard OO principles, and some are kind-of home grown litmus tests: Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) – The only reason this extension method need change is if the Thread class itself changes (one responsibility). Stable Dependencies Principle (SDP) – This method only depends on classes that are more stable than it is (System.Threading.Thread), and in itself is very stable, hence other classes may safely depend on it. It is also not dependent on any business domain, and thus isn't subject to changes as the business itself changes. Open-Closed Principle (OCP) – This class is inherently closed to change. Small and Stable Problem Domain – This method only cares about System.Threading.Thread. All-or-None Usage – A user of a reusable class should want the functionality of that class, not parts of that functionality.  That’s not to say they most use every method, but they shouldn’t be using a method just to get half of its result. Cost of Reuse vs. Cost to Recreate – since this class is highly stable and minimally complex, we can offer it up for reuse very cheaply by promoting it as “ready-to-go” and already unit tested (important!) and available through a standard release cycle (very important!). Okay, all seems good there, now lets look at an entity and DAO.  I don’t know about you all, but there have been times I’ve been in organizations that get the grand idea that all DAOs and entities should be standardized and shared.  While this may work for small or static organizations, it’s near ludicrous for anything large or volatile. 1: namespace Shared.Entities 2: { 3: public class Account 4: { 5: public int Id { get; set; } 6:  7: public string Name { get; set; } 8:  9: public Address HomeAddress { get; set; } 10:  11: public int Age { get; set;} 12:  13: public DateTime LastUsed { get; set; } 14:  15: // etc, etc, etc... 16: } 17: } 18:  19: ... 20:  21: namespace Shared.DataAccess 22: { 23: public class AccountDao 24: { 25: public Account FindAccount(int id) 26: { 27: // dao logic to query and return account 28: } 29:  30: ... 31:  32: } 33: } Now to be fair, I’m not saying there doesn’t exist an organization where some entites may be extremely static and unchanging.  But at best such entities and DAOs will be problematic cases of reuse.  Let’s examine those same tests: Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) – The reasons to change for these classes will be strongly dependent on what the definition of the account is which can change over time and may have multiple influences depending on the number of systems an account can cover. Stable Dependencies Principle (SDP) – This method depends on the data model beneath itself which also is largely dependent on the business definition of an account which can be very inherently unstable. Open-Closed Principle (OCP) – This class is not really closed for modification.  Every time the account definition may change, you’d need to modify this class. Small and Stable Problem Domain – The definition of an account is inherently unstable and in fact may be very large.  What if you are designing a system that aggregates account information from several sources? All-or-None Usage – What if your view of the account encompasses data from 3 different sources but you only care about one of those sources or one piece of data?  Should you have to take the hit of looking up all the other data?  On the other hand, should you have ten different methods returning portions of data in chunks people tend to ask for?  Neither is really a great solution. Cost of Reuse vs. Cost to Recreate – DAOs are really trivial to rewrite, and unless your definition of an account is EXTREMELY stable, the cost to promote, support, and release a reusable account entity and DAO are usually far higher than the cost to recreate as needed. It’s no accident that my case for reuse was a utility class and my case for non-reuse was an entity/DAO.  In general, the smaller and more stable an abstraction is, the higher its level of reuse.  When I became the lead of the Shared Components Committee at my workplace, one of the original goals we looked at satisfying was to find (or create), version, release, and promote a shared library of common utility classes, frameworks, and data access objects.  Now, of course, many of you will point to nHibernate and Entity for the latter, but we were looking at larger, macro collections of data that span multiple data sources of varying types (databases, web services, etc). As we got deeper and deeper in the details of how to manage and release these items, it quickly became apparent that while the case for reuse was typically a slam dunk for utilities and frameworks, the data access objects just didn’t “smell” right.  We ended up having session after session of design meetings to try and find the right way to share these data access components. When someone asked me why it was taking so long to iron out the shared entities, my response was quite simple, “Reuse is hard...”  And that’s when I realized, that while reuse is an awesome goal and we should strive to make code maintainable, often times you end up creating far more work for yourself than necessary by trying to force code to be reusable that inherently isn’t. Think about classes the times you’ve worked in a company where in the design session people fight over the best way to implement a class to make it maximally reusable, extensible, and any other buzzwordable.  Then think about how quickly that design became obsolete.  Many times I set out to do a project and think, “yes, this is the best design, I can extend it easily!” only to find out the business requirements change COMPLETELY in such a way that the design is rendered invalid.  Code, in general, tends to rust and age over time.  As such, writing reusable code can often be difficult and many times ends up being a futile exercise and worse yet, sometimes makes the code harder to maintain because it obfuscates the design in the name of extensibility or reusability. So what do I think are reusable components? Generic Utility classes – these tend to be small classes that assist in a task and have no business context whatsoever. Implementation Abstraction Frameworks – home-grown frameworks that try to isolate changes to third party products you may be depending on (like writing a messaging abstraction layer for publishing/subscribing that is independent of whether you use JMS, MSMQ, etc). Simplification and Uniformity Frameworks – To some extent this is similar to an abstraction framework, but there may be one chosen provider but a development shop mandate to perform certain complex items in a certain way.  Or, perhaps to simplify and dumb-down a complex task for the average developer (such as implementing a particular development-shop’s method of encryption). And what are less reusable? Application and Business Layers – tend to fluctuate a lot as requirements change and new features are added, so tend to be an unstable dependency.  May be reused across applications but also very volatile. Entities and Data Access Layers – these tend to be tuned to the scope of the application, so reusing them can be hard unless the abstract is very stable. So what’s the big lesson?  Reuse is hard.  In fact it’s damn hard.  And much of the time I’m not convinced we should focus too hard on it. If you’re designing a utility or framework, then by all means design it for reuse.  But you most also really set down a good versioning, release, and documentation process to maximize your chances.  For anything else, design it to be maintainable and extendable, but don’t waste the effort on reusability for something that most likely will be obsolete in a year or two anyway.

    Read the article

  • Design by Contract with Microsoft .Net Code Contract

    - by Fredrik N
    I have done some talks on different events and summits about Defensive Programming and Design by Contract, last time was at Cornerstone’s Developer Summit 2010. Next time will be at SweNug (Sweden .Net User Group). I decided to write a blog post about of some stuffs I was talking about. Users are a terrible thing! Protect your self from them ”Human users have a gift for doing the worst possible thing at the worst possible time.” – Michael T. Nygard, Release It! The kind of users Michael T. Nygard are talking about is the users of a system. We also have users that uses our code, the users I’m going to focus on is the users of our code. Me and you and another developers. “Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write code that humans can understand.” – Martin Fowler Good programmers also writes code that humans know how to use, good programmers also make sure software behave in a predictable manner despise inputs or user actions. Design by Contract   Design by Contract (DbC) is a way for us to make a contract between us (the code writer) and the users of our code. It’s about “If you give me this, I promise to give you this”. It’s not about business validations, that is something completely different that should be part of the domain model. DbC is to make sure the users of our code uses it in a correct way, and that we can rely on the contract and write code in a way where we know that the users will follow the contract. It will make it much easier for us to write code with a contract specified. Something like the following code is something we may see often: public void DoSomething(Object value) { value.DoIKnowThatICanDoThis(); } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } Where “value” can be uses directly or passed to other methods and later be used. What some of us can easily forget here is that the “value” can be “null”. We will probably not passing a null value, but someone else that uses our code maybe will do it. I think most of you (including me) have passed “null” into a method because you don’t know if the argument need to be specified to a valid value etc. I bet most of you also have got the “Null reference exception”. Sometimes this “Null reference exception” can be hard and take time to fix, because we need to search among our code to see where the “null” value was passed in etc. Wouldn’t it be much better if we can as early as possible specify that the value can’t not be null, so the users of our code also know it when the users starts to use our code, and before run time execution of the code? This is where DbC comes into the picture. We can use DbC to specify what we need, and by doing so we can rely on the contract when we write our code. So the code above can actually use the DoIKnowThatICanDoThis() method on the value object without being worried that the “value” can be null. The contract between the users of the code and us writing the code, says that the “value” can’t be null.   Pre- and Postconditions   When working with DbC we are specifying pre- and postconditions.  Precondition is a condition that should be met before a query or command is executed. An example of a precondition is: “The Value argument of the method can’t be null”, and we make sure the “value” isn’t null before the method is called. Postcondition is a condition that should be met when a command or query is completed, a postcondition will make sure the result is correct. An example of a postconditon is “The method will return a list with at least 1 item”. Commands an Quires When using DbC, we need to know what a Command and a Query is, because some principles that can be good to follow are based on commands and queries. A Command is something that will not return anything, like the SQL’s CREATE, UPDATE and DELETE. There are two kinds of Commands when using DbC, the Creation commands (for example a Constructor), and Others. Others can for example be a Command to add a value to a list, remove or update a value etc. //Creation commands public Stack(int size) //Other commands public void Push(object value); public void Remove(); .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; }   A Query, is something that will return something, for example an Attribute, Property or a Function, like the SQL’s SELECT.   There are two kinds of Queries, the Basic Queries  (Quires that aren’t based on another queries), and the Derived Queries, queries that is based on another queries. Here is an example of queries of a Stack: //Basic Queries public int Count; public object this[int index] { get; } //Derived Queries //Is related to Count Query public bool IsEmpty() { return Count == 0; } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } To understand about some principles that are good to follow when using DbC, we need to know about the Commands and different Queries. The 6 Principles When working with DbC, it’s advisable to follow some principles to make it easier to define and use contracts. The following DbC principles are: Separate commands and queries. Separate basic queries from derived queries. For each derived query, write a postcondition that specifies what result will be returned, in terms of one or more basic queries. For each command, write a postcondition that specifies the value of every basic query. For every query and command, decide on a suitable precondition. Write invariants to define unchanging properties of objects. Before I will write about each of them I want you to now that I’m going to use .Net 4.0 Code Contract. I will in the rest of the post uses a simple Stack (Yes I know, .Net already have a Stack class) to give you the basic understanding about using DbC. A Stack is a data structure where the first item in, will be the first item out. Here is a basic implementation of a Stack where not contract is specified yet: public class Stack { private object[] _array; //Basic Queries public uint Count; public object this[uint index] { get { return _array[index]; } set { _array[index] = value; } } //Derived Queries //Is related to Count Query public bool IsEmpty() { return Count == 0; } //Is related to Count and this[] Query public object Top() { return this[Count]; } //Creation commands public Stack(uint size) { Count = 0; _array = new object[size]; } //Other commands public void Push(object value) { this[++Count] = value; } public void Remove() { this[Count] = null; Count--; } } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; }   Note: The Stack is implemented in a way to demonstrate the use of Code Contract in a simple way, the implementation may not look like how you would implement it, so don’t think this is the perfect Stack implementation, only used for demonstration.   Before I will go deeper into the principles I will simply mention how we can use the .Net Code Contract. I mention before about pre- and postcondition, is about “Require” something and to “Ensure” something. When using Code Contract, we will use a static class called “Contract” and is located in he “System.Diagnostics.Contracts” namespace. The contract must be specified at the top or our member statement block. To specify a precondition with Code Contract we uses the Contract.Requires method, and to specify a postcondition, we uses the Contract.Ensure method. Here is an example where both a pre- and postcondition are used: public object Top() { Contract.Requires(Count > 0, "Stack is empty"); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<object>() == this[Count]); return this[Count]; } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; }   The contract above requires that the Count is greater than 0, if not we can’t get the item at the Top of a Stack. We also Ensures that the results (By using the Contract.Result method, we can specify a postcondition that will check if the value returned from a method is correct) of the Top query is equal to this[Count].   1. Separate Commands and Queries   When working with DbC, it’s important to separate Command and Quires. A method should either be a command that performs an Action, or returning information to the caller, not both. By asking a question the answer shouldn’t be changed. The following is an example of a Command and a Query of a Stack: public void Push(object value) public object Top() .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; }   The Push is a command and will not return anything, just add a value to the Stack, the Top is a query to get the item at the top of the stack.   2. Separate basic queries from derived queries There are two different kinds of queries,  the basic queries that doesn’t rely on another queries, and derived queries that uses a basic query. The “Separate basic queries from derived queries” principle is about about that derived queries can be specified in terms of basic queries. So this principles is more about recognizing that a query is a derived query or a basic query. It will then make is much easier to follow the other principles. The following code shows a basic query and a derived query: //Basic Queries public uint Count; //Derived Queries //Is related to Count Query public bool IsEmpty() { return Count == 0; } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; }   We can see that IsEmpty will use the Count query, and that makes the IsEmpty a Derived query.   3. For each derived query, write a postcondition that specifies what result will be returned, in terms of one or more basic queries.   When the derived query is recognize we can follow the 3ed principle. For each derived query, we can create a postcondition that specifies what result our derived query will return in terms of one or more basic queries. Remember that DbC is about contracts between the users of the code and us writing the code. So we can’t use demand that the users will pass in a valid value, we must also ensure that we will give the users what the users wants, when the user is following our contract. The IsEmpty query of the Stack will use a Count query and that will make the IsEmpty a Derived query, so we should now write a postcondition that specified what results will be returned, in terms of using a basic query and in this case the Count query, //Basic Queries public uint Count; //Derived Queries public bool IsEmpty() { Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<bool>() == (Count == 0)); return Count == 0; } The Contract.Ensures is used to create a postcondition. The above code will make sure that the results of the IsEmpty (by using the Contract.Result to get the result of the IsEmpty method) is correct, that will say that the IsEmpty will be either true or false based on Count is equal to 0 or not. The postcondition are using a basic query, so the IsEmpty is now following the 3ed principle. We also have another Derived Query, the Top query, it will also need a postcondition and it uses all basic queries. The Result of the Top method must be the same value as the this[] query returns. //Basic Queries public uint Count; public object this[uint index] { get { return _array[index]; } set { _array[index] = value; } } //Derived Queries //Is related to Count and this[] Query public object Top() { Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<object>() == this[Count]); return this[Count]; } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; }   4. For each command, write a postcondition that specifies the value of every basic query.   For each command we will create a postconditon that specifies the value of basic queries. If we look at the Stack implementation we will have three Commands, one Creation command, the Constructor, and two others commands, Push and Remove. Those commands need a postcondition and they should include basic query to follow the 4th principle. //Creation commands public Stack(uint size) { Contract.Ensures(Count == 0); Count = 0; _array = new object[size]; } //Other commands public void Push(object value) { Contract.Ensures(Count == Contract.OldValue<uint>(Count) + 1); Contract.Ensures(this[Count] == value); this[++Count] = value; } public void Remove() { Contract.Ensures(Count == Contract.OldValue<uint>(Count) - 1); this[Count] = null; Count--; } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; }   As you can see the Create command will Ensures that Count will be 0 when the Stack is created, when a Stack is created there shouldn’t be any items in the stack. The Push command will take a value and put it into the Stack, when an item is pushed into the Stack, the Count need to be increased to know the number of items added to the Stack, and we must also make sure the item is really added to the Stack. The postconditon of the Push method will make sure the that old value of the Count (by using the Contract.OldValue we can get the value a Query has before the method is called)  plus 1 will be equal to the Count query, this is the way we can ensure that the Push will increase the Count with one. We also make sure the this[] query will now contain the item we pushed into the Stack. The Remove method must make sure the Count is decreased by one when the top item is removed from the Stack. The Commands is now following the 4th principle, where each command now have a postcondition that used the value of basic queries. Note: The principle says every basic Query, the Remove only used one Query the Count, it’s because this command can’t use the this[] query because an item is removed, so the only way to make sure an item is removed is to just use the Count query, so the Remove will still follow the principle.   5. For every query and command, decide on a suitable precondition.   We have now focused only on postcondition, now time for some preconditons. The 5th principle is about deciding a suitable preconditon for every query and command. If we starts to look at one of our basic queries (will not go through all Queries and commands here, just some of them) the this[] query, we can’t pass an index that is lower then 1 (.Net arrays and list are zero based, but not the stack in this blog post ;)) and the index can’t be lesser than the number of items in the stack. So here we will need a preconditon. public object this[uint index] { get { Contract.Requires(index >= 1); Contract.Requires(index <= Count); return _array[index]; } } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } Think about the Contract as an documentation about how to use the code in a correct way, so if the contract could be specified elsewhere (not part of the method body), we could simply write “return _array[index]” and there is no need to check if index is greater or lesser than Count, because that is specified in a “contract”. The implementation of Code Contract, requires that the contract is specified in the code. As a developer I would rather have this contract elsewhere (Like Spec#) or implemented in a way Eiffel uses it as part of the language. Now when we have looked at one Query, we can also look at one command, the Remove command (You can see the whole implementation of the Stack at the end of this blog post, where precondition is added to more queries and commands then what I’m going to show in this section). We can only Remove an item if the Count is greater than 0. So we can write a precondition that will require that Count must be greater than 0. public void Remove() { Contract.Requires(Count > 0); Contract.Ensures(Count == Contract.OldValue<uint>(Count) - 1); this[Count] = null; Count--; } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; }   6. Write invariants to define unchanging properties of objects.   The last principle is about making sure the object are feeling great! This is done by using invariants. When using Code Contract we can specify invariants by adding a method with the attribute ContractInvariantMethod, the method must be private or public and can only contains calls to Contract.Invariant. To make sure the Stack feels great, the Stack must have 0 or more items, the Count can’t never be a negative value to make sure each command and queries can be used of the Stack. Here is our invariant for the Stack object: [ContractInvariantMethod] private void ObjectInvariant() { Contract.Invariant(Count >= 0); } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; }   Note: The ObjectInvariant method will be called every time after a Query or Commands is called. Here is the full example using Code Contract:   public class Stack { private object[] _array; //Basic Queries public uint Count; public object this[uint index] { get { Contract.Requires(index >= 1); Contract.Requires(index <= Count); return _array[index]; } set { Contract.Requires(index >= 1); Contract.Requires(index <= Count); _array[index] = value; } } //Derived Queries //Is related to Count Query public bool IsEmpty() { Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<bool>() == (Count == 0)); return Count == 0; } //Is related to Count and this[] Query public object Top() { Contract.Requires(Count > 0, "Stack is empty"); Contract.Ensures(Contract.Result<object>() == this[Count]); return this[Count]; } //Creation commands public Stack(uint size) { Contract.Requires(size > 0); Contract.Ensures(Count == 0); Count = 0; _array = new object[size]; } //Other commands public void Push(object value) { Contract.Requires(value != null); Contract.Ensures(Count == Contract.OldValue<uint>(Count) + 1); Contract.Ensures(this[Count] == value); this[++Count] = value; } public void Remove() { Contract.Requires(Count > 0); Contract.Ensures(Count == Contract.OldValue<uint>(Count) - 1); this[Count] = null; Count--; } [ContractInvariantMethod] private void ObjectInvariant() { Contract.Invariant(Count >= 0); } } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } Summary By using Design By Contract we can make sure the users are using our code in a correct way, and we must also make sure the users will get the expected results when they uses our code. This can be done by specifying contracts. To make it easy to use Design By Contract, some principles may be good to follow like the separation of commands an queries. With .Net 4.0 we can use the Code Contract feature to specify contracts.

    Read the article

  • Can notes/to-dos in code comments sent to code-reviews result in an effective refactoring process?

    - by dukeofgaming
    I want to start/improve a culture of collective code ownership at my company but at a geographically distributed level... I'd say there is some current collective code-ownership mentality, but only at single geographical sites. This is a follow-up to this question: What is the politically correct way of refactoring other's code? I'm just wondering if submitting *just code comments* for code reviews (we have ReviewBoard, possibly upgrading to Crucible) could actually be an effective mechanism to get the conversation started on improving code, without having others feel territorial about their code. For example, if I add: //ToDo: Refactor this code and that code because of reasons X and Y Then, submit it for code review, and it gets accepted... it could be considered as an agreement (which I think is sometimes harder to get with new code up front). At the same time, the author (and others) might have an easier time digesting and accepting the proposal; rejecting a proposal because it might break things will not longer be a valid reason and therefore the fear of making a change is lost... and at the same time, do not invest 10 hours optimizing something that no one thinks it is worth it and opposes to it just out of fear. This is all conjecture, but I'm feeling something like this (submitting refactoring notes in code comments at the code-review process) would work. Has anyone done something like this in practice?, if so, what have been the results?

    Read the article

  • Writing/discussions about the aesthetics of code?

    - by dilettante.coder
    I'm looking for considerations of the questions "Can code be beautiful?" and "What makes code beautiful?" Examples would include: This academic paper: Obfuscation, Weird Languages, and Code Aesthetics This blog post: Hamon or the Skin Deep Beauty of Code Please note that I'm not trying to start a discussion here, or asking for opinions about what makes code beautiful, or for code you think is beautiful; I'm trying to find stuff that has already been published. Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • Do abstractions have to reduce code readability?

    - by Martin Blore
    A good developer I work with told me recently about some difficulty he had in implementing a feature in some code we had inherited; he said the problem was that the code was difficult to follow. From that, I looked deeper into the product and realised how difficult it was to see the code path. It used so many interfaces and abstract layers, that trying to understand where things began and ended was quite difficult. It got me thinking about the times I had looked at past projects (before I was so aware of clean code principles) and found it extremely difficult to get around in the project, mainly because my code navigation tools would always land me at an interface. It would take a lot of extra effort to find the concrete implementation or where something was wired up in some plugin type architecture. I know some developers strictly turn down dependency injection containers for this very reason. It confuses the path of the software so much that the difficulty of code navigation is exponentially increased. My question is: when a framework or pattern introduces so much overhead like this, is it worth it? Is it a symptom of a poorly implemented pattern? I guess a developer should look to the bigger picture of what that abstractions brings to the project to help them get through the frustration. Usually though, it's difficult to make them see that big picture. I know I've failed to sell the needs of IOC and DI with TDD. For those developers, use of those tools just cramps code readability far too much.

    Read the article

  • Please recommend citations for source code documentation standards

    - by Aerik
    I'm trying to convince another group in my company that they need to provide more documentation in their source code (they want to hand off the code to my group) but they're treating it as a "nice to have". In my view, it's a necessity. I've run a source code analysis tool and it's showing about 10% comment lines - but looking at the source code, most of that is coming from entire functions that the author has commented out. Can anyone provide some authoritative citations / references for documentation / comment standards for source code? (In case it matters, we're a C# house, with a little Matlab thrown in).

    Read the article

  • Does code-generation increase the code quality?

    - by platzhirsch
    Arguing for code-generation I am looking for some reasons, if howsoever, code generation increases the code quality, respectively is in favor for quality insurance. To clarify what I mean with code-generation I can talk only about a project of mine: We use XML files to describe different relationships, in fact our database schema. These XML files are used to generate our ORM framework and HTML forms which can be used to add, delete and modify entities. To my mind, it increases the quality, as the human error is reduced. If someone was implemented wrong, it is broken in the model. This is good, because the error might appear a lot faster, as more generated code is broken, too.

    Read the article

  • How to measure code quality? [closed]

    - by Lo Wai Lun
    Is there a methodology or any objective standard to determine whether the code of the project is well-written? How to measure in a structural and scientific manner to access the quality of the code? Many people say code review is important and always do encapsulation and data abstraction to ensure the quality. How can we determine the quality? Can a structural, organised software design diagrams drawn implies good quality of code ? If we type the code with good cautions of encapsulation and data abstraction, why review anyway?

    Read the article

  • Review quality of code

    - by magol
    I have been asked to quality review two code bases. I've never done anything like that, and need advice on how to perform it and report it. Background There are two providers of code, one in VB and one in C (ISO 9899:1999 (C99)). These two programs do not work so well together, and of course, the two suppliers blames each other. I will therefore as a independent person review both codes, on a comprehensive level review the quality of the codes to find out where it is most likely that the problem lies. I will not try to find problems, but simply review the quality and how simple it is to manage and understand the code. Edit: I have yet not received much information about what the problem consists of. I've just been told that I will examine the code in terms of quality. Not so much more. I do not know the background to why they took this decision.

    Read the article

  • Is Code Complete still Code Complete? [closed]

    - by Peter Turner
    It's been quite a few years since Code Complete was published. I really love the book, I keep it in the bathroom at the office and read a little out of it once or twice a day. But I don't think it's possible to call Code Complete, "Code Complete" when it doesn't have language features that even Delphi has, like anonymous methods and generics. What key sections are missing from this book, and what should be deprecated?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >