Skip to main content

Clean Code

I received quite a lot of criticism for Dealing with Bad Code. The criticism was mostly along these lines - "There is no good or bad programmer. The good programmer thing is more of an illusion. When you place a programmer in a domain in which he has little or no experience (like a PHP web programmer writing C++ code), he will soon be seen as a bad programmer. What is branded good or bad is subjective."

Although it sounds to make sense, I don't completely agree with that. Maybe the topic of the discussion was ambiguous. It wasn't the programmer but the code. I am not willing to spend my energy to demotivate somebody by branding him a bad programmer. But I will in reviewing anybody's code, not just brand it bad code but ultimately clean it up.

I believe programming isn't restricted to language. Although the language used to program has its impact on the way a problem is solved, it doesn't limit the programmer from losing the basics. In other words, a programmer should be able to program in any given language; of course he needs time to study the language. So if a PHP programmer is writing C++ code, he can't stick to his old habits and disregard memory management, and also be aware what is considered expensive in C++ unlike PHP. I agree that every language has its areas which cannot be mastered without exposure and time, for instance template meta-programming in C++. I doubt if one who has programmed in one of the dynamic languages all his time would even comprehend seeing results at compile time.

So if one transcends the language wars, programming is about three things - logic, semantic and structure. I am going to assume that those terms are self-explanatory in our context. And if I were to order them, they are reversed ordered......to sound better. Although the order relates to the importance of each facet, one cannot and should not be sacrificed over the other. Each facet carries equal importance as the other and must be given attention to achieve good code. So the order is more of which one to attend to first.

Whenever I came across code that could made better, I had thought making a collection of such things. Well, I think I am up to it now. I am starting to write a series of posts (at irregular intervals), which will talk about how certain piece of code could be written so that it is easier for the reader to understand; in other words tell him why something is done a certain way. We see that line '...for the reader to understand...' everywhere in books and articles. The assumption there is that the reader is looking for the reason. If one were to just read code literally but never question why it is or is not written certain way, we got nothing to discuss. So every effort taken to write good code, and more importantly, maintain it that way, is not just for self-satisfaction.

Let me get started with the first one today, and it is about logic. Logic means how do solve a certain problem (specific and granular) efficiently. Efficiency does not mean only speed. If you can solve the problem in a comparatively fewer lines code without losing clarity and readability, then that is efficient. That sometimes involves educating ourselves and our peers with new techniques. For instance, in a language of your choice, how would you implement a function that returns the sum of all numbers starting 1 through N (including). One could start with this:

function sum(int n) {
    int total = 0;

    for (int i = 1; i <= n; ++i) {
        total += i;
    }

    return total;
}

That's about 5 effective lines of code. It can be made succinct:
function sum(int n) {
    return (n * (n + 1)) / 2;
}

The above code is just one line. One could even question if we need a function. If programmers in the team were educated with the technique, calculating the sum doesn't need any encapsulation.

Some people will fight back saying what I am explaining here is just algorithms in action. True but it is not just limited to applying algorithms. What I am talking about applies even implementing an algorithm. I am talking about how can one write logic to improve the efficiency of code without losing the readability. I will leave it to the reader whether to agree with me or not.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Implementing COM OutOfProc Servers in C# .NET !!!

Had to implement our COM OOP Server project in .NET, and I found this solution from the internet after a great deal of search, but unfortunately the whole idea was ruled out, and we wrapped it as a .NET assembly. This is worth knowing. Step 1: Implement IClassFactory in a class in .NET. Use the following definition for IClassFactory. namespace COM { static class Guids { public const string IClassFactory = "00000001-0000-0000-C000-000000000046"; public const string IUnknown = "00000000-0000-0000-C000-000000000046"; } /// /// IClassFactory declaration /// [ComImport(), InterfaceType(ComInterfaceType.InterfaceIsIUnknown), Guid(COM.Guids.IClassFactory)] internal interface IClassFactory { [PreserveSig] int CreateInstance(IntPtr pUnkOuter, ref Guid riid, out IntPtr ppvObject); [PreserveSig] int LockServer(bool fLock); } } Step 2: [DllImport("ole32.dll")] private static extern int CoR

Extension Methods - A Polished C++ Feature !!!

Extension Method is an excellent feature in C# 3.0. It is a mechanism by which new methods can be exposed from an existing type (interface or class) without directly adding the method to the type. Why do we need extension methods anyway ? Ok, that is the big story of lamba and LINQ. But from a conceptual standpoint, the extension methods establish a mechanism to extend the public interface of a type. The compiler is smart enough to make the method a part of the public interface of the type. Yeah, that is what it does, and the intellisense is very cool in making us believe that. It is cleaner and easier (for the library developers and for us programmers even) to add extra functionality (methods) not provided in the type. That is the intent. And we know that was exercised extravagantly in LINQ. The IEnumerable was extended with a whole lot set of methods to aid the LINQ design. Remember the Where, Select etc methods on IEnumerable. An example code snippet is worth a thousand

sizeof vs Marshal.SizeOf !!!

There are two facilities in C# to determine the size of a type - sizeof operator and Marshal.SizeOf method. Let me discuss what they offer and how they differ. Pardon me if I happen to ramble a bit. Before we settle the difference between sizeof and Marshal.SizeOf , let us discuss why would we want to compute the size of a variable or type. Other than academic, one typical reason to know the size of a type (in a production code) would be allocate memory for an array of items; typically done while using malloc . Unlike in C++ (or unmanaged world), computing the size of a type definitely has no such use in C# (managed world). Within the managed application, size does not matter; since there are types provided by the CLR for creating\managing fixed size and variable size (typed) arrays. And as per MSDN, the size cannot be computed accurately. Does that mean we don't need to compute the size of a type at all when working in the CLR world? Obviously no, else I would