![]() ![]() When it just discards your changes you would be not amused aka pissed. Software should behave the same way and not surprise you!įor example when you close a program you would expect that the programs warns you of any unsaved changes with a dialogue. You would be very surprised if instead of the light the dishwasher starts doing its thing. ![]() …that the light turns on, when it was off before and the other way around. When you come into a room and hit the light switch you would expect… The urge to implement a color chooser widget when the customer just wants a green button. While with KISS the solution shall be as simple as possible, YAGNI asks the question if a solution is needed at all. This is a fun one! From junior dev to principal engineer: everyone can become the victim of over-engineering or scope creep Simplicity should be a design goal: do you need a class when a function is sufficient (compare Pythons unittest with pytest) YAGNI(Y) – You ain’t gonna need it (yet) This principle was coined by Clarence Johnson who was an aeronautical engineer. You can of course cut yourself some slack by applying the rule of three from TDD: when you repeated a block of code three times look for a more generic approach. It is Tip #15 from the pragmatic programmerĮvery piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.Ī violation of the DRY principle often comes from copy-pasting code instead of generalizing. It is the most basic but yet often the hardest to implement. But in programming I really try to stick to this principle. Unfortunately as a parent I cannot avoid to repeat myself. ![]() You can use them in everyday life as well. These can be applied not only to software development. If there is a good justifiable reason to not apply the principle then don’t. Principles work as guiding lights but you should not see them as absolute laws. If you take the last pasta sauce from the pantry, put it on the shopping list.FCOI – Favor Composition over InheritanceĮvery time you come to a fork in the road a principle can help you.Object Oriented Software specific principles.IOSP – Integration Operation Segregation Principle.YAGNI(Y) – You ain’t gonna need it (yet).Good software can evolve into what it will ultimately become. Build what you need as you need it, aggressively refactoring as you go along don't spend a lot of time planning for grandiose, unknown future scenarios. To combat this urge, I suggest following the YAGNI ( You Aren't Gonna Need It) doctrine. I think it should be the other way around: these techniques are guilty until proven innocent in the court of KISS.Īs developers, I think we also tend to be far too optimistic in assessing the generality of our own solutions, and thus we end up building elaborate OOP frameworks around things that may not justify that level of complexity. Most programmers never met an object they didn't like. You laugh, but like Rico, I see this all the time. Use fancy OOP features because they have specific, demonstrable benefit to the problem you're trying to solve. So when I say things like "don't use a delegates if regular polymorphism would do" I don't mean that you should avoid delegates I mean that you should not use them if they are overkill.ĭon't use fancy OOP features just because you can. Whatever programming religion you may have I think you'll agree that more complex language abstractions do not inherently help your design – rather each more sophisticated feature starts at a net negative and must somehow earn its way to positiveness with benefits such as clarity, ease of maintenance, performance, and so forth. But, as often, I find that people have written their code in some elaborate way when a much simpler model would have been equally servicable and more performant. Far from it, often they not only add clarity and maintainability they also improve performance. This is not to say that you should shun virtual functions, inheritance, or other features of modern programming languages. If I was to summarize my advice in that blog in a few words it would be "don't use OOP features that you don't need." I hardly think that one can make any conclusions about which vendor has the edge in performance from my article on Performance Tidbits. Microsoft performance guy Rico touches on a topic near and dear to my heart ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |