July 26th, 2024

Beyond Clean Code

The article explores software optimization and "clean code," emphasizing readability versus performance. It critiques the belief that clean code equals bad code, highlighting the balance needed in software development.

Read original articleLink Icon
Beyond Clean Code

The article discusses the complexities of software optimization and the concept of "clean code," particularly in the context of Robert C. Martin's influential book, "Clean Code." It highlights the emotional challenges faced during optimization, where developers may experience both triumph and frustration. The author distinguishes between the original intent of clean code, which emphasizes readability and maintainability, and the criticism that it can lead to poor performance due to overengineering and unnecessary abstractions.

The piece critiques the notion that clean code is synonymous with bad code, referencing Casey Muratori's arguments against it. Muratori's examples illustrate that while object-oriented programming (OOP) can produce clean code, it may not always be the most efficient. The article emphasizes that performance issues often arise from memory layout and the use of virtual functions in OOP, which can hinder speed due to their overhead.

Despite the performance advantages of optimized code, the author acknowledges the flexibility of OOP, which allows for diverse data structures and algorithms. This flexibility is crucial when developing systems that may require the addition of new shapes or functionalities. Ultimately, the article advocates for a balanced view of clean code, recognizing its value while also considering performance implications in software development.

Related

Optimizing JavaScript for Fun and for Profit

Optimizing JavaScript for Fun and for Profit

Optimizing JavaScript code for performance involves benchmarking, avoiding unnecessary work, string comparisons, and diverse object shapes. JavaScript engines optimize based on object shapes, impacting array/object methods and indirection. Creating objects with the same shape improves optimization, cautioning against slower functional programming methods. Costs of indirection like proxy objects and function calls affect performance. Code examples and benchmarks demonstrate optimization variances.

The Transformation Priority Premise (2013)

The Transformation Priority Premise (2013)

The Clean Coder Blog discusses Transformations in code development, distinguishing them from Refactorings. It emphasizes maintaining a preferred order of Transformations to enhance the red/green/refactor cycle efficiency. Examples illustrate transitioning from specific to generic code.

Why We Build Simple Software

Why We Build Simple Software

Simplicity in software development, likened to a Toyota Corolla's reliability, is crucial. Emphasizing straightforward tools and reducing complexity enhances reliability. Prioritizing simplicity over unnecessary features offers better value and reliability.

We Build Simple Software

We Build Simple Software

Simplicity in software development, likened to a Toyota Corolla's reliability, is crucial. Emphasizing straightforward tools, Pickcode aims for user-friendly experiences. Beware of complex software's pitfalls; prioritize simplicity for better value and reliability.

Post-Architecture: Premature Abstraction Is the Root of All Evil

Post-Architecture: Premature Abstraction Is the Root of All Evil

The article explores Post-Architecture in software development, cautioning against premature abstraction. It promotes simplicity, procedural programming, and selective abstraction for maintainable and efficient code.

Link Icon 9 comments
By @nateglims - 3 months
Casey Muratori is basically describing Data Oriented Programming. Perhaps the most famous talk about it was from CPPCON 2014 [1]. I come from an embedded background (microcontrollers and bare metal) so I'm pretty sympathetic to his argument. If you work in it long enough, it feels natural and "clean". Uncle bob's Clean Code probably feels natural to Java devs.

Personally, my biggest gripe comes from experiencing people trying to introduce it to a team. Inevitably someone tries to enthusiastically implement some part of it and suddenly are writing 1 line functions everywhere. I think this is the type of thing Casey is also implicitly talking about when he's railing against the rules being brought up.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0ItVEVjHc

By @KaiserPro - 3 months
I like this article. At the start I feared it was going to be one of those polemics written by someone who's never had to read other people's code, or worry about speed, efficiency or third party users.

However thats not the case. The author has distilled lots of experience into something reasonably readable.

By @throwway120385 - 3 months
The other cool thing about an OOP approach to this problem is that you can hide your optimized LUT behind the OOP if you're careful about the design of it. This lets you have your cake and eat it too. Your users who might be more comfortable with an OOP approach get a way to declare the kinds of shapes they're interested in and the number of shapes they want to work with. Then you can take responsibility for building a LUT that meets their needs and give them the supporting optimizations they need to be successful.
By @ilrwbwrkhv - 3 months
the problem with code is that the abstraction changes and data needs to be migrated:

e.g. a user is enabled if they have paid... time passes... now a user is enabled if the team they belong to has paid. now you need to move the logic to another struct / class and the data to another table.

now this is where "payables" and things come in and you start going the path of clean code with 1000 classes.

instead, the best way to do this is immutable data streams and event listeners.

after over a decade of programming, i feel for most software with a customer focus (not low level, embedded etc), immutable data streams where data flows through and listeners do things to themselves is the best way.

By @icholy - 3 months
If anyone wants to read the antithesis of Clean Code, check out "A philosophy of software design"
By @p0w3n3d - 3 months
I think a programmer can set badly any good pattern. We have onion pattern in our code and I get sick every time I enter it. All's great but it implements a graph of state changes navigating which resembles debugging a regexp, also all the ctrl+click navigation is broken because there's one general method for each message root type
By @tester756 - 3 months
The most important thing when evaluating things you need to know is: context matters

Principles arent universal across technologies

Hell, principles arent even universal across software kind (e.g goto arent used in C# web dev, but std lib? yes)

By @Uehreka - 3 months
So like, Clean Code really does say you should write four line functions, and does not put caveats on that statement, Uncle Bob even gives a lengthy terrible-looking example of a class written with 4-line functions and holds it up as the ideal. His views as expressed in that book are extreme and uncompromising, the “everything in moderation, there are many ways to write clean code” stuff is a rhetorical act he does when people call him out. Then when they’re gone and he thinks he can get away with it he starts speaking in absolute statements again.

Like, this is a conversation Uncle Bob had with Casey Muratori on GitHub, I came away feeling like Uncle Bob is more interested in playing rhetorical judo than anything else: https://github.com/unclebob/cmuratori-discussion/blob/main/c...

By @amai - 3 months
tldr;

Premature optimization is the root of all evil. (Donald Knuth)