←back to thread

1457 points nromiun | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Buttons840 ◴[] No.45074873[source]
I'm probably one of the "smart developers" with quirks. I try to build abstractions.

I'm both bothered and intrigued by the industry returning to, what I call, "pile-of-if-statements architecture". It's really easy to think it's simple, and it's really easy to think you understand, and it's really easy to close your assigned Jira tickets; so I understand why people like it.

People get assigned a task, they look around and find a few places they think are related, then add some if-statements to the pile. Then they test; if the tests fail they add a few more if-statements. Eventually they send it to QA; if QA finds a problem, another quick if-statement will solve the problem. It's released to production, and it works for a high enough percentage of cases that the failure cases don't come to your attention. There's approximately 0% chance the code is actually correct. You just add if-statements until you asymptotically approach correctness. If you accidentally leak the personal data of millions of people, you wont be held responsible, and the cognitive load is always low.

But the thing is... I'm not sure there's a better alternative.

You can create a fancy abstraction and use a fancy architecture, but I'm not sure this actually increases the odds of the code being correct.

Especially in corporate environments--you cannot build a beautiful abstraction in most corporate environments because the owners of the business logic do not treat the business logic with enough care.

"A single order ships to a single address, keep it simple, build it, oh actually, a salesman promised a big customer, so now we need to make it so a single order can ship to multiple addresses"--you've heard something like this before, haven't you?

You can't build careful bug-free abstractions in corporate environments.

So, is pile-of-if-statements the best we can do for business software?

replies(23): >>45074916 #>>45074936 #>>45074945 #>>45075059 #>>45075089 #>>45075095 #>>45075106 #>>45075135 #>>45075188 #>>45075195 #>>45075392 #>>45075443 #>>45075463 #>>45075515 #>>45075547 #>>45075846 #>>45076426 #>>45077189 #>>45077500 #>>45077548 #>>45078893 #>>45079553 #>>45080494 #
1. rendaw ◴[] No.45080494[source]
There is an alternative: take the parts that _aren't_ in if statements (the actual common code) and make them into shared functions. Then split up the rest into multiple functions that call the shared functions, one for each independent condition, so that they don't have if statements.

These individual functions are easier to reason about since they have specific use cases, you don't have to remember which combinations of conditions happen together while reading the code, they simplify control flow (i.e. you don't have to hack around carrying data from one if block to the next), and it uses no "abstraction" (interfaces) just simple functions.

It's obviously a balance, you'll still have some if statements, but getting rid of mutually exclusive conditions is basically a guaranteed improvement.