Skip to main content

The Best Code is Written Twice

Recently myself and two colleges completed a new feature in an afternoon's programming session. Despite this we ended up binning the feature after all agreeing it was horribly complicated and in turn would cause far more problems down the road than it would solve.

We decided to rewrite the feature again, but applying all the lessons we had learned from the first attempt. A recent blog post by royvanrijn on this very topic made me appreciate what we had done. He points out that the best code occurs from several attempts, and unlike what people may expect, the repeat attempts need not take the same amount of time to deliver as the initial attempt.

The second time you write the code, it'll only take a fraction of the time it took initially.

This principle of repeating a task made me think of when I was decorating my old bedroom. I helped partake in the difficult task of wallpapering the ceiling. Prior to this I had experience wallpapering before, and would have no trouble repeating this exercise again. However, wallpapering a ceiling was something completely new. Me and my dad were reluctant to start, until I had a rather devious plan. We would decorate my brothers room first, followed by mine. That way, if our first attempt was a disaster I would not be the one living with the dodgy ceiling.

It turned out that our first efforts were not too bad. Granted it took a while, there was the odd rough patch and several obscenities were used, but we got the job done. For the second room we completed the task much quicker and with practically no problems.

The process of wallpapering the second ceiling was the DIY equivalent of scrapping our feature and rewriting the code. We never stripped the first ceiling afterwards, we just took everything we learned from the first round and used it to make the process of papering the second ceiling much easier. The interesting point to bare in mind with scrapping code and rewriting is the rewrite will not take the same amount of time to get back up to speed. Just because it takes n to implement a feature, the second time around you can often complete the feature in less time, at much higher quality.

I'm not suggesting all code should be rewritten multiple times. Spike solutions are often a more suitable process to ease the development process, but in certain cases practice makes perfect, even if it means you wait that little bit longer for the perfect ceiling.


Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…