Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Software Engineering Reading Group: Clean Code Chapter 3 Led by Nicholas Vaidyanathan Lead Visionary, Visionary Software.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Software Engineering Reading Group: Clean Code Chapter 3 Led by Nicholas Vaidyanathan Lead Visionary, Visionary Software."— Presentation transcript:

1 Software Engineering Reading Group: Clean Code Chapter 3 Led by Nicholas Vaidyanathan Lead Visionary, Visionary Software Solutions

2 Functions matter Can you understand in 3 minutes?

3 How about this?

4 Small! “The first rule of functions is that they should be small.” “The second rule of functions is that they should be smaller than that.” “Functions should not be 100 lines long. Functions should hardly ever be 20 lines long.” Beck’s Sparkle ◦ “I was used to functions in Swing programs that took up miles of vertical space. Every function in this program was just two, or three, or four lines long. Each was transparently obvious. Each told a story. And each led you to the next in a compelling order. That’s how short your functions should be! 3”

5 Blocks and Indenting This implies that the blocks within if statements, else statements, while statements, and so on should be one line long. Probably that line should be a function call. This also implies that functions should not be large enough to hold nested structures. Therefore, the indent level of a function should not be greater than one or two.

6 Do One Thing FUNCTIONS SHOULD DO ONE THING. THEY SHOULD DO IT WELL. THEY SHOULD DO IT ONLY. If a function does only those steps that are one level below the stated name of the function, then the function is doing one thing. Another way to know that a function is doing more than “one thing” is if you can extract another function from it with a name that is not merely a restatement of its implementation [G34]. Functions that do one thing cannot be reasonably divided into sections.

7 One Level of Abstraction per Function In order to make sure our functions are doing “one thing,” we need to make sure that the statements within our function are all at the same level of abstraction. Mixing levels of abstraction within a function is always confusing. ◦ Readers may not be able to tell whether a particular expression is an essential concept or a detail. ◦ like broken windows, once details are mixed with essential concepts, more and more details tend to accrete within the function.

8 The Stepdown Rule We want the code to read like a top-down narrative we want to be able to read the program as though it were a set of TO paragraphs, each of which is describing the current level of abstraction and referencing subsequent TO paragraphs at the next level down. ◦ To include the setups and teardowns, we include setups, then we include the test page content, and then we include the teardowns. ◦ To include the setups, we include the suite setup if this is a suite, then we include the regular setup. ◦ To include the suite setup, we search the parent hierarchy for the “SuiteSetUp” page and add an include statement with the path of that page. ◦ To search the parent...

9 Switch Statements Can be hard to read Do N things by nature

10 Poor Payroll Large, multiple reasons for change Does more than 1 thing Violates Single Responsibility Principle Violates Open-Closed Principle Opens door for even worse! ◦ isPayday(Employee e, Date date) ◦ deliverPay(Employee e, Money pay)

11 Bury Switch with OOP Use Abstract Factory that delegates to Employee instances through polymorphism My general rule for switch statements is that they can be tolerated if they appear only once, are used to create polymorphic objects, and are hidden behind an inheritance relationship so that the rest of the system can’t see them [G23].

12 Better Payroll

13 Use Descriptive Names Remember Ward’s principle: “You know you are working on clean code when each routine turns out to be pretty much what you expected.” Don’t be afraid to make a name long. A long descriptive name is better than a short enigmatic name. ◦ A long descriptive name is better than a long descriptive comment. Choosing descriptive names will clarify the design of the module in your mind and help you to improve it. Be consistent in your names.

14 Function Arguments Ideal Number of arguments for a function is 0 (niladic) Next comes monadic (1), followed closely by dyadic (2) Triadic (3) should be avoided whenever possible Polyadic (3+) requires justification…and really shouldn’t be done Arguments take a lot of conceptual power ◦ They may mix abstractions Arguments are hard to test ◦ Combinatorial explosion of values for inputs Output arguments are harder to understand than input arguments.

15 Common monadic forms Common reasons to pass an argument ◦ Ask a question about it  boolean fileExists(“MyFile”) ◦ Transformation and return  InputStream fileOpen(“MyFile”)  transforms a file name String into an InputStream return value. ◦ Event  void passwordAttemptFailedNtimes(int attempts)  Use with care. It should be very clear to the reader this is an event ◦ Try to avoid any monadic functions that don’t follow these forms, for example

16 Monadic mistakes void includeSetupPageInto(StringB uffer pageText) StringBuffer transform(StringBuffer in) > void transform(StringBuffer out)

17 Flag Arguments Flag arguments are ugly. ◦ Passing a boolean into a function is a truly terrible practice. Complicates the signature of a method, and loudly proclaims the function does more than 1 thing!

18 Dyadic Functions writeField(name) > writeField(output-Stream, name) ◦ First is easily parsed, second takes a moment until we figure out to ignore the first parameter But we shouldn’t have code that we ignore! Two arguments make better sense in makePoint(int x, int Y) ◦ Ordered components of a single value! Even obvious dyadic functions like assertEquals(expected, actual) are problematic. ◦ Must memorize the parameter order, since there is no natural ordering

19 Triads Worse than dyads It’s likely that you should use an Argument Object ◦ When groups of variables are passed together, the way x and y are in the example above, they are likely part of a concept that deserves a name of its own.

20 Verbs and Keywords Choosing good names for a function can help mitigate parameter ordering issues In the case of a monad, the function and argument should form a very nice verb/noun pair. ◦ write(name)  writeField(name)  writeField() is a keyword form of a function name, it encodes the name of arguments into the function name

21 Have no Side Effects Side effects are LIES ◦ Your function promises to do one thing, but also does other hidden things Side effects create temporal couplings which are confusing and often the source of bugs

22 What’s Wrong here?

23 Output Arguments appendFooter(s); ◦ Does this function append s as the footer to something? ◦ Or does it append some footer to s ? Is s an input or an output? Anything that forces you to check the function signature is equivalent to a double- take. It’s a cognitive break and should be avoided. much of the need for output arguments disappears in OO languages because this is intended to act as an output argument.

24 Command Query Separation Functions should either do something or answer something, but not both. ◦ Either your function should change the state of an object, or it should return some information about that object. ◦ Doing both often leads to confusion.

25 Separate! public boolean set(String attribute, String value); if (set("username", "unclebob"))... ◦ Is it asking whether the “ username ” attribute was previously set to “ unclebob ”? ◦ is it asking whether the “username” attribute was successfully set to “unclebob”?

26 Prefer Exceptions to returning Error Codes Returning error codes is a subtle violation of Command Query Separation ◦ Promotes commands being used as predicates in if statements, leading to deep nesting Extract try/catch blocks Error Handling is One Thing

27 Don’t Repeat Yourself Duplication is a problem ◦ Requires modification in multiple places on changes..lots of opportunity for error Duplication may be the root of all evil in software. ◦ Many principles and practices have been created for the purpose of controlling or eliminating it.

28 Structured Programming Edsger Djikstra Rules ◦ Every function and every block within a function should have one entry and one exit ◦ Only 1 return statement ◦ No break or continue in loops ◦ Never any gotos

29 How Do You Write Functions Like This? Writing software is like any other kind of writing ◦ When you write a paper or an article,you get your thoughts down first, then you massage it until it reads well. ◦ Refactor, Refactor, Refactor! ◦ But write Unit Tests that stress the original first, and keep them passing!

Download ppt "Software Engineering Reading Group: Clean Code Chapter 3 Led by Nicholas Vaidyanathan Lead Visionary, Visionary Software."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google