In defense of spaghetti code. *ducks*
-
Something I overlooked yesterday is that you have a detailed spec in the form of these "flow diagrams". It's great when it's easy to see how code implements the spec. If that means spaghetti, so be it. Any blame then lies with the spec writer. :-D
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.That was actually my precise calculus. :D
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
It's a screen flow diagram to be specific. There are 6 boxes on the main page loosely corresponding to the screens. There are about 11 lines connecting them in various directions. One trick with it, is it wakes and polls a server periodically, and goes to sleep until it's woken up by a user. That adds a bit of complexity. Another issue is that there are inactivity timeouts on each screen that drop you back to either the home screen or the sleep screen depending on where you are. Also there are 3 buttons and they are contextual, changing function depending on the screen you're on. Hopefully I've given you enough of the landscape that you can understand the issue. :)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
it seems i do not understand as it seems i do understand . a state diagram comes to mind rather than a flow diagram though perhaps they are the same as i do not know for certain . the few times i utilized a state diagram i found the logic easy to understand .
-
I ran into an issue recently on a professional embedded project, and that was this: In translating the flow diagrams to code, there were so many conditions around state changes and such that my options were to either abstract the flow with some sort of generalized framework, or cook some spaghetti code. I chose the latter. Why? Simple. The actual effort if anything would be about equal, or favor the spaghetti approach. More importantly, progress remains visible with the spaghetti approach rather than the abstract flow framework which requires a lot of up front design and work without progress visible to the client. Finally, this is embedded code, where a rewrite is maybe a grand or two $USD, on the outside, assuming not a lot of reuse. It would cost at least half that to develop a simple framework, which might make things more maintainable, but questionable in terms of how effortlessly one can make changes (whereas maintainability is more about stepping away for a month and being able to pick it up again, mostly - or someone else picking up your code). It's all a matter of robbing peter to pay paul. The bottom line here is that while we may chase perfect code, and "best practices" that's not always the most effective technique for keeping the lights on. Flame away.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Spagetti code (in my day) usually only meant the use of GOTO (which has been declared a cardinal sin since the 1970's). Heck I didn't know C had a goto until after 10 years of using it (c. 2003) But if you're coding in assembler, I think there's no way you can avoid it (I mean some fools use interrupts all the time, even some compilers, but that wastes a ton of clock cycles). BASIC, on the other hand, I have not touched since 1997 (Thank god too, I never could find a free Basic compiler then, Qbasic is crap)
-
I ran into an issue recently on a professional embedded project, and that was this: In translating the flow diagrams to code, there were so many conditions around state changes and such that my options were to either abstract the flow with some sort of generalized framework, or cook some spaghetti code. I chose the latter. Why? Simple. The actual effort if anything would be about equal, or favor the spaghetti approach. More importantly, progress remains visible with the spaghetti approach rather than the abstract flow framework which requires a lot of up front design and work without progress visible to the client. Finally, this is embedded code, where a rewrite is maybe a grand or two $USD, on the outside, assuming not a lot of reuse. It would cost at least half that to develop a simple framework, which might make things more maintainable, but questionable in terms of how effortlessly one can make changes (whereas maintainability is more about stepping away for a month and being able to pick it up again, mostly - or someone else picking up your code). It's all a matter of robbing peter to pay paul. The bottom line here is that while we may chase perfect code, and "best practices" that's not always the most effective technique for keeping the lights on. Flame away.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
I just looked at some code I wrote in 2009-ish because we had to enhance it. I don't think it technically is spaghetti code, but it twists and turns on itself enough to act like it. Here's the basic environment: * SQL & a binary file store values used in the calculations * COBOL does the calculations * Delphi is the middleman * C# is the UI But wait, the COBOL can't access the SQL to get those values, so the C# gets them and does all the same calculations as the COBOL, then passes just a few values to the Delphi. The Delphi combines everything via a client data set, then passes it back up to the C# one value at a time. Sometimes it passes values to the COBOL as well. COM is used 3 different ways during this process. Oh, and the same value frequently has different names in the 3 program languages, and some of the names are the same for different values. For example, SomeAmount in C# => SomeOtherAmount in Delphi, but SomeAmount in Delphi => ThisAmount in C#. It's a head-turner and headache-creator for sure.
Bond Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
-
It's a screen flow diagram to be specific. There are 6 boxes on the main page loosely corresponding to the screens. There are about 11 lines connecting them in various directions. One trick with it, is it wakes and polls a server periodically, and goes to sleep until it's woken up by a user. That adds a bit of complexity. Another issue is that there are inactivity timeouts on each screen that drop you back to either the home screen or the sleep screen depending on where you are. Also there are 3 buttons and they are contextual, changing function depending on the screen you're on. Hopefully I've given you enough of the landscape that you can understand the issue. :)
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Sounds very familiar territory.
-
jschell wrote:
dislike the claim that abstractions make anything better
True (in absolute), but in general they help. Indeed, if you just need to print to the standard output, you don't need abstractions (and you don't start with those, ofc) but as soon as some requirement changes that and you will want to do file, on screen, on some API, then abstractions will be better (than, IDK, local ifs, switch even local functions).
jschell wrote:
But don't do it 'just in case'
In general (again), you do it because you care about things like clean code, maintainability and avoid cases like 'only God and me knows... now only God'. :laugh: I've never heard anyone saying that it coded that beautiful/maintainable code 'just in case'... while I've heard a lot of times that the developers were not aware of some clean code principle or did not know how to really implement it.
Eusebiu
And if you don't have input/output streams? You have to read the key input directly from the hardware? Even have to debounce the keys yourself, because there's little or no hardware support? We already know (from CP articles) that Honey abstracts displays where possible. Embedded is different.
-
it seems i do not understand as it seems i do understand . a state diagram comes to mind rather than a flow diagram though perhaps they are the same as i do not know for certain . the few times i utilized a state diagram i found the logic easy to understand .
It is pretty much the same, just presented slightly differently. The screens are basically state transition "landings", the arrows, the transitions themselves. I wish I could just show you the diagram but I'm not at liberty to share it. It would make things clear. The actual logical flow isn't terrible, per se. But it folds back on itself some (due to inactivity of button presses, or otherwise navigating from screen to screen) There is a quirk that impacts all of the startup code, and that is the startup code must run on wake or on boot, with a different "start reason" associated with it. The machine otherwise has no indication to determine whether it was woken from sleep vs. powered on. It remembers nothing. Also, I have a watchdog timer in the code, for robustness - this is out of band, and what it does is it starts counting down, and if it reaches the end, it reboots. This is regardless of what else happens. The reason for that is to prevent a hang, not that my code hangs, but in production, who knows? So that's a separate flow on top of everything else. Basically what it amounts to is rather than one state machine, it's several state machines working in tandem. That's messier than what I'd like in an ideal world, but making it cleaner just wasn't going to pay for itself.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
I just looked at some code I wrote in 2009-ish because we had to enhance it. I don't think it technically is spaghetti code, but it twists and turns on itself enough to act like it. Here's the basic environment: * SQL & a binary file store values used in the calculations * COBOL does the calculations * Delphi is the middleman * C# is the UI But wait, the COBOL can't access the SQL to get those values, so the C# gets them and does all the same calculations as the COBOL, then passes just a few values to the Delphi. The Delphi combines everything via a client data set, then passes it back up to the C# one value at a time. Sometimes it passes values to the COBOL as well. COM is used 3 different ways during this process. Oh, and the same value frequently has different names in the 3 program languages, and some of the names are the same for different values. For example, SomeAmount in C# => SomeOtherAmount in Delphi, but SomeAmount in Delphi => ThisAmount in C#. It's a head-turner and headache-creator for sure.
Bond Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
Yikes! I hate doing interop between different platforms and languages. I end up having to a lot because of the embedded work I do, and it's no fun. I've gotten clever about it and added some tools to my toolbelt for covering common scenarios, but even accounting for byte ordering, calling convention differences, and language variations, there's also the transport layer itself and some interop - like over bluetooth comms - is like pulling teeth.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Spagetti code (in my day) usually only meant the use of GOTO (which has been declared a cardinal sin since the 1970's). Heck I didn't know C had a goto until after 10 years of using it (c. 2003) But if you're coding in assembler, I think there's no way you can avoid it (I mean some fools use interrupts all the time, even some compilers, but that wastes a ton of clock cycles). BASIC, on the other hand, I have not touched since 1997 (Thank god too, I never could find a free Basic compiler then, Qbasic is crap)
This is C++, and the reason for the spaghetti was maintainability wasn't as a big a concern. Also, despite being spaghetti, it actually follows the flow diagram I was given pretty directly, albeit with some necessary quirks. In that regard, it's actually got fair documentation for what it is. But I'm not talking about gotos, but rather, for example, branching all over one C++ source file in response to various incoming events or state changes. It's something of a Rube Goldberg contraption, in that one thing causes another thing, causes another thing in some scenarios in the code, and that can get confusing.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
jschell wrote:
dislike the claim that abstractions make anything better
True (in absolute), but in general they help. Indeed, if you just need to print to the standard output, you don't need abstractions (and you don't start with those, ofc) but as soon as some requirement changes that and you will want to do file, on screen, on some API, then abstractions will be better (than, IDK, local ifs, switch even local functions).
jschell wrote:
But don't do it 'just in case'
In general (again), you do it because you care about things like clean code, maintainability and avoid cases like 'only God and me knows... now only God'. :laugh: I've never heard anyone saying that it coded that beautiful/maintainable code 'just in case'... while I've heard a lot of times that the developers were not aware of some clean code principle or did not know how to really implement it.
Eusebiu
Eusebiu Marcu wrote:
In general (again), you do it because you care about things like clean code, maintainability and avoid cases like 'only God and me knows... now only God
Yes that is how it rationalized. But I have maintained a lot of code. Which means I took it over after the person that rationalized that left. And I do consider the actual cost which is what maintenance is when I am the one that is gone. I also realize that if others were as good at predicting the future as they think they are then they should be investing in stocks and not writing code.
Eusebiu Marcu wrote:
I've never heard anyone saying that it coded that beautiful/maintainable code 'just in case'
Have you asked anyone why they added an abstraction layer when there was only one known case?
-
Hard to say. I've inherited code that was overly abstracted and it can be a dog to read. That said, it can be challenging up front to determine the correct level of abstraction. I have seen few perfect waterfall designs, most push agile to a new definition :) So, defensively you include the parts and pieces. I've gone back at the end and removed some since the flat procedure was clear, direct, and less code; and never called by anything else.
MikeCO10 wrote:
That said, it can be challenging up front to determine the correct level of abstraction
Yes but that is hindsight. It applies to everything in the world. One should not arbitrarily apply abstractions because one time they had to maintain a 20 year legacy app where abstractions were not added on day zero. That is not to say that you get to ignore the roadmap when you design the application now.
-
Sorry buddy, but I disagree. There are different levels of good design and for a one- or two-day job, you are 100% correct in the fact we don't have to go full on SOLID, RAII, etc. But that doesn't mean you don't do the basics of a decent structure that should be ingrained in our subconscious by now - especially if it's for work or pay. No senior should and I'd never hire one twice that thought otherwise. Also, there are factors that don't add up. If this quick project was so insignificant, there shouldn't have been a diagram in the first place. Nobody in the industry diagrams anything for a one-day job - nobody. And lastly, if you check out the entire post, you'll notice my points where entirely skipped over too. This whole thread was just clickbait over someone being bored.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
If this quick project was so insignificant, there shouldn't have been a diagram in the first place.
Indeed! The thing is that we don't know the full picture - maybe some PO/BA really wanted to have that flow diagram which got complex over time (no one said it was created at the same time with this 'small' change). If the project was already a spaghetti code and the change was minimal (one can debate what minimal is, but since a full rewrite would be 2-3 MD ~$1-2k, I would assume just some functions), then it really doesn't make sense to refactor the whole thing (as small as would be) just for that minimal change. It makes sense if new changes/requirements would come but apparently that's not the case. If the client is fine (assuming that one asks it) with the spaghetti code and nothing will be added in the future, then again, doesn't make sense... E.g. think of a security patch/blocker that is dirty, does the job and can be released in 1h - this scenario I completely understand (I would recommend refactoring but if the client doesn't have the budget - which contradicts the 1k-2k rewrite but anyway... :) - then it's on the client). If OP was part of the original team or at least was asked to change something previously and did not inform the client on the structure, then it's on OP.
Eusebiu
-
Yeah, no it's my decision. The client gets deliverables, and projects designed to spec. I get to decide how to get there in the least expensive way possible, that delivers something robust and to spec. I am not a fan of micromanagement. I work for myself. And yes, I do know the cost of a rewrite, because I wrote the code.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
honey the codewitch wrote:
client gets deliverables, and projects designed to spec. I get to decide how to get there in the least expensive way possible,
Ok but that doesn't mean that is the best decision for the client. The client might pay more to make it cleaner. :)
honey the codewitch wrote:
And yes, I do know the cost of a rewrite, because I wrote the code.
So, as a senior you were fine with writing a spaghetti code from the beginning... Sorry, but that doesn't look like a good decision of a senior... Oh, if you started when you had 1-2y of experience and after 20y you got on the project again, then ok... I can understand that.
Eusebiu
-
It was about a day of work. That's typical for a lot of IoT codebases. You're dealing with kilobytes of RAM and very little room to store code. Projects don't sprawl - they can't.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
Ok. So, if you won't touch that again and the client takes the responsibility on that, then I can understand that... $500 < $1000.
Eusebiu
-
And if you don't have input/output streams? You have to read the key input directly from the hardware? Even have to debounce the keys yourself, because there's little or no hardware support? We already know (from CP articles) that Honey abstracts displays where possible. Embedded is different.
Alister Morton wrote:
if you don't have input/output streams?
That was just an example. The thing is that since OP said that IT can also be done through some abstractions (which would cost like 1-2k), the only problem is how often would those changes would come in the future. If the client gets to pay him $500 for each change (which will increase if there will be another dev.) vs. $2k + minor fixes to make it maintainable, the client would (in 99% of the cases) ask him to rewrite it (LE: which will make OP look bad as it wrote parts of it already). Now, I understand that embedded is different (to some extent), but good practices are still good practices even in embedded. Again, we do not know the full picture! Only OP and the client know it! :)
Eusebiu
-
Eusebiu Marcu wrote:
In general (again), you do it because you care about things like clean code, maintainability and avoid cases like 'only God and me knows... now only God
Yes that is how it rationalized. But I have maintained a lot of code. Which means I took it over after the person that rationalized that left. And I do consider the actual cost which is what maintenance is when I am the one that is gone. I also realize that if others were as good at predicting the future as they think they are then they should be investing in stocks and not writing code.
Eusebiu Marcu wrote:
I've never heard anyone saying that it coded that beautiful/maintainable code 'just in case'
Have you asked anyone why they added an abstraction layer when there was only one known case?
jschell wrote:
I do consider the actual cost which is what maintenance is when I am the one that is gone
Very good! Then you understand the POV of the supporters of practices, clean code, and all those 'buzz' words. :)
jschell wrote:
Have you asked anyone why they added an abstraction layer when there was only one known case?
Honestly, I haven't seen (or I don't remember right now) such a piece of code; could be that one tried to show-off or thought that the project was expanding in the future... who knows!? Also, depends on how one defines "one known case"...
Eusebiu
-
MikeCO10 wrote:
That said, it can be challenging up front to determine the correct level of abstraction
Yes but that is hindsight. It applies to everything in the world. One should not arbitrarily apply abstractions because one time they had to maintain a 20 year legacy app where abstractions were not added on day zero. That is not to say that you get to ignore the roadmap when you design the application now.
jschell wrote:
One should not arbitrarily apply abstractions because one time they had to maintain a 20 year legacy app where abstractions were not added on day zero.
True, but apparently (if you read other posts) OP created it (or some parts of it): he wanted to optimize the financials in the detriment of technical (which in general will bite back sooner or later).
Eusebiu
-
Ok. So, if you won't touch that again and the client takes the responsibility on that, then I can understand that... $500 < $1000.
Eusebiu
$500 would be roughly the cost of developing an abstraction to despaghetify the code, not to write the code.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
client gets deliverables, and projects designed to spec. I get to decide how to get there in the least expensive way possible,
Ok but that doesn't mean that is the best decision for the client. The client might pay more to make it cleaner. :)
honey the codewitch wrote:
And yes, I do know the cost of a rewrite, because I wrote the code.
So, as a senior you were fine with writing a spaghetti code from the beginning... Sorry, but that doesn't look like a good decision of a senior... Oh, if you started when you had 1-2y of experience and after 20y you got on the project again, then ok... I can understand that.
Eusebiu
The client is on accelerated timeline, and this isn't the final round of development. 5 years from now the software will be completely different, as will the hardware. As a senior dev I'm fine with making any decision that leads to delivering a product on time, that works as specified, and provides the best value. This provides the client value in a way that the abstracted code would not.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Well, I don't know... if the spec writer is bad at writing specs, does that mean you need to write bad code? I don't think so... because it's your job to write the code and saying that it's the specs fault, it's a weak excuse. ;) If I see a bad spec, I would discuss this with the writer. Maybe (s)he is junior and does not know/understand the system very well... who knows?!
Eusebiu
Eusebiu Marcu wrote:
and saying that it's the specs fault
Unless of course you are 'writing to spec' then it could be contract violation to do it some other way. But other than that the problem then is not the code but the design/requirements. And it should be addressed at that level. Should be noted that the OP states "so many conditions around state changes" I have seen attempts to make state diagrams into OO and it always looks like idealization run amuck.
