Deleting Code

I’m in the middle of a now weeks-long effort to “modernize” a good sized web client to the latest, greatest React.js stack. I just deleted a good chunk of existing code that I was able to render unnecessary with my tooling, and that seems like a good time for me to take a short break to muse about deleting code.

I’ve had quite a bit of cause over the six months to purge quite a bit of code out of some of my ongoing OSS projects. That’s gotten me to thinking about the causes of code deletion and when that is or is not a good thing.

 

It’s So Much Better Now

I’m in the process of retrofitting the Storyteller 3 React.js client to use Redux and Immutable.js in place of the homegrown Flux-like architecture using Postal.js I originally used way, way back (in React.js time) at this time last year. I was just able to rip out several big, complicated Javascript files that were replaced by much more concise, simpler, and hopefully less error prone code using Redux. The end result is being very positive, but you have to weigh that against the intermediate cost of making the changes. In this case, I’m really not sure if this was a clear win.

My Judgement: I’m usually pretty happy when I’m able to replace some clumsy code with something simpler and smoother — but at what cost?

More on my redux experiences in a couple weeks when it’s all done. 

 

That Code Served Its Purpose

Last July I came back from a family vacation all rested up and raring to go on an effort to consolidate and cut down FubuMVC and the remaining ecosystem. Most of my work for that month was removing or simplifying features that were no longer considered valuable by my shop. In particular, FubuMVC had a lot of features especially geared toward building large server side rendered web applications, among them:

  • Html conventions to build matching HTML displays, headers, and labels for .Net class properties
  • Modularity through “Bottles” to create drop in assemblies that could add any kind of client content (views, CSS, JS, whatnot) or server elements to an existing web application
  • “Content Extensions” that allowed users to create extensible views

All of the features above had already provided value in previous projects, but were no longer judged necessary for the kind of applications that we build today using much more JS and far less server side rendering. In those cases, it felt more like the code was being retired after a decent run rather than any kind of failure.

My Judgement: It’s kind of a good feeling

 

What was I thinking? 

Some code you have to nuke just because it was awful or a massive waste of time that will never provide much value. I had a spell when I was younger as one of those traveling consultants flying out every Monday to a client site. On one occasion I ended up having to stay in Chicago over a three day weekend instead of getting to come home. Being more ambitious back then, I spent most of that weekend building a WinForms application to explore and diagnose problems with StructureMap containers. That particular project was a complete flop and I’ve always regretted that I wasted an opportunity to go sight see in downtown Chicago instead of wasting my time.

I think there has to be a constantly running daemon process running in your mind during any major coding effort that can tell you “this isn’t working” or “this shouldn’t be this hard” that shakes you out of an approach or project that is probably headed toward failure.

My Judgement: Grumble. Fail fast next time and don’t pay the opportunity cost!

 

git reset –hard

Git makes it ridiculously easy to do quick, throwaway experiments in your codebase. Wanna see if you can remove a class without too much harm? No problem, just try it out, and if it flops, just reset or checkout or one of the million ways to do the same basic thing in git.

My Judgement: No harm, no foul. Surprisingly valuable for longer lived projects

 

I don’t want to support this anymore

When I was readying the StructureMap 3.0 release a couple years ago, I purposely removed several old, oddball features in StructureMap that I just didn’t want to support any longer. In every case, there actually was other, simpler ways to accomplish what the user was trying to do without that feature. My criteria there was “do I groan anytime a user asks me a question about this feature…” If the answer was “yes”, I killed it.

I was helping my wife through a class on learning Python, and watching over her shoulder I think I have to admire Python’s philosophy of having only one way to do any kind of task. Compare that philosophy to the seemingly infinite number of ways you can create objects in Javascript. In the case of StructureMap 3, I deleted some custom fluent interfaces for conditional object construction based on runtime conditions that could easily be accomplished much more flexibly by just letting users provide C# Func’s. In one blow, I removed a now unnecessary feature that confused users and caused me headaches on the user list without moving backward in capability.

My Judgement: Mixed. You wish it wasn’t necessary to do it, but the result should be favorable in the end.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Deleting Code

  1. Pingback: The Morning Brew - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #2009

  2. Pingback: #overcommit 14 | abandonedmutex

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s