Skip to main content

Reinvent the Wheel, Often

We are often never told to reinvent the wheel. In other words, if your job is solve problems within Domain X you shouldn't spend your time recreating or solving problems that fall outside of this domain.

For production code, this I agree with this statement fully. Software development is hard enough. The last thing we want is to waste resources such as time or money on anything we can get away with not implementing. For example, creating your own web framework is a project within itself. All you'll end up with is a slow, buggy, badly implemented version of a web framework that happens to power your domain. Sadly I have been on the receiving end of such decisions.

There are two times however, when reinventing the wheel is a good thing.

  • You can't get the product off the shelf
  • Learning or personal benefit

Chances there is no web framework, database client, caching layer or so forth that you can use is very slim. Some systems become so bespoke or scale to such volumes that recreating such components makes sense. These are the Netflix/Facebook/Google of the world. Most enterprise software will never reach a slither of this sort of scale.

The biggest benefit of recreating well known, solved solutions is the vast amount of learning and knowledge you will obtain. In the past I have re-invented numerous wheels, but each time taken away something of value.

Systems that seem simple at first such as static website generator, turn out to be incredibly complex once you understand the full set of scenarios and edge cases you must handle. The key point here is these wheels, never make it into production for the reasons detailed previously.

In turn you will come to appreciate library and framework developers if you can fight the urge to resist Not Invented Here Syndrome. Their full time project is the delivery of that solution. They have the time to solve all the edge cases you don't. Not to mention the vast amount of other users that will have debugged and improved the solution going forwards. By not reinventing wheels you get as much time as possible to focus on delivering your solution to the domain problem in question, which after all is your job.

Comments

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…