So now, you have a team of 10 developers working on a project, I know it's a lot, but some projects have that number...
And so a solution is required to a problem and both developers require a solution to the problem. For any number of reasons, both developers end up solving the problem, not in exactly the same way mind you.
The result is that you have two solutions to the same problem.
Now what? You have 2 options...
1. You could leave the code as it is. This is surprisingly enough, a viable option, since it's done often enough! But it's clearly not ideal as it leaves you with duplicate code and duplicate functionality. And if you consistently apply this approach then before long you'll have many many instances where this occurs. Maybe inside that duplicate code there is another facility that is required and thus duplicated. And if you consider that with 10 developers involved, you can have many many instances where developers are unfamiliar with what other developers have done, so you have exponentially more instances where functionality is duplicated. The more developers you have, the more duplication. Each time a developer is added, the potential for duplication is exponentially higher based on the number of connections. With 2 developers, only 1 piece of communication is requried per piece of work, with 3, 2 pieces etc... each time you add another developer, the probability of duplication is significantly increased. So you inevitable end up with multiple ways of solving the same problem with code that differs in its quality (different developers wrote each one)
2. You could however, refactor, such that both parties use the same functionality. A more appropriate solution; but easier said than done right? It sounds good in theory but it is not practiced. Why not? What if it doesn't work? What if there was one little consideration the one version used and depended on that the other version didn't have or do? Then the implementations are not exactly the same and thus cannot simply be amalgamated. How do I know the implementation that now depends on new code is going to work. Unless you have some facility to validate the changed process you don't really know. You could of course start up the application and exercise the functionality from both points of view to validate they both work. A clunky and time consuming process that will hold you back from making the change in the first place. That's where unit tests come in.
Unit tests let you remove duplication and refactor with confidence allowing you to improve quality, conciseness, readability and delivery times.
A blog with a focus on Software Programming but could include other relevant topics as well
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How important is the programming language?
Python, typescript, java, kotlin, C#, .net… Which is your technology of choice? Which one are you currently working in and which do you wa...
-
So you want to do Unit Testing... it's a noble goal and good goal that every development shop or environment should have. And it is a go...
-
On the weekend I spoke to a friend and we were talking about the SOLID principles. We talked at lengh about Inversion of Control/Dependency...
-
Recently, anecdotal evidence has suggested to me that java's influence has been on the wane... Especially given the view in Cape Town, S...
No comments:
Post a Comment