Skip to main content

Abstractions in Code, Details in Metadata

I've programmed many games - each one was special in its own way. One in particular stands out early in my university studies, a top down shooter. It was not graphics, gameplay, or sound that made it stand out however. It was the lesson it taught me about software development.

Level One

With the deadline for completion of the project looming, time was running out. The core game engine was complete but other than the first level there was nothing else for the player to do. With more marks awarded for various components I decided to add a second level.

At the time the game consisted of a source file called level.cs. This contained parts of functionality explicit to every level that I would need. It also contained code specific to the first level. My solution was to extract a base class and introduce level.cs and level1.cs. This worked. The addition of level two was not as easy. The second level required a considerable amount of additional code, despite the shared functionality. A slow feedback cycle of change, compile, and test, made this addition even more tedious. With the test phase consuming much of my time.

Hopefully you can see where this is going. While I never added a third level, the same problem exists. In fact for every additional level the problem would get worse.


The lesson I learned here was that a game engine should be abstract, while the details of the level should be data that is configured outside of the code. This allows anyone to make levels for the game. Levels can be unique rather than constrained to how the programmers coded them to be, introducing novel gameplay elements constrained only by the imagination of the designers.

This concept is not unique to games programming. I would learn a few years later that this is a well known and advised practice - The Pragmatic Programmer summarises that abstractions should live in code, while details lives in metadata (data about data).

"Program for the general case, and put the specifics outside the compiled code base."

Those of you with a keen sense for code smells may be thinking about another issue with this story, and yes, you're right. The base class caused issues. The use and misuse of inheritance will be the subject of a future post.


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…