5 ms·

Speaking of (3): I have a bunch of newbies I'm mentoring. Every time I explain about unit tests, I show them a class I wrote that had 37 lines altogether. After

Speaking of (3): I have a bunch of newbies I'm mentoring. Every time I explain about unit tests, I show them a class I wrote that had 37 lines altogether. After I finished working on that project, a new team took over. They didn't write unit tests (or maintain the existing ones). A month later, that class had a method with 1500 lines. It's been around a year since development has basically frozen on that project.

mattmanser 10y ago
What has the number of lines got to do with the unit tests? That functionality had to go somewhere, no matter how badly written it was. Unit tests don't magically save you from code bloat. Also I work on 3 code bases written by other people with zero unit tests, I refactor them all the time. Other developers have refactored them. Not having unit test is not a big barrier to refactoring.
- zephyrfalcon 10y ago
  > Unit tests don't magically save you from code bloat. No, but the idea is that such a method would be hard to test, considering it (presumably) does so much. So in order to test it properly, you are encouraged to break it up into smaller methods. (Whether somebody actually does that is a different story, of course...)
Const-me 10y ago
Are you saying the requirement to unit tests is the main reason why those developers don’t write 1500-lines methods?
- mdpopescu 10y ago
  I'm saying that they would be prevented from writing those things if they also had to test them. Since they're not required to test their methods, they're free to write code that's pretty much impossible to reason about.
  - Const-me 10y ago
    I think people who write such methods without a good reason (like inner loop of very performance critical C++, or code in any language that’s generated automatically from something else) aren’t terribly good programmers. Demanding those unit tests might indeed force them to write shorter methods. It doesn’t forces them to write good code. By “good” I mean fit for particular project and requirements: I don’t believe there’re universal criteria for code quality. The only way to fix that and make them better programmers — teach them, not force them to waste their time writing those unit tests. Besides, writing and running system tests teaches the developers about other system and OS components — and they better know and understand (to some extent) your complete technology stack, not just the layer they’re currently working on. Writing and running unit tests teaches them nothing interesting; it’s boring and involves a lot of copy-pasting.
    - ryanbrunner 10y ago
      To add to that - if the only thing keeping programmers from writing 1500-line monstrosities is the requirement to test their code, that's even more worrying, as anyone who's willing to write garbage like that is going to do a terrifically bad job of breaking out abstractions and modules, and now you have 1500 lines that are impossible to reason about split into 20 different classes.
      - mdpopescu 10y ago
        I don't know... I find it much easier to reason about smaller methods. They didn't write just THAT one, there's plenty of code in that project... it's just a couple of methods that are horrible to work in.
        ryanbrunner 10y ago
        It's absolutely true that all else being equal, it's easier to reason about smaller methods than larger ones. Most of the time though, what you're trying to reason about is an entire process rather than a method in isolation, and how small methods interact with each other is an important part of that. It's absolutely true that there's almost never a time when a 1500 line description of a business process is the optimal approach. Conversely though, if abstractions are done poorly, those same 1500 lines split into a maze of different classes that don't cleanly abstract a particular, human-comprehensible part of the process can be just as hard to deal with.

mattmanser 10y ago

What has the number of lines got to do with the unit tests? That functionality had to go somewhere, no matter how badly written it was. Unit tests don't magically save you from code bloat. Also I work on 3 code bases written by other people with zero unit tests, I refactor them all the time. Other developers have refactored them. Not having unit test is not a big barrier to refactoring.

zephyrfalcon 10y ago
> Unit tests don't magically save you from code bloat. No, but the idea is that such a method would be hard to test, considering it (presumably) does so much. So in order to test it properly, you are encouraged to break it up into smaller methods. (Whether somebody actually does that is a different story, of course...)

Const-me 10y ago

Are you saying the requirement to unit tests is the main reason why those developers don’t write 1500-lines methods?

mdpopescu 10y ago
I'm saying that they would be prevented from writing those things if they also had to test them. Since they're not required to test their methods, they're free to write code that's pretty much impossible to reason about.
- Const-me 10y ago
  I think people who write such methods without a good reason (like inner loop of very performance critical C++, or code in any language that’s generated automatically from something else) aren’t terribly good programmers. Demanding those unit tests might indeed force them to write shorter methods. It doesn’t forces them to write good code. By “good” I mean fit for particular project and requirements: I don’t believe there’re universal criteria for code quality. The only way to fix that and make them better programmers — teach them, not force them to waste their time writing those unit tests. Besides, writing and running system tests teaches the developers about other system and OS components — and they better know and understand (to some extent) your complete technology stack, not just the layer they’re currently working on. Writing and running unit tests teaches them nothing interesting; it’s boring and involves a lot of copy-pasting.
  - ryanbrunner 10y ago
    To add to that - if the only thing keeping programmers from writing 1500-line monstrosities is the requirement to test their code, that's even more worrying, as anyone who's willing to write garbage like that is going to do a terrifically bad job of breaking out abstractions and modules, and now you have 1500 lines that are impossible to reason about split into 20 different classes.
    - mdpopescu 10y ago
      I don't know... I find it much easier to reason about smaller methods. They didn't write just THAT one, there's plenty of code in that project... it's just a couple of methods that are horrible to work in.
      - ryanbrunner 10y ago
        It's absolutely true that all else being equal, it's easier to reason about smaller methods than larger ones. Most of the time though, what you're trying to reason about is an entire process rather than a method in isolation, and how small methods interact with each other is an important part of that. It's absolutely true that there's almost never a time when a 1500 line description of a business process is the optimal approach. Conversely though, if abstractions are done poorly, those same 1500 lines split into a maze of different classes that don't cleanly abstract a particular, human-comprehensible part of the process can be just as hard to deal with.