Good Programming in 3 Simple Rules

[Fi8sVrs]

In the last few years, I have seen a little great code, some good code, a lot of mediocre code, and overwhelming amounts of bad code. (A shocking amount of my own code from previous years – especially when I was just starting – goes in the last two categories, alas.) The longer I have been at it and the more I have read (whether random articles on the web or the excellent Code Complete), the more I have concluded that good programming is simple. Incredibly hard, but simple. In fact, it is so simple, that you can sum it up in three short, easy to remember rules:

1. Write code for people, not for computers.
   
2. Don’t repeat yourself.
   
3. Only do one thing at a time.
   

If you can remember to practice each of these things, you can write good code. The problem is that they’re all hard. They require discipline, and the latter two in particular sometimes require careful thought. But if you get them right, you can write good software in any language, in any paradigm.

Write code for people, not for computers

This is the most important of the three rules, and the foundation underpinning the latter two. Write your code in such a way that people can understand it. Use meaningful variable names. Don’t use a complicated program flow where a simple one will do. Break your logic down into discrete chunks. Don’t “golf” and try to cram as much into a single line as possible. Use a code style that has some white space in it, that breathes a little. If your files start getting painfully long to scroll through, break them apart into separate files. Make it easy on people and let the computer do the hard bits.

Many programmers try to write for computers. They try to do things in a way they think will be faster, or that reduces the size of the application, or any number of other computer goals. Those can be admirable aims, but they should always be secondary. Your first aim – always – should be to write code that people can understand.

Your compiler or interpreter will handle quite a variety of styles of code. It will interpret n and numOfObjects equally happily. Humans, on the other hand, will not. And humans will be reading your code for a long time. This is true even of little tool scripts you write for yourself. Say you move on and then come back to it in a few years, but need to tweak it a little; which would you rather read: a well-commented script with meaningful method and variable names, or one without comments and with meaningless names?

So write for people. Write for the people who will be maintaining the code – either your future self, or others. Make it easy to understand what you’re doing. If you have to do something clever to optimize a particular piece of code, write clear comments explaining exactly what your optimization does and why so that someone who comes along later will know what in the world is going on.

And remember that, in most cases, you won’t be able to out-optimize the compiler or interpreter anyway. A simple reality: compilers and interpreters are smarter than you. That’s not up for debate; its a simple fact. They’ve been improved over the course of decades by some absolutely brilliant thinkers and enormous amounts of hard work. There are exceptions to this rule, but it remains a rule nonetheless.

Write code for people, not for computers.

Don’t repeat yourself

I can’t count the number of times I’ve found the same chunk of code repeated in different places. Just today, I was working through a large function in legacy code and saw precisely the same pattern in two different parts of a conditional structure. I double-checked that there wasn’t anything weird going on, and then I promptly moved it out of the conditional.

When you repeat the same code in multiple places, you make it harder to maintain. Without fail, you’ll go back to make a change and miss one or more of the places you have that code. So instead of repeating yourself, find a way to put the code in one place and just reuse it. Make a function, or a class method, that you can just call whenever you need that functionality. If you call the same set of methods over and over again in the same way, wrap that pattern up in its own function.

This not only prevents you from making mistakes when you make changes, it also makes it easier to understand the code. Consider: is it easier, reading through a program for the first time (or the first time in a while) to understand a 30-line section deciding how to deallocate a block of memory, or to just call clearMapVariableMemory()? I can tell you which I’d prefer: the latter, every single time. You can always go look at the details later, but even then, it’s much easier to understand when it’s a standalone function.

The same principle can be applied to data as well as functions. If there is a set of variables you’re acting on frequently, instead of declaring them over and over again individually, or passing them around to methods repeatedly, encapsulate them in a class or a type and use that instead. Then, any changes to those data elements get captured universally – no need to go refactor in a dozen different places in the code.

Don’t repeat yourself. Your code will be much easier to maintain and understand.

Only do one thing at a time

Last but not least, and building on each of the two principles outlined above: each piece of your code should only do one thing at a time. This is true at every level: statements, functions and methods, and classes and objects.

A few years ago, another software developer showed me a buggy piece of code that had taken him several hours to sort out. He eventually traced the problem down to compiler-specific behavior on post-increment operators on pointers in C. (As it turns out, the C standard is nonspecific about the very unusual corner case he had discovered.) Fresh off reading Code Complete, though, I noted that the real problem wasn’t the murky order of operations. It was that the statement in question was doing too many things at once.

As I recall, the single line of code in question was part of a ternary statement that performed multiple steps of pointer arithmetic to compute the conditional, then multiple other steps of pointer arithmetic including that pesky post-increment operator depending on the outcome of that conditional. It was, first and foremost, a case of writing for the computer instead of another human: there’s no way anyone could know what the line did by reading it three times, much less once.

More than that, it was a case of trying to do too many things at once. Had he simply separated out the logic so that the arithmetic leading to the conditional received its own statement, the conditional check its own statement, and the results their own statements – rather than combining them into a single, multi-line operation – the problem never would have come up in the first place.

Keep it simple. Do one thing at a time. Make each line of code comprehensible on its own. Make each function something you can describe in a sentence. Don’t get and change and set data in the same function. Make each object represent a single entity, even if that entity is a composition of other entities. This keeps things comprehensible for people. None of us can hold all of a 2000-line method in our heads, and we shouldn’t have to, either: there’s never a good reason for a 2000-line method, instead of a series of smaller methods that make up the various parts of that big method.

To be sure, you can get carried away with this, as with anything. Doing one thing at a time will mean writing plenty of methods that include many other methods. The point of each part of the code should be clear, though. The moment it isn’t, your comprehensibility goes down, maintainability goes down, and costs go up.

Only do one thing at a time.

Good programming in practice

Good programming is hard work. I’ve been programming for four years now – not long, in the grand scheme of things, but long enough to see quite a few problems, my own not least. In that span, it’s become clear to me that we make good programming harder by not sticking to these simple rules. Getting them right is hard enough; it is not always obvious where to draw the line in a class or method. This is a skill; programmers have to invest real time and thought to be good programmers. But if we don’t follow these simple, we make all our tasks that much harder.

Write code for people, not for computers.

Don’t repeat yourself.

Only do one thing at a time.

Source

[yoyois]

Write code for people, not for computers.

Tind sa nu fiu total de acord cu asta.

Good code (care sa arate bine) sau good code = powerfull

Cred ca ar trebui sa incalci toate cele 3 reguli daca asta te poate duce la un cod mai mic, mai rapid, mai sigur si mai puternic.

Si mai cred ca "Nobody gives a fuck about style is your code is working fine."

[M2G]

Tind sa nu fiu total de acord cu asta.

Good code (care sa arate bine) sau good code = powerfull

Cred ca ar trebui sa incalci toate cele 3 reguli daca asta te poate duce la un cod mai mic, mai rapid, mai sigur si mai puternic.

Si mai cred ca "Nobody gives a fuck about style is your code is working fine."

Daca scrii un proiect pentru tine, nu conteaza. Sau conteaza, dar mai putin.

Cand ajungi sa scrii cod impreuna cu altii sau cod open-source sau cod intr-o companie, conteaza mai mult decat crezi. Masina oricum "intelege" codul. Nu inteleg de unde conceptia asta ca un cod care nu arata bine este performant.

Codul trebuie sa fie cat mai usor de inteles de catre oameni.

Are mare dreptate omu ce zice acolo. Asta daca vrei sa scrii cod intr-un mod profi.

[fedorffixxzz]

Daca te ingrijoreaza performanta, implementezi directive si politica ca atunci cand vei compila codul, toate comment-urile sa fie inlaturate si alt garbage, daca nu se intampla deja asta. Sursa ramane comentata.

[bcman]

Daca te ingrijoreaza performanta, implementezi directive si politica ca atunci cand vei compila codul, toate comment-urile sa fie inlaturate si alt garbage, daca nu se intampla deja asta. Sursa ramane comentata.

Compilatorul ignora toate comentariile, de aceea fisierul executabil rezultat in urma compilarii are aceeasi dimensiune indiferent de cate comentarii ai adauga in sursa.

[yo20063]

OFF:

Compilatorul ignora toate comentariile, de aceea fisierul executabil rezultat in urma compilarii are aceeasi dimensiune indiferent de cate comentarii ai adauga in sursa.

Pam Pam!

Compilarii astia is de groaza!

ON: Dipa mine e simplu...daca faci un program de unica folosinta, sa mearga atunci cand trebuie, sa nu fie de lunga durata, sa il faci singur..scrie si cu picioarele! Dar shared.....vorbim de altceva! Si daca vrei sa "maintain" codul ala peste ani ca ai oferit suport la programelul tau avand in vedere ca tehnologiile se schimba de la 1 luna la alta..tre sa fii ordonat. Ca poate mai faci 50 de programele intre timp, si in nici un ca nu mai stii ce ai facut acu' 51 de programele!

[bcman]

OFF:

Pam Pam!

Compilarii astia is de groaza!

Nu inteleg. La ce te-ai referit? Am spus in urma compilarii. Adica in urma procesului de compilare. Tu la ce te refereai?

[yo20063]

Faceam doar o gluma....nu era de gramatica...doar ca nu am diacritice si imi e lene sa le instalez...."a" din "compilarii" la ce am scris eu, trebuia sa fie "a" si caciulita "indreptata spre cer". Intelegi tu