Thoughts on Systems

Emil Sit

Jan 1, 2012 - 4 minute read - art computer science music programming selfimprovement tdd tools style

Let's improve our code

New Year’s is a good time to set intentions for the coming year. Many people come off the holidays with the intention to exercise more, but if you’re reading this blog, you’re probably a programmer (if you’re not, consider signing up for Code Year…), so let’s set an intention about our programming. But first, a musical interlude.

Earl Hines was a jazz pianist; in this 9 minute video, he describes how his early playing evolved.

As you watch it, notice how he not only describes and demonstrates how his style evolved, he also describes why. For example, he talks about how his melodic line was drowned out in the larger bands so he picks up playing in octaves (doubling up the notes).

In his TED talk, David Byrne generalizes the idea of environment influencing music by talking about how music has always evolved to fit the architecture in which it was performed: from how the ethereal sounds of early church music were driven by the open acoustics of churches to how the smaller rooms of the 18th and 19th centuries allowed for the more complex rhythms and patterns of classical music to be heard. (Watch it here.)

Can we as programmers reflect similarly about our programming styles? What influences the way our programs look? And more importantly, perhaps, why should we care?

For music, Byrne argues that the evolution of styles was driven by the needs of the audience and the acoustics of the performance hall. Understanding these consciously allows contemporary musicians to make more informed choices about what and how they perform.

As programmers, our programs must communicate: with the compiler, of course, so that it will render our code executable, but also with the human readers of our code, be that our future selves or our colleagues. So to write better programs—programs that communicate their intent more concisely and clearly, as opposed to those that execute more efficiently or that are more clever—we should consider what affects the structure and readability of the programs we write.

The frameworks and mechanisms available to us most obviously affect the structure of code. Write a program in a system based on callbacks, such as the async XML HTTP request that underlies AJAX, and you will find yourself with code that chains callbacks together, preserves state in various heap objects, and is requires that callbacks be called from the right contexts to work properly. Write code for a threaded system and your code will have all manner of locks and constructs to control memory write visibility. Regular expressions can be called from Perl with the overhead of only m// so it is easier to write text munging code in Perl than almost any other language.

Our methodologies, tools, and processes—how we program—also determine how our code looks. Test-driven development will tend to produce stronger and more usable abstractions. Stream of consciousness programming results in a mess. Using an editor that supports refactoring patterns will make it more likely that you will refactor. Code review or pair programming will similarly result in code improvements, simply because you had to communicate while writing the code. (Even just commenting your code helps in this regard.) The end result of these practices is code that is more understandable.

Our audience (that is, our teammates) also affects our code. This is the role of engineering culture. What will your teammates accept versus some ideal? To get code committed to the Linux kernel requires detailed commit messages, a well structured patch series and surviving code review on the kernel mailing list. To get code committed to your personal project requires nothing outside of what you ask of yourself.

We have control over these factors. We can vary our tools, our practices, our choice of frameworks, and influence our team culture. If we are framework or API developers, we can consciously evaluate what code we induce our users to write and improve on what we provide to simplify their lives, and facilitate their communication and self-expression.

This year, let’s set an intention to examine our code and improve how it reads. Let’s experiment and play with the factors under our control to see which choices work better for our teams. Ask your teammates whether one way or another works better for them. Spend some time analyzing your own code and consider how it got that way.

I’ll try to share some of what I learn from my team at Hadapt and I’m curious to hear what you learn from yours.