Frameworks and the danger of a grand design

Hard-lesson learned


It's probably safe to say that we've all succumbed to the "grand-design mindset" at one stage or another. It's a critical stage in a developer's growth: the dawning awareness that design matters, an earnest desire to write good code but without the bitter lessons that the reality of an over-designed project will soon fling at you.

The developer at this stage hasn't yet learned the hard way, that you can get too much of a good thing. This isn't really something that can be taught, at least not in such a way that it really drums the lesson home. You have to experience the pain of creating an over-designed "framework for the sake of it", believing in all good faith that your grand design will help, not hinder, maintainability.

The grand design mindset isn't just the application of an anti-pattern, or even just the inappropriate use of a normally well-behaved design pattern. The mindset is the overuse of patterns, carefully cementing nano-thin layers of indirection atop each other like a process in a chip fabrication plant that can't be shut down. It's the naïve belief that if X is good then 100X must be better every time.

Luckily this mindset is easy to spot. Your team members will be busy creating a beautiful but over-designed system with enums, annotations, closures and all the latest language features, loosely coupled classes and several hundred pluggable frameworks when a well-placed isThisTheRightValue() method would probably have sufficed.

Picture a pluggable framework that only ever has one plug. You'll see a comment in the code like:

    // Later this could be applied to other parts of the system. 

If there's neither time nor a compelling reason to apply the pluggable framework to other parts of the system in this iteration, then it's likely the programmer going off on a design pattern hike - exploring their talents - and the framework should be struck out of the code. It's just more complexity to maintain.

Of course, some programmers will never learn: they like writing code too much. Lots of it, as if they're paid in lines of code, or reviewed that way. Or maybe it's a macho thing. Pursuing your own grand design will do that for you, but it's better to solve problems with little code. Less is more.

Modern refactoring tools make it way too easy to fall into the "grand design" trap, with developers encouraged to develop the design as they're coding it. The refactoring tools are fast and sweeping. Radical design changes are just a keyboard combo away.

It's nice to think of refactoring as "redesigning at the speed of thought". But it isn't, it's refactoring faster than the programmer can think about the design and reflect on its implications for the rest of the system. The programmer is too immersed deep-down in the code to really appreciate the design from a higher level. So grand designs emerge before the programmer realizes it.

To develop their own design skills beyond the stage of the grand design, programmers must recognize that any time they're creating reusable code, they're writing a framework. It could be a modest one-class framework, or a system-wide thing of great complexity (like a data access object layer or presentation layer, for example). The developer must then also twig some important things about frameworks:

1. A bad framework is far worse than no framework at all

2. Good frameworks are hard to get right

3. You probably don't want to be writing your own framework anyway (or even seeking out a third-party one, for that matter)

Sometimes, specific, non-reusable code just hits the spot, because it gets the job done with a minimum of complexity. But sometimes, you do want code to be re-usable because you can see exactly where it'll be re-used. Having an overall design and an understanding of the broad set of requirements helps to identify whether re-usable code is needed.

But without stumbling upon this hard-earned lesson - without that Eureka! moment - the well-meaning developer will be stuck with a grand-design mindset forever.®

Matt Stephens is co-author of Use Case Driven Object Modeling with UML: Theory and Practice, which illustrates how to drive functional tests and unit tests from use cases, using the Spring Framework, JUnit and Enterprise Architect.


Other stories you might like

  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021