4 ms·

Clean code is defined as code that improves programmer efficiency and program readability, eschews premature optimisation by optimising for simplicity, makes co

Clean code is defined as code that improves programmer efficiency and program readability, eschews premature optimisation by optimising for simplicity, makes code less complex and objectively better by optimising for readability, allowing virtually anyone to safely and easily change it when really needed. So you're actually a clean code proponent. As is usually the case with such debates, it is a debate of differing definitions masquerading as a debate of differing arguments.

pkolaczk 4y ago
Ok. Fair enough. I just find that what Uncle Bob calls clean code is often not clean code for me. E.g. preferring inheritance over switch is less readable. Flexibility/extensibility and readability are different things.
- goto11 4y ago
  > E.g. preferring inheritance over switch is less readable. Surely this depends on the context? If you have a many different classes it tend to lead to cleaner code if you encapsulate the class-specific logic with the class definition rather than intermingled in multiple giant switch statements. In particular you can add new classes without making the rest of the code more complex. Of course there are cases where a switch is the right choice.
  - pkolaczk 4y ago
    Switch statements don't have to be giant. Hint: you can still extract each branch to a separate function / module. But what is more readable about them is the control flow: the condition is explicit and all targets are easy to find. A codebase using switches/ifs and function calls can be easily navigated with ctrl-click in most IDEs. A codebase relying heavily on interfaces and inheritance cannot.
    - goto11 4y ago
      So you are saying context doesn't matter, switch is always better?
      - pkolaczk 4y ago
        If we talk about readability - it is hard to think of a situation when inheritance would be better - it adds an indirection, it hides what's really going on, and at the end of the day the code is also longer and more complex. However it has some other uses, e.g. when you really want to support adding new cases without modifying the code, e.g when doing a library, you need some kind of polymorphism. So basically - it is not that abstractions/indirections are inherently bad, but they come at a cognitive cost. And it depends on the context if this cost is justifiable.
    - laserlight 4y ago
      If you aren't going to use polymorphism to vary behavior, but depend on conditionals, what do you use classes for? Just for hierarchical data encapsulation?
      - pkolaczk 4y ago
        Surprise: I don't use classes. Rust doesn't have them. :P
        laserlight 4y ago
        So, you’ve been arguing for using switch statements, instead of Clean Code’s suggestion of using object-oriented polymorphism, in a context where polymorphism doesn’t exist?
        pkolaczk 4y ago
        Not at all. Not having classes is not the same as not having polymorphism. Rust supports polymorphism just fine (and one could argue its support for polymorphism is actually much more advanced than that of Java's; but that's not enough reason to use it everywhere).
  - kubanczyk 4y ago
    > Surely this depends on the context? Yes, it depends on the context. In this case the context is the switch statement described in the https://www.computerenhance.com/p/clean-code-horrible-performance https://www.computerenhance.com/p/clean-code-horrible-perfor.... Too bad TFA never mentions it explicitly (other than in the title and in the video). Recently it generated a heated discussion around here.
- mejutoco 4y ago
  Agree. Inheritance is a code smell. And clean code does not smell :)
- jdlshore 4y ago
  Polymorphism is useful when switch statements are repeated, as a way of eliminating that duplication, not when there’s a single well-encapsulated switch statement.
josephg 4y ago
> Clean code is defined as code that improves programmer efficiency and program readability, eschews premature optimisation by optimising for simplicity, makes code less complex and objectively better by optimising for readability, allowing virtually anyone to safely and easily change it when really needed. I think plenty of people love clean code. I love programmer efficiency and readability. But there's clean code and "Clean Code". Some of the code examples from Robert C. Martin's Clean Code book are absolutely atrocious. I would be horrified to find anything so unnecessarily abstracted and overcomplicated in my codebase. Its precisely because I'm all for readability and programmer efficiency that I find the recommendations in "Clean Code" so bizarre and abhorrent.
- dsego 4y ago
  His examples use class state as faux-global state and dozens of small one-line methods that "do one thing", but don't really, since they operate on this object state. In the end, it makes it difficult to follow the logic flow, since you have to jump around from one small method to the other to understand what's happening. And clear understandable method naming is of limited help, so it turns into this ravioli code anti-pattern, clean on the surface, but semantically all tangled up.

pkolaczk 4y ago

Ok. Fair enough. I just find that what Uncle Bob calls clean code is often not clean code for me. E.g. preferring inheritance over switch is less readable. Flexibility/extensibility and readability are different things.

goto11 4y ago
> E.g. preferring inheritance over switch is less readable. Surely this depends on the context? If you have a many different classes it tend to lead to cleaner code if you encapsulate the class-specific logic with the class definition rather than intermingled in multiple giant switch statements. In particular you can add new classes without making the rest of the code more complex. Of course there are cases where a switch is the right choice.
- pkolaczk 4y ago
  Switch statements don't have to be giant. Hint: you can still extract each branch to a separate function / module. But what is more readable about them is the control flow: the condition is explicit and all targets are easy to find. A codebase using switches/ifs and function calls can be easily navigated with ctrl-click in most IDEs. A codebase relying heavily on interfaces and inheritance cannot.
  - goto11 4y ago
    So you are saying context doesn't matter, switch is always better?
    - pkolaczk 4y ago
      If we talk about readability - it is hard to think of a situation when inheritance would be better - it adds an indirection, it hides what's really going on, and at the end of the day the code is also longer and more complex. However it has some other uses, e.g. when you really want to support adding new cases without modifying the code, e.g when doing a library, you need some kind of polymorphism. So basically - it is not that abstractions/indirections are inherently bad, but they come at a cognitive cost. And it depends on the context if this cost is justifiable.
  - laserlight 4y ago
    If you aren't going to use polymorphism to vary behavior, but depend on conditionals, what do you use classes for? Just for hierarchical data encapsulation?
    - pkolaczk 4y ago
      Surprise: I don't use classes. Rust doesn't have them. :P
      - laserlight 4y ago
        So, you’ve been arguing for using switch statements, instead of Clean Code’s suggestion of using object-oriented polymorphism, in a context where polymorphism doesn’t exist?
        pkolaczk 4y ago
        Not at all. Not having classes is not the same as not having polymorphism. Rust supports polymorphism just fine (and one could argue its support for polymorphism is actually much more advanced than that of Java's; but that's not enough reason to use it everywhere).
- kubanczyk 4y ago
  > Surely this depends on the context? Yes, it depends on the context. In this case the context is the switch statement described in the https://www.computerenhance.com/p/clean-code-horrible-performance https://www.computerenhance.com/p/clean-code-horrible-perfor.... Too bad TFA never mentions it explicitly (other than in the title and in the video). Recently it generated a heated discussion around here.
mejutoco 4y ago
Agree. Inheritance is a code smell. And clean code does not smell :)
jdlshore 4y ago
Polymorphism is useful when switch statements are repeated, as a way of eliminating that duplication, not when there’s a single well-encapsulated switch statement.

josephg 4y ago

> Clean code is defined as code that improves programmer efficiency and program readability, eschews premature optimisation by optimising for simplicity, makes code less complex and objectively better by optimising for readability, allowing virtually anyone to safely and easily change it when really needed. I think plenty of people love clean code. I love programmer efficiency and readability. But there's clean code and "Clean Code". Some of the code examples from Robert C. Martin's Clean Code book are absolutely atrocious. I would be horrified to find anything so unnecessarily abstracted and overcomplicated in my codebase. Its precisely because I'm all for readability and programmer efficiency that I find the recommendations in "Clean Code" so bizarre and abhorrent.

dsego 4y ago
His examples use class state as faux-global state and dozens of small one-line methods that "do one thing", but don't really, since they operate on this object state. In the end, it makes it difficult to follow the logic flow, since you have to jump around from one small method to the other to understand what's happening. And clear understandable method naming is of limited help, so it turns into this ravioli code anti-pattern, clean on the surface, but semantically all tangled up.