I like refactoring. No, I love refactoring. No, not even like this. I awfully love refactoring.
I hate bad code and bad architecture. I feel quite creepy when I design a new feature and the near-by class contains absolute mess. I just can’t look at the sadly-looking variables. Sometimes before falling asleep I close my eyes and imagine what could be improved in the project. Sometimes I wake up at 3:00AM and go to my computer to improve something. I want to have not just code, but a masterpiece that is pleasant to look at, that is pleasant to work with at any stage of the project.
If you just a little bit share my feelings we have something to talk about. The matter is that over some time something inside me began to hint that it’s a bad idea to refactor all code, everywhere and all the time. Understand me correctly – code should be good (even better when it’s ideal), but in real life it’s not reasonable to improve code instantly. I formed some rules about the refactoring timeliness. If I am itching to improve something, I look at these rules and think “Is that the moment when I need to refactor the code?” So, let’s talk about when refactoring is necessary and when it’s inappropriate.
Disclaimer: Most likely many of you will immediately say: “We have discussed it 60 times!” or “This is so obvious, why writing about it?” Probably, you’re right, but there is one moment: there is chaos all around. It looks like everything is clear, but in fact it’s not that clear at all. That is why I think it won’t be much harm to have another look at this issue. If you have no problems with refactoring you can just miss this post, everything is already ok for you.
Too early refactoring
Do you remember when you had a permanent project specification that hasn’t been changed for months? I can hardly remember such a situation. We live in real world, requirements constantly change. And it’s not always about external requirements; it can be about your own requirements to the project. Here is the sample: let’s assume you got a mid-sized task for one or two days. Some classes have been created, but there is nothing to run yet – you create harsh architectural part. And here you notice that one of the parts is not very universal: “What if we need to do X in six months, everyone will suffer”. It’s understandable that you don’t want to commit bad code to the repository to make other developers apply harsh epithets to you. And you start refactoring the unfinished feature. Sometimes it’s reasonable, but there should be a “DANGER” label on this way. You will fix one issue, then another one, then one more issue. A week has passed, the feature still can’t run, but you say: “It’s all done inappropriately. Now I really know how I need to do it. I will re-write everything from scratch.” The main problem is that you have no feedback on the feature and you have already started improving code base. Such approach will hardly bring much success. I don’t know how it is about you, I often begin to understand that the feature should work a bit differently right after it’s been finished. And this is not because I am so stupid and couldn’t think it over properly. You need to touch some functionality to understand how it should be done in the release version. Sometimes a small prototype (allowing bad code and bugs) is necessary to discuss the feature with colleagues. Sometimes you need to show a thing to the customer to get his feedback: “No, I didn’t want it in this way, you need to do it in the opposite way”. Users don’t like innovations, they want everything as it was before. The problem with new features is that it’s difficult to predict their future. Very often all practical work goes to trash because the team decided to do it in a different way after some discussions. Summary: don’t refactor too early especially if you are not sure your code will stay in the project.
Off purpose refactoring
Most likely you have development plan for the nearest future. Most likely there is the deadline (even if you set it). Projects should be released in time, don’t delay it. You need to control yourself, you need to do the things that are within your direct purposes. Assume, you’ve got code snippet that looks like… Looks awfully. And you don’t work with this code at the moment. This code works stably, does the job successfully and is not connected to your current task. So, don’t touch it! Yes, you can feel sad that the other part of the project isn’t that good. But notice that it doesn’t affect you in any way. You have current tasks, work on them. Of course, there are tasks to improve code base; but very often it’s usually more important to add new features or fix bugs. Focus on your current tasks and don’t delay them because something is wrong somewhere.
Refactoring for refactoring
Ok, you came to conclusion that you certainly need to refactor some part of your project. Well, let’s refactor. It seems that all planned modifications are done and here you get an idea: “What else can be improved? Here is the thing.” And there obviously will be another thing and then another, and one more thing, etc. It’s necessary to understand that there is bad code, good code and ideal code. The last one will never be available in a big project. It doesn’t mean that you don’t need to achieve it, but you need to understand its inaccessibility. Usually the task is to write good code, not ideal. Assume that after refactoring, you got quite understandable code that works in an obvious manner, that doesn’t contain kludges and that is quite easy-to-use. Ask yourself: “May it’s time to stop?” Yes, you can continue improving the code. And you can do it infinitely in a quite big project. But right now it does the job, it’s convenient to use, it almost doesn’t annoy you. It’s very important to determine acceptable quality of code that prevents you from further improvement (until its acceptability is lost). Remember that there are so many cool things that you can create. Don’t refactor for refactoring, for ideal code. It’s necessary to refactor when you have solid reasons: the code is unreadable, it’s difficult to maintain, develop and use. If none of these reasons appear, you don’t need refactoring.
It happens that the release should be delivered today/ tomorrow/the day after tomorrow (underline the applicable variant). This is an important moment in the project life cycle. Developers need to spend time for testing, fixing of critical bugs, finishing work. Believe me, this is a really bad idea to refactor code base (and it’s even worse – do it qualitatively) when you need to provide code to production. My experience says that it’s better to release the project and then improve code with no mess. Some developers can ask: “Why?” If there is such a question you probably have never done complicated refactoring. I will give you a hint: when you improve the code, it’s not necessarily improved – sometimes it can break. It’s not always about complicated refactoring. Sometimes you just fix a single method of five lines, miss some dependency and the other part of project gets critical bug that your users immediately face with. It seems that you don’t do anything wrong and here you are attacked by the beast called “It was obvious” and it drowns you in the pond of improper initial estimation. Though may be I am a bad developer – I like to break something. It’s possible that you always refactor in an absolutely right manner and with due control of the whole project. In this case I can congratulate you, but I won’t refuse my advice about pre-release refactoring. Believe me, refactoring won’t run away in several days and the entire team will sleep a little bit better.
Refactoring of the very old code
The question is difficult, very difficult. The situation is as follows: there is an enormous amount of code lines that you’ve got from the previous developers (probably, this previous developer was you several years ago before you got to know how to write the correct code at once). Code should be maintained. Here and there developers add kludges and duplicates; entropy increases. Day by day you even more and more want to throw everything away and start from the very beginning. At this moment you need to think carefully about all risks. Yes, it’s possible that this activity will be helpful in the future. But in what future? and how much helpful? Most likely in the process of big refactoring or re-writing of separate parts, you will replace the old working bad code with new ideal code, yet with bugs. And this is not because you are a bad programmer and write bad code. It’s just about the fact that you may not know this code enough. You may not know why the author projected everything in this manner, and there could be some reasons. Sometimes you have to write a very rear and awkward code. I can give a lot of samples: suppression of tricky processor optimizations; adjustment to the bugs of some third party library, suppression of some multi-threaded issues, etc. I don’t say that you can’t solve these issues properly. Sometimes when you replace the absurd code with the good one, you get lots of bugs. Yes, you could do it properly, but you might not realize the entire splendor of the hut of kludges instead of sticks, if you don’t ask author of this code why it’s written in this way (and this is quite a rare opportunity). Be careful when you re-write the old code that you don’t completely understand (and especially when you think there is nothing to understand).
The second part of the article will tell you about when it’s good time to refactor…
To refactor or not to refactor? (Part I)Andrey Akinshin
I like refactoring. No, I love refactoring. No, not even like this. I awfully love refactoring.