Simplicity may be the core value. You
write simple code faster, test it more thoroughly with less effort,
and depend on it once it's done. If you make
mistakes, you can throw it away without reservation. When
requirements change, you can refactor with impunity. If
you've never thought about simplicity in software
development before, let's first talk about what
simplicity is not:Simple does not mean simple-minded. You'll still
think just as hard, but you'll spend your energy on
simplicity, elegance, and the interactions between simple components.
e=mc2 is a remarkably simple formula that
forms the theory of relativity, one of the most revolutionary ideas
ever.Simple code does not necessarily indicate simple behavior. Recursion,
multithreading, and composition can let you build applications out of
simple building blocks with amazingly complex behavior.Writing simple code does not mean taking the easy way out. Cutting
and pasting is often the fastest way to write a new method, but
it's not always the simplest solution, and rarely
the best solution. Simple code is clean, with little replication.A simple process is not an undisciplined process. Extreme programming
is a process that embraces simplicity, and it's
quite rigorous in many ways. You must code all of your test cases
before writing your code; you must integrate every day; and you must
make hard decisions on project scope in order to keep to your
Simple code is clean and beautiful. Learn to seek simplicity, and
you'll step over the line from engineer to artist.
Consider the evolution of a typical guitar player. Beginners aspire
to play just about anything that they can master. Intermediate
players learn to cram more notes and complex rhythms into
ever-decreasing spaces. If you've ever heard one of
the great blues players, you know that those players have mastered
one more skillthey learn what not to
play. Bo Diddley embraces silence and simplicity with every fiber of
his being. He strips his music to the bare essence of
what's required. Then, when he does add the extra,
unexpected notes, they have much more power and soul.Coding simply accrues benefits throughout the development process.
Take a look at the typical object-oriented development iteration in
Figure 2-1. Here, I'm trying to
show the typical steps of an object-oriented cycle. Notice that you
can see the tangible impact of simplicity in every phase of each
iteration. I should also point out that you can have a dramatic
impact outside of the typical development iterations, and into the
production part of an application's lifecycle,
because your code will be easier to fix and maintain.
Figure 2-1. Each iteration in an object-oriented project has steps for designing, coding, testing, and reacting to the results of those tests
Here are some reasons to write
simple code. They correspond to the
numbers in Figure 2-1:Given simple tools, takes less time, and is less prone to error.Easier to write.Usually easier to test.Usually more reliable in production.Easier to refactor before deployment.Easier to refactor to fix production problems.Easier to maintain.
You're probably wishing I would get right to the
point and talk about new design patterns that help create simpler
code. Here's the bad news: you
can't address simplicity that way.
You've got to pay attention to the process
you're using to build code, the foundation
you're building on, and the basic building blocks
you're using in your everyday programming life
before you can truly embrace simplicity.
2.1.1 Choosing the Foundations
If you want to build simple
applications, you're going
to have to build on simple frameworks. You need processes, tools,
frameworks, and patterns that support the concepts in this book. Face
it: if you build on top of an unintelligible, amorphous blob,
you're probably going to be writing code that looks
like sticky, tangled masses of goo. That goes for foundations you
code, technologies you buy, and design patterns you reuse.
22.214.171.124 Technology you buy
Two values should govern every layer
that you add to your system: value and
simplicity. When it comes to value, remember that there are no free
rides. Each layer must pay its own way. When I say
pay, I'm generally not talking
about the software sales price. Over your development cycle, most of
your costslike time and effort to develop, deploy, and
maintain your codewill dwarf the sales price of any given
component. You'll want to answer some pointed
questions for each and every new piece of software:
How does it improve your life?
Many a project has
used XML for every message,
configuration file, or even document. If two elements of a system are
necessarily tightly coupled, XML only adds cost and complexity.
Often, pure text with hash tables works fine. Likewise, even if the
two elements are loosely coupled but the data is simple enough
(key/value pairs, or a simple rectangular table), then XML is
probably still overkill.
What is the cost?
If a technology marginally improves your life, you should be willing
to pay only a marginal cost. Too often, developers compromise on
major values for minimal gain. Adopting EJB CMP for a project because
it comes free with an application server often seems wise, until the
true, invasive complexity of the beast shows itself.
Is it easy to integrate and extend?
Many technologies work well within their own domain, but make
assumptions that make even basic extensions difficult. Be especially
careful with frameworks for distributed communication, persistence,
and user interfaces.
Will it cause you to compromise your core principles?
If you're striving for simplicity and independence,
you should not consider ultra-invasive technologies. If you need
portability at any cost, then you shouldn't use a
tool that forces you to adopt nonstandard SQL.
Can you maintain it and manage it in production?
Client-server technologies often broke down because they were too
expensive to deploy. Web developers live with the limitations of the
user interface because the deployment advantages on the client are so
Is it a fad technology that will leave you hanging when it falls from fashion?
Look across the pond at developers moving from
Micrsoft's ASP to ASP.NET. While ASP was the
platform, VBScript was the language of choice for many developers.
depending on who you ask), but it looked just like VB and was
comfortable. With the advent of ASP.NET, guess which language is
still supported? Hint: it isn't VBScript. Now there
is a lot of rewriting going on that need never
"Buy over build" is a great motto,
but you've got to watch what you buy.
It's really just a cost comparison. How much would
it cost you and your team to develop the equivalent functionality
with the equivalent stability but more targeted to your specific
needs? When you look at it this way, everything is a
"buy." Your own development shop is
just one more vendor.
126.96.36.199 Design patterns
Treat design patterns like
a framework that you purchase.
Each one has a cost and a benefit. Like a purchases framework, each
design pattern must pay its own way. If you want to embrace
simplicity, you can't build in each and every design
pattern from the famous Gang of Four book, Design
Patterns, by Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, et al.
(Addison-Wesley).True, many design patterns allow for contingencies.
That's good. Many Java gurus get in trouble when
they try to predict what the future might hold.
That's bad. The best rule of thumb is to use design
patterns when you've physically established a need,
today. You need expertise on your team that can recognize when a
given situation is crying out for a particular pattern. Too often,
developers buy the Gang of Four book, or one like it, crack it open
to a random page, and apply a pattern that has no problem. Instead,
it's better to find a difficult problem, and then
apply the right pattern in response. You need experts on a team to
apply any technology. Design patterns are no exception. In other
words, don't impose design patterns. Let them
188.8.131.52 Your own code
Of course, much of your foundation will be code that you or your
peers write. It goes without saying that the simplicity of each layer
affects the simplicity of the layers above.You may find that you're forced to use a
particularly ugly foundation that looks only slightly better than a
random string of characters. Further, you may find that
it's impossible to junk it and start from scratch
with a simpler foundation. When this happens, you can do what moms
and pet owners do when they need to feed their charge a bitter pill:
they hide it in peanut butter or cheese. I call this technique
rebasing. When you rebase, your overriding
concern is the interface. Your goal is to give your clients a better
interface and usage model than the code below you. An example of
providing a data
access object layer, which hides the details of a data
store, over the EJB entities. You can then keep that skeleton deep in
the closet, or clean it out at your leisure. Your clients will be
protected, and be able to provide a much cleaner interface.