Skip to main content

Throw Code Away

The third and final part of my agile architecture series.


Part one suggested walking skeletons for new features or projects. Part two suggested building the limited, smallest and simplest functionality possible. However you do not always have the luxury of deferral. Likewise if the project already exists and you are amending functionality, a walking skeleton is going to be limited.

Solution

Throw code away. This sounds brutal and overkill, but throwing code away has many advantages.

Benefits

  • The second time around you will solve the problem quicker having benefited from first time. The first attempt is a prototype in this case. Throwing away prototypes is expected. They are not production ready, usually built with short cuts or quality comprises intentionally.

  • The cleanest code is no code. Your following attempts will be cleaner. Knowing the issues from the previous attempt allows the ability to put code and procedures in place to prevent the same quality problems occurring.

  • Long term goals can be achieved rather than aiming for short term wins. Instead of focusing on meeting the current iterations' goal, answer whether or not your solution is fit for purpose going forwards. Does it scale? Is the quality there?

  • You benefit from hindsight. Most code to be replaced should have lived through some sort of review process. If the code has lived through production you have even more ammo to target the weak points. Where are the hotspots? What changes more frequently? Where do bugs tend to reside?

Objections

Throwing code away should not be taken lightly, but it is certainly a valid technique under the right circumstances.

You will have an easier time suggesting to start over on two days worth of work than you would two weeks, two months or two years. Keep your batch sizes small and the ability to throw code away will become easier to accept, with the benefits outweighing the negatives.

Small batches are not the only prerequisite to suggest throwing code away. Small changes are also essential. You can easily suggest throwing a method or class away, but you will rightly so have a harder time suggesting throwing away a module or system.

Refactoring is often used as a suggestion to combat the need to rewrite or throw code away but this is rarely the case in practice. Refactoring is a misused word and crucially misunderstood technique. If you change architecture you are not refactoring.

The biggest objector you will likely find is yourself. Having become invested in a task it can be hard to try again. Fight the urge to resist and throw code away. You may be pleasantly surprised by the results.

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…