I would like to know if somebody often uses metrics to validate its code/design.
As example, I think I will use:
number of lines per method (< 20)
number of variables per method (< 7)
number of paremeters per method (< 8)
number of methods per class (< 20)
number of field per class (< 20)
inheritance tree depth (< 6).
Lack of Cohesion in Methods
Most of these metrics are very simple.
What is your policy about this kind of mesure ? Do you use a tool to check their (e.g. NDepend) ?
Imposing numerical limits on those values (as you seem to imply with the numbers) is, in my opinion, not very good idea. The number of lines in a method could be very large if there is a significant switch statement, and yet the method is still simple and proper. The number of fields in a class can be appropriately very large if the fields are simple. And five levels of inheritance could be way too many, sometimes.
I think it is better to analyze the class cohesion (more is better) and coupling (less is better), but even then I am doubtful of the utility of such metrics. Experience is usually a better guide (though that is, admittedly, expensive).
A metric I didn't see in your list is McCabe's Cyclomatic Complexity. It measures the complexity of a given function, and has a correlation with bugginess. E.g. high complexity scores for a function indicate: 1) It is likely to be a buggy function and 2) It is likely to be hard to fix properly (e.g. fixes will introduce their own bugs).
Ultimately, metrics are best used at a gross level -- like control charts. You look for points above and below the control limits to identify likely special cases, then you look at the details. For example a function with a high cyclomatic complexity may cause you to look at it, only to discover that it is appropriate because it a dispatcher method with a number of cases.
management by metrics does not work for people or for code; no metrics or absolute values will always work. Please don't let a fascination with metrics distract from truly evaluating the quality of the code. Metrics may appear to tell you important things about the code, but the best they can do is hint at areas to investigate.
That is not to say that metrics are not useful. Metrics are most useful when they are changing, to look for areas that may be changing in unexpected ways. For example, if you suddenly go from 3 levels of inheritance to 15, or 4 parms per method to 12, dig in and figure out why.
example: a stored procedure to update a database table may have as many parameters as the table has columns; an object interface to this procedure may have the same, or it may have one if there is an object to represent the data entity. But the constructor for the data entity may have all of those parameters. So what would the metrics for this tell you? Not much! And if you have enough situations like this in the code base, the target averages will be blown out of the water.
So don't rely on metrics as absolute indicators of anything; there is no substitute for reading/reviewing the code.
Personally I think it's very difficult to adhere to these types of requirements (i.e. sometimes you just really need a method with more than 20 lines), but in the spirit of your question I'll mention some of the guidelines used in an essay called Object Calisthenics (part of the Thoughtworks Anthology if you're interested).
Levels of indentation per method (<2)
Number of 'dots' per line (<2)
Number of lines per class (<50)
Number of classes per package (<10)
Number of instance variances per class (<3)
He also advocates not using the 'else' keyword nor any getters or setters, but I think that's a bit overboard.
Hard numbers don't work for every solution. Some solutions are more complex than others. I would start with these as your guidelines and see where your project(s) end up.
But, regarding these number specifically, these numbers seem pretty high. I usually find in my particular coding style that I usually have:
no more than 3 parameters per method
signature about 5-10 lines per method
no more than 3 levels of inheritance
That isn't to say I never go over these generalities, but I usually think more about the code when I do because most of the time I can break things down.
As others have said, keeping to a strict standard is going to be tough. I think one of the most valuable uses of these metrics is to watch how they change as the application evolves. This helps to give you an idea how good a job you're doing on getting the necessary refactoring done as functionality is added, and helps prevent making a big mess :)
OO Metrics are a bit of a pet project for me (It was the subject of my master thesis). So yes I'm using these and I use a tool of my own.
For years the book "Object Oriented Software Metrics" by Mark Lorenz was the best resource for OO metrics. But recently I have seen more resources.
Unfortunately I have other deadlines so no time to work on the tool. But eventually I will be adding new metrics (and new language constructs).
Update
We are using the tool now to detect possible problems in the source. Several metrics we added (not all pure OO):
use of assert
use of magic constants
use of comments, in relation to the compelxity of methods
statement nesting level
class dependency
number of public fields in a class
relative number of overridden methods
use of goto statements
There are still more. We keep the ones that give a good image of the pain spots in the code. So we have direct feedback if these are corrected.
Related
I am in the second year of my bachelor study in information technology. Last year in one of my courses they taught me to write clean code so other programmers have an easier time working with your code. I learned a lot about writing clean code from a video ("clean code") on pluralsight (paid website for learning which my school uses). There was an example in there about assigning if conditions to boolean variables and using them to enhance readability. In my course today my teacher told me it's very bad code because it decreases performance (in bigger programs) due to increased tests being executed. I was wondering now whether I should continue using boolean variables for readability or not use them for performance. I will illustrate in an example (I am using python code for this example):
example boolean variable
Let's say we need to check whether somebody is legal to drink alcohol we get the persons age and we know the legal drinking age is 21.
is_old_enough = persons_age >= legal_drinking_age
if is_old_enough:
do something
My teacher told me today that this would be very bad for performance since 2 tests are performed first persons_age >= legal_drinking_age is tested and secondly in the if another test occurs whether the person is_old_enough.
My teacher told me that I should just put the condition in the if, but in the video they said that code should be read like natural language to make it clear for other programmers. I was wondering now which would be the better coding practice.
example condition in if:
if persons_age >= legal_drinking_age:
do something
In this example only 1 test is tested whether persons_age >= legal_drinking_age. According to my teacher this is better code.
Thank you in advance!
yours faithfully
Jonas
I was wondering now which would be the better coding practice.
The real safe answer is : Depends..
I hate to use this answer, but you won't be asking unless you have faithful doubt. (:
IMHO:
If the code will be used for long-term use, where maintainability is important, then a clearly readable code is preferred.
If the program speed performance crucial, then any code operation that use less resource (smaller dataSize/dataType /less loop needed to achieve the same thing/ optimized task sequencing/maximize cpu task per clock cycle/ reduced data re-loading cycle) is better. (example keyword : space-for-time code)
If the program minimizing memory usage is crucial, then any code operation that use less storage and memory resource to complete its operation (which may take more cpu cycle/loop for the same task) is better. (example: small devices that have limited data storage/RAM)
If you are in a race, then you may what to code as short as possible, (even if it may take a slightly longer cpu time later). example : Hackathon
If you are programming to teach a team of student/friend something.. Then readable code + a lot of comment is definitely preferred .
If it is me.. I'll stick to anything closest to assembly language as possible (as much control on the bit manipulation) for backend development. and anything closest to mathematica-like code (less code, max output, don't really care how much cpu/memory resource is needed) for frontend development. ( :
So.. If it is you.. you may have your own requirement/preference.. from the user/outsiders/customers point of view.. it is just a working/notWorking program. YOur definition of good program may defer from others.. but this shouldn't stop us to be flexible in the coding style/method.
Happy exploring. Hope it helps.. in any way possible.
Performance
Performance is one of the least interesting concerns for this question, and I say this as one working in very performance-critical areas like image processing and raytracing who believes in effective micro-optimizations (but my ideas of effective micro-optimization would be things like improving memory access patterns and memory layouts for cache efficiency, not eliminating temporary variables out of fear that your compiler or interpreter might allocate additional registers and/or utilize additional instructions).
The reason it's not so interesting is, because, as pointed out in the comments, any decent optimizing compiler is going to treat those two you wrote as equivalent by the time it finishes optimizing the intermediate representation and generates the final results of the instruction selection/register allocation to produce the final output (machine code). And if you aren't using a decent optimizing compiler, then this sort of microscopic efficiency is probably the last thing you should be worrying about either way.
Variable Scopes
With performance aside, the only concern I'd have with this convention, and I think it's generally a good one to apply liberally, is for languages that don't have a concept of a named constant to distinguish it from a variable.
In those cases, the more variables you introduce to a meaty function, the more intellectual overhead it can have as the number of variables with a relatively wide scope increases, and that can translate to practical burdens in maintenance and debugging in extreme cases. If you imagine a case like this:
some_variable = ...
...
some_other_variable = ...
...
yet_another_variable = ...
(300 lines more code to the function)
... in some function, and you're trying to debug it, then those variables combined with the monstrous size of the function starts to multiply the difficulty of trying to figure out what went wrong. That's a practical concern I've encountered when debugging codebases spanning millions of lines of code written by all sorts of people (including those no longer on the team) where it's not so fun to look at the locals watch window in a debugger and see two pages worth of variables in some monstrous function that appears to be doing something incorrectly (or in one of the functions it calls).
But that's only an issue when it's combined with questionable programming practices like writing functions that span hundreds or thousands of lines of code. In those cases it will often improve everything just focusing on making reasonable-sized functions that perform one clear logical operation and don't have more than one side effect (or none ideally if the function can be programmed as a pure function). If you design your functions reasonably then I wouldn't worry about this at all and favor whatever is readable and easiest to comprehend at a glance and maybe even what is most writable and "pliable" (to make changes to the function easier if you anticipate a future need).
A Pragmatic View on Variable Scopes
So I think a lot of programming concepts can be understood to some degree by just understanding the need to narrow variable scopes. People say avoid global variables like the plague. We can go into issues with how that shared state can interfere with multithreading and how it makes programs difficult to change and debug, but you can understand a lot of the problems just through the desire to narrow variable scopes. If you have a codebase which spans a hundred thousand lines of code, then a global variable is going to have the scope of a hundred thousands of lines of code for both access and modification, and crudely speaking a hundred thousand ways to go wrong.
At the same time that pragmatic sort of view will find it pointless to make a one-shot program which only spans 100 lines of code with no future need for extension avoid global variables like the plague, since a global here is only going to have 100 lines worth of scope, so to speak. Meanwhile even someone who avoids those like the plague in all contexts might still write a class with member variables (including some superfluous ones for "convenience") whose implementation spans 8,000 lines of code, at which point those variables have a much wider scope than even the global variable in the former example, and this realization could drive someone to design smaller classes and/or reduce the number of superfluous member variables to include as part of the state management for the class (which can also translate to simplified multithreading and all the similar types of benefits of avoiding global variables in some non-trivial codebase).
And finally it'll tend to tempt you to write smaller functions as well, since a variable towards the top of some function spanning 500 lines of code is going to also have a fairly wide scope. So anyway, my only concern when you do this is to not let the scope of those temporary, local variables get too wide. And if they do, then the general answer is not necessarily to avoid those variables but to narrow their scope.
I understand how important it is to choose an appropriate name that reflects your intentions whenever it is possible, and how it can impact your code quality.
For example, below are some methods in java.math.BigDecimal that I consider having an interesting parameter names :
BigDecimal add(BigDecimal augend);
BigDecimal divide(BigDecimal divisor, int scale, RoundingMode roundingMode);
BigDecimal multiply(BigDecimal multiplicand);
BigDecimal subtract(BigDecimal subtrahend);
Such methods are always made me realize that knowing some specific notations and terms is a great help for improving your code, hence I think it would be good if I know them better.
Recently I've found a really good website that gives you a list of commonly used terms in mathematics, and I wonder is there any similar resources (whether in networking, physics, or any other fields related to programming) that can improve your vocabulary as a programmer?
Please keep in mind that what I meant here is not a coding standard, such as Zend Naming Conventions.
I find Wikipedia to be a good resource for this.
For example, when I needed a variable to store am or pm, I previously called it ampm.
A short while back, I looked into it and now name it meridiem.
I'd say that there are glossaries for multiple fields which might help in finding good terms but generally it's also a matter of experience and conventions that your team sets for itself.
A problem with naming is that others reading a name might not know how to interpret it and thus you should at least add a comment explaing the meaning of the class/field/method.
Other than that, I'd suggest to name the methods by their purpose or the algorithm they use, e.g. sort or quicksort. If you implement an algorithm from a specific area, you should be familiar with that area or at least that algorithm, result in less problems with naming. (Example: if I implement a method to calculate the levenshtein distance of two strings I'd name the method something like int calcLevenshtein(String arg1, String arg2) ).
This is another question related to a question I asked a few minutes ago. If I have a class that I believe only has one responsibility but a lot of business rules and that class is large, about 4000 lines or more, is it OK to not re-factor the class into multiple classes.
4000 lines is too much. Either you have 500 methods or you have really long methods. I cant see a way that can be managable. Seems obvious but I suggest you start with grouping similar methods/variables together. e.g. all cost data goes into productCost class etc. instead. Use query methods instead of calculated fields that are being used by many methods.
A 4,000 line class isn't very maintainable. It might be hard to test pieces of the logic in isolation. A more practical reason to split it up is that multiple programmers can work on it in parallel if it is separated into multiple classes. This is a lot harder to do if it's one class.
You lose a lot of good software quality attributes by leaving this as a monolithic monster. There are better patterns to reduce its inner complexity, even if it truly is all cohesive.
I would say "no". 4,000 lines is much too large.
I would examine the business rules to see if they don't imply the class is really composite. In particular, if it is possible to partition the set of business rules into sensible subsets, then it's likely each subset may indicate that your class needs to be broken into components, each with its own set of business rules, and that the rules should be parceled out among the components.
I'd also look at refactoring the business rules into a more compact representation.
The idea is somewhat similar to what Apple has done in the OpenGL stack. I want to have that a bit more general.
Basically, I want to have specialised and optimised variants of some code for some specific cases.
In other words: I have given an algorithm/code for a function (let B = {0,1})
f : B^n -> B^m
Now, I special a specific case by a function (which predefines part of the input of f)
preset : {1..n} -> {0,1,unset}
The amount of predefinitions (∈ {0..n}) is then given by
pn := |preset⁻¹({0,1})|
Canonically, we now get a specialised function
f_preset : B^(n-pn) -> B^m
Also canonically, we get the code/algorithm for this specialised function. Naturally, the code for f_preset will be somewhat more fast than f with pn > 0. Then, you also can optimise this code further (there might be some dead code now, some loops can be unpacked now, some calculations can be precalculated, etc). In some cases, it can have noteable improvements.
Apple does roughly this for their OpenGL stack (from what I have read / know): They try to find a good preset at runtime after everything is setup for variables which will not change anymore, then make an optimised version of the specialised function and only use that one instead of the original function.
Initially, I thought about a way to optimise the physics simulation of some own game. There I have a lot of particle objects and a set of particle types (which is unknown at compile time). A particle type is a set of attributes. The particle types are fixed and constant once they are loaded. Each particle object is of one of theye particle types. The physic simulation for a particle object is some very heavy peace of code with many many branches and very heavily depends on the particle type. My idea was now to have an optimised physics simulation function for each particle type.
After thinking a bit about this, I wanted to go a bit further:
I want to automatically calculate a set of such presets at runtime and maintain the optimised code for each. And I want to automatically add or remove presets when the circumstances change.
There are several questions now:
Is there an easy way to calculate a good preset? How do I know what variables are constant for a given situation?
Is there an easy way to check how good a preset is? 'Good' refers to the performance of the resulting optimised code.
How to compare two algorithms/codes for performance? Via some heuristic? Or by testing with random input?
How many presets (and optimised code variants) should there be for a function? A fixed limit for all functions? Or is this different for every function? Is it maybe even depending on the current computer state?
How to maintain the different optimised code variants? A wrapper function around f which chooses automatically the best optimised variant doesn't seem to be very nice as this maybe not so easy check would be needed for every single call. A solution to this problem might also be deeply related to the question about how to find the set/amount of good presets. (In the particle type case, the optimised code would be attached to / saved together with the particle type. The amount of particle types also define the amount of presets.)
For my initial case, most of these questions are kind of obsolete but am really interested now in how to do this in a more general way. Of course, most/all of these questions are also uncalculateable but I wonder to what degree you may still get good results.
This whole topic is also very important for optimisations in JIT compilers. Are they doing these kind of optimisations already? To what degree?
Are there good recent research works which answers some of my questions? Or maybe also some results which say that it is just too hard to do this in such a general way?
It seems to me you are asking about partial evaluation.
I actually have a bit of a problem with that concept, because it is usually couched in terms that are over-academic and over-difficult.
The way it is usually expressed is that you have some general function F(Islow, Ifast) having arguments that can take different values at different times. The Islow arguments change seldom, and the Ifast arguments can be different every time it is called.
Then the problem is to write some kind of partial-evaluator function G(F, Islow) -> F1(Ifast) that takes function F and the Islow arguments, and generates a new (simpler) function F1 that only takes the Ifast arguments.
The problem with this is 1) somebody has to write the general function F, and 2) somebody has to write the general partial evaluator G.
What makes more sense to me is to write from scratch a function H(Islow) -> F1(Ifast), that is, write a code-generator specifically for F1, rather than writing two functions F and G, especially where G is very difficult to write.
H is usually much easier to write than F, and G need not be written at all! The result function F1 usually is smaller and has much higher performance than F, so it's a win-win situation.
When people write code generators, that is what they are doing, and it is a very effective programming technique.
This is a dangerous question, so let me try to phrase it correctly. Premature optimization is the root of all evil, but if you know you need it, there is a basic set of rules that should be considered. This set is what I'm wondering about.
For instance, imagine you got a list of a few thousand items. How do you look up an item with a specific, unique ID? Of course, you simply use a Dictionary to map the ID to the item.
And if you know that there is a setting stored in a database that is required all the time, you simply cache it instead of issuing a database request hundred times a second.
Or even something as simple as using a release instead of a debug build in prod.
I guess there are a few even more basic ideas.
I am specifically not looking for "don't do it, for experts: don't do it yet" or "use a profiler" answers, but for really simple, general hints. If you feel this is an argumentative question, you probably misunderstood my intention.
I am also not looking for concrete advice in any of my projects nor any sophisticated low level tricks. Think of it as an overview of how to avoid the most important performance mistakes you made as a very beginner.
Edit: This might be a good description of what I am looking for: Create a presentation (not a practical example) of common optimization rules for people who have a basic technical understanding (let's say they got a CS degree) but for some reason never wrote a single line of code. Point out the most important aspects. Pseudocode is fine. Do not assume specific languages or even architectures.
Two rules:
Use the right data structures.
Use the right algorithms.
I think that covers it.
Minimize the number of network roundtrips
Minimize the number of harddisk seeks
These are several orders of magnitude slower than anything else your program is likely to do, so avoiding them can be very important indeed. Typical methods to achieve this are:
Caching
Increasing the granularity of network and HD accesses
For example, B-Trees are absolutely ubiquitous in DB systems because the reduce the granularity of HD access for on-disk index lookups.
I think something extremely important is to be very carefully on all code that is frequently executed. This is normally the code in critical inner loops.
Rule 1: Know this code
For this code avoid all overhead. Small differences in runtime can make a big impact on the overall performance. E.g. if you implement an image filter a difference of 0.001ms per pixel will make a difference in 1s in the filter runtime on a image with size 1000x1000 (which is not big).
Things to avoid/do in inner loops are:
don't go through interfaces (e.g DB queries, RPC calls etc)
don't jump around in the RAM, try to access it linearly
if you have to read from disk then read large chunks outside the inner loop (paging)
avoid virtual function calls
avoid function calls / use inline functions
use float instead of double if possible
avoid numerical casts if possible
use ++a instead of a++ in C++
iterate directly on pointers if possible
The second general advice: Each layer/interface costs, try to avoid large stacks of different technologies, the system will spend more time in data transformation then in doing the actual job, keep things simple.
And as the others said, use the right algorithm, try to optimize the algorithm complexity first before you optimize the algorithm implementation.
I know you're looking for specific coding hints, but those are easy to find: cacheing, loop unrolling, code hoisting, data & code locality, blah, blah...
The biggest hint of all is don't use them.
Would it help to make this point if I said "This is the secret that the almighty Powers That Be don't want you to know!!"? Pick your Powers: Microsoft, Google, Sun, etc. etc.
Don't Use Them
Until you know, with dead certainty, what the problems are, and then the coding hints are obvious.
Here's an example where many coding tricks were used, but the heart and soul of the exercise is not the coding techniques, but the diagnostic technique.
Are your algorithms correct for the situation or are there better ones available?