> The advocates of "clean code" that Casey mentions will go for extensibility no matter the use.
Unfortunately this is just some catchy stereotyping that probably doesn't match reality.
I don't know.
Before reading Casey, I'd say most, if not all, of my APIs would look like the "clean code" style.
The process was "think about the model, design a class hierarchy that fits with the model, add the operations". Even if I don't think about extensibility, that's how I thought my code.
Why? Because when I think about performance, I used to think about algorithms and I/O optimizations (for example batching).
Now I'll look into this data-oriented programming-thing and see how that applies to my platform (embedded Java) :D
Re:“Clean” Code, Horrible Performance
by jstimpfle on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @04:29PM
(#34975100)
The code examples with the abstract / virtual methods for the most straightforward concepts are a clown show. Not cleanliness but madness.
Re:“Clean” Code, Horrible Performance
by loup-vaillant on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @06:45PM
(#34976603)
That's what you get with SOLID. Madness.
Re:“Clean” Code, Horrible Performance
by loup-vaillant on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @06:44PM
(#34976580)
I've seen at least one embodiment of the stereotype 3 months ago. It wasn't pretty, I was able to shrink his code by a factor of 5, and make it more flexible in the process. Among other mistakes he had some idea of flexibility, put part of the infrastructure in place, and then utterly failed to use it, such that when it came to test he required a monkey patching framework for C (Ceedling) so he could mock what he almost already mocked in the source code.
That's a fairly rare breed for sure, but the real problem was that nobody called him out. Well I did, but I'm no longer working there. I couldn't.
For example, if the code is to be distributed and extended as a third-party library, then the class hierarchy is probably a better fit to allow extensibility.
But if the purpose of the API is to compute the area of given shapes (as in the example), then it makes sense to make it efficient and there is no use to provide extensibility to the outside world.
The advocates of "clean code" that Casey mentions will go for extensibility no matter the use.
I find it very interesting to have numbers to weight what you are leaving when you go the extensibility route instead of the non-pessimistic route.