How To Write Unmaintainable Code
Last updated Monday, 14-Aug-2000 12:42:34 PDT by Roedy Green ©1997-2000 Canadian Mind
Products.
Introduction
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
Napoleon
Because of the slashdot plug, hits peaked at 250 a second on this page, and the
hit counters stopped kicking over. I received a slew of email with suggestions
for ever more subtle techniques of writing unmaintainable code. It took me quite
while for me to incorporate all your suggestions. The essay has been like rock
candy, seed the string with sugar, soak in sugar water, soon it grew out of
control.
An earlier version of this essay is also available in Spanish.
In the interests of creating employment opportunities in the Java programming
field, I am passing on these tips from the masters on how to write code that is
so difficult to maintain, that the people who come after you will take years to
make even the simplest changes. Further, if you follow all these rules
religiously, you will even guarantee yourself a lifetime of employment,
since no one but you has a hope in hell of maintaining the code. Then again, if
you followed all these rules religiously, even you wouldn't be able to
maintain the code!
General Principles
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
To foil the maintenance programmer, you have to understand how he thinks. He
has your giant program. He has no time to read it all, much less understand it.
He wants to rapidly find the place to make his change, make it and get out and
have no unexpected side effects from the change.
He views your code through a tube taken from the centre of a roll of toilet
paper. He can only see a tiny piece of your program at a time. You want to
make sure he can never get at the big picture from doing that. You want to make
it as hard as possible for him to find the code he is looking for. But even
more important, you want to make it as awkward as possible for him to safely ignore
anything.
You might get the idea that every language feature makes code unmaintainable --
not so, only if properly misused.
Specific Techniques
-
Lie in the comments. You don't have to actively lie, just fail to keep comments
as up to date with the code.
-
Pepper the code with comments like /* add 1 to i */ however, never
document wooly stuff like the overall purpose of the package or method.
-
Make sure that every method does a little bit more (or less) than its name
suggests. As a simple example, a method named isValid(x) should as a
side effect convert x to binary and store the result in a database.
-
Use acronyms to keep the code terse. Real men never define acronyms; they
understand them genetically.
-
In the interests of efficiency, avoid encapsulation. Callers of a method need
all the external clues they can get to remind them how the method works inside.
-
If, for example, you were writing an airline reservation system, make sure there
are at least 25 places in the code that need to be modified if you were to add
another airline. Never document where they are. People who come after you have
no business modifying your code without thoroughly understanding every line of
it.
-
In the name of efficiency, use cut/paste/clone/modify. This works much faster
than using many small reusable modules. This is especially useful in shops
that measure your progress by the lines of code you've written.
-
Never put a comment on a variable. Facts about how the variable is used,
its bounds, its legal values, its implied/displayed number of decimal points,
its units of measure, its display format, its data entry rules (e.g. total fill,
must enter), when its value can be trusted etc. should be gleaned from the
procedural code. If your boss forces you to write comments, lard method bodies
with them, but never comment a variable, not even a temporary!
-
Try to pack as much as possible into a single line. This saves the overhead of
temporary variables, and makes source files shorter by eliminating new line
characters and white space. Tip: remove all white space around operators. Good
programmers can often hit the 255 character line length limit imposed by some
editors. The bonus of long lines is that programmers who cannot read 6 point
type must scroll to view them.
-
Cd wrttn wtht vwls s mch trsr. When using abbreviations inside variable or
method names, break the boredom with several variants for the same word, and
even spell it out longhand once in while. This helps defeat those lazy bums who
use text search to understand only some aspect of your program. Consider variant
spellings as a variant on the ploy, e.g. mixing International colour,
with American color and dude-speak kulerz. If you spell out names
in full, there is only one possible way to spell each name. These are too easy
for the maintenance programmer to remember. Because there are so many different
ways to abbreviate a word, with abbreviations, you can have several different
variables that all have the same apparent purpose. As an added bonus, the
maintenance programmer might not even notice they are separate variables.
-
Never use an automated source code tidier (beautifier) to keep your code aligned.
Lobby to have them banned them from your company on the grounds they create
false deltas in PVCS (version control tracking) or that every programmer should
have his own indenting style held forever sacrosanct for any module he wrote.
Insist that other programmers observe those idiosyncratic conventions in "his
" modules. Banning beautifiers is quite easy, even though they save the
millions of keystrokes doing manual alignment and days wasted misinterpreting
poorly aligned code. Just insist that everyone use the same tidied format,
not just for storing in the common repository, but also while they are editing.
This starts an RWAR and the boss, to keep the peace, will ban automated tidying.
Without automated tidying, you are now free to accidentally misalign the
code to give the optical illusion that bodies of loops and ifs are longer or
shorter than they really are, or that else clauses match a different if than
they really do. e.g.
if(a)
if(b)x=y;
elsex=z;
-
Never underestimate how much havoc you can create by indenting with tabs instead
of spaces, especially when there is no corporate standard on how much indenting
a tab represents. Embed tabs inside string literals, or use a tool to convert
spaces to tabs that will do that for you.
-
Never put in any { } surrounding your if/else blocks unless they are
syntactically obligatory. If you have a deeply nested mixture of if/else
statements and blocks, especially with misleading indentation, you can trip up
even an expert maintenance programmer.
For best results with this technique, use Perl. You can pepper the code with
additional ifs after the statements, to amazing effect.
-
Rigidly follow the guidelines about no goto, no early returns, and no labelled
breaks especially when you can increase the if/else nesting depth by at least 5
levels.
-
Use very long variable names or class names that differ from each other by only
one character, or only in upper/lower case. An ideal variable name pair is swimmer
and swimner. Exploit the failure of most fonts to clearly discriminate
between ilI1| or oO08 with identifier pairs like parselnt
and parseInt or D0Calc and DOCalc. l is an
exceptionally fine choice for a variable name since it will, to the casual
glance, masquerade as the constant 1. Create variable names that differ from
each other only in case e.g. HashTable and Hashtable.
-
Wherever scope rules permit, reuse existing unrelated variable names. Similarly,
use the same temporary variable for two unrelated purposes (purporting to save
stack slots). For a fiendish variant, morph the variable, for example, assign a
value to a variable at the top of a very long method, and then somewhere in the
middle, change the meaning of the variable in a subtle way, such as converting
it from a 0-based coordinate to a 1-based coordinate. Be certain not to document
this change in meaning.
-
Use lower case l to indicate long constants. e.g. 10l is more likely to be
mistaken for 101 that 10L is.
-
Ignore the conventions in Java for where to use upper case in variable and class
names i.e. Classes start with upper case, variables with lower case, constants
are all upper case, with internal words capitalised. After all, Sun does (e.g.
instanceof vs isInstanceOf, Hashtable). Not to worry, the compiler won't even
issue a warning to give you away. If your boss forces you to use the conventions,
when there is any doubt about whether an internal word should be capitalised,
avoid capitalising or make a random choice, e.g. use both inputFileName and
outputfilename. You can of course drive your team members insane by inventing
your own insanely complex naming conventions then berate others for not
following them. The ultimate technique is to create as many variable names as
possible that differ subtlely from each other only in case.
-
Never use i for the innermost loop variable. Use anything but. Use i
liberally for any other purpose especially for non-int variables. Similarly use n
as a loop index.
-
Never use local variables. Whenever you feel the temptation to use one, make it
into an instance or static variable instead to unselfishly share it with all the
other methods of the class. This will save you work later when other methods
need similar declarations. C++ programmers can go a step further by making all
variables global.
-
Never document gotchas in the code. If you suspect there may be a bug in a class,
keep it to yourself. If you have ideas about how the code should be reorganised
or rewritten, for heaven's sake, do not write them down. Remember the words of
Thumper "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all".
What if the programmer who wrote that code saw your comments? What if the owner
of the company saw them? What if a customer did? You could get yourself fired.
An anonymous comment that says "This needs to be fixed!" can do
wonders, especially if it's not clear what the comment refers to. Keep it vague,
and nobody will feel personally criticized.
-
To break the boredom, use a thesaurus to look up as much alternate vocabulary as
possible to refer to the same action, e.g. display, show, present.
Vaguely hint there is some subtle difference, where none exists. However, if
there are two similar functions that have a crucial difference, always use the
same word in describing both functions (e.g. print to mean write to a
file, and to a print on a laser, and to display on the screen). Under no
circumstances, succumb to demands to write a glossary with the special purpose
project vocabulary unambiguously defined. Doing so would be unprofessional
breach of the structured design principle of information hiding. Along
similar lines, use plural forms from other languages. I'm the proud author of a
VMS script that kept track of the "statii" returned from various "Vaxen.
" Klingon and Hobbitese qualify as languages for these purposes.
-
In naming functions and variables, make heavy use of abstract words like it,
everything, data, handle, stuff, do, routine,
perform and the digits e.g. routineX48, PerformDataFunction,
DoIt, HandleStuff and do_args_method.
-
In Java, all primitives passed as parameters are effectively read-only because
they are passed by value. The callee can modify the parameters, but that has no
effect on the caller's variables. In contrast all objects passed are read-write.
The reference is passed by value, which means the object itself is effectively
passed by reference. The callee can do whatever it wants to the fields in your
object. Never document whether a method actually modifies the fields in each of
the passed parameters. Name your methods to suggest they only look at the fields
when they actually change them.
-
Never document the units of measure of any variable, input, output or parameter.
e.g. feet, metres, cartons. This is not so important in bean counting, but it is
very important in engineering work. As a corollary, never document the units of
measure of any conversion constants, or how the values were derived. It is mild
cheating, but very effective, to salt the code with some incorrect units of
measure in the comments. If you are feeling particularly malicious, make up your own
unit of measure; name it after yourself or some obscure person and never define
it. If somebody challenges you, tell them you did so that you could use integer
rather than floating point arithmetic.
-
In engineering work there are two ways to code. One is to convert all inputs to
S.I. (metric) units of measure, then do your calculations then convert back to
various civil units of measure for output. The other is to maintain the various
mixed measure systems throughout. Always choose the second. It's the American
way!
-
I am going to let you in on a little-known coding secret. Exceptions are a pain
in the behind. Properly-written code never fails, so exceptions are actually
unnecessary. Don't waste time on them. Subclassing exceptions is for
incompetents who know their code will fail. You can greatly simplify your
program by having only a single try/catch in the entire application (in main)
that calls System.exit(). Just stick a perfectly standard set of throws on every
method header whether they could throw any exceptions or not.
-
C compilers transform myArray[i] into *(myArray + i), which is
equivalent to *(i + myArray) which is equivalent to i[myArray].
Experts know to put this to good use. Unfortunately, this technique can only be
used in native classes.
-
If you have an array with 100 elements in it, hard code the literal 100 in as
many places in the program as possible. Never use a static final named constant
for the 100, or refer to it as myArray.length. To make changing this
constant even more difficult, use the literal 50 instead of 100/2, or 99 instead
of 100-1. You can futher disguise the 100 by checking for a == 101
instead of a > 100 or a > 99 instead of a >= 100.
Consider things like page sizes, where the lines consisting of x header, y body,
and z footer lines, you can apply the obfuscations independently to each of
these and to their partial or total sums.
These time-honoured techniques are especially effective in a program with two
unrelated arrays that just accidentally happen to both have 100 elements. There
are even more fiendish variants. To lull the maintenance programmer into a false
sense of security, dutifully create the named constant, but very occasionally
"accidentally" use the literal 100 value instead of the named
constant. Most fiendish of all, in place of the literal 100 or the correct named
constant, sporadically use some other unrelated named constant that just
accidentally happens to have the value 100, for now. It almost goes without
saying that you should avoid any consistent naming scheme that would associate
an array name with its size constant.
-
Eschew any form of table-driven logic. It starts out innocently enough, but soon
leads to end users proofreading and then shudder, even modifying the
tables for themselves.
-
Nest as deeply as you can. Good coders can get up to 10 levels of ( ) on a
single line and 20 { } in a single method. C++ coders have the additional
powerful option of preprocessor nesting totally independent of the nest
structure of the underlying code. You earn extra Brownie points whenever the
beginning and end of a block appear on separate pages in a printed listing.
Wherever possible, convert nested ifs into nested [? :] ternaries.
-
Join a computer book of the month club. Select authors who appear to be too busy
writing books to have had any time to actually write any code themselves. Browse
the local bookstore for titles with lots of cloud diagrams in them and no coding
examples. Skim these books to learn obscure pedantic words you can use to
intimidate the whippersnappers that come after you. Your code should impress. If
people can't understand your vocabulary, they must assume that you are very
intelligent and that your algorithms are very deep. Avoid any sort of homely
analogies in your algorithm explanations.
-
Make "improvements" to your code often, and force users to upgrade
often - after all, no one wants to be running an outdated version. Just because
they think they're happy with the program as it is, just think how much happier
they will be after you've "fixed" it! Don't tell anyone what the
differences between versions are unless you are forced to - after all, why tell
someone about bugs in the old version they might never have noticed otherwise?
-
The About Box should contain only the name of the program, the names of the
coders and a copyright notice written in legalese. Ideally it should link to
several megs of code that produce an entertaining animated display. However, it
should never contain a description of what the program is for, its minor
version number, or the date of the most recent code revision, or the website
where to get the updates, or the author's email address. This way all the users
will soon all be running on different versions, and will attempt to install
version N+2 before installing version N+1.
-
The more changes you can make between versions the better, you don't want users
to become bored with the same old API or user interface year after year. Finally,
if you can make this change without the users noticing, this is better still -
it will keep them on their toes, and keep them from becoming complacent.
-
If you have to write classes for some other programmer to use, put environment-checking
code (getenv() in C++ / System.getProperty() in Java) in your classes' nameless
static initializers, and pass all your arguments to the classes this way, rather
than in the constructor methods. The advantage is that the initializer methods
get called as soon as the class program binaries get loaded, even before
any of the classes get instantiated, so they will usually get executed before
the program main(). In other words, there will be no way for the rest of the
program to modify these parameters before they get read into your classes - the
users better have set up all their environment variables just the way you had
them!
-
Choose your variable names to have absolutely no relation to the labels used
when such variables are displayed on the screen. E.g. on the screen label the
field "Postal Code" but in the code call the associated
variable "zip".
-
Java lets you create methods that have the same name as the class, but that are
not constructors. Exploit this to sow confusion.
-
Never use layouts. That way when the maintenance programmer adds one more field
he will have to manually adjust the absolute co-ordinates of every other thing
displayed on the screen. If your boss forces you to use a layout, use a single
giant GridBagLayout, and hard code in absolute grid co-ordinates.
-
In Java, disdain the interface. If your supervisors complain, tell them that
Java interfaces force you to "cut-and-paste" code between different
classes that implement the same interface the same way, and they know how
hard that would be to maintain. Instead, do as the Java AWT designers did - put
lots of functionality in your classes that can only be used by classes that
inherit from them, and use lots of "instanceof" checks in your methods.
This way, if someone wants to reuse your code, they have to extend your classes.
If they want to reuse your code from two different classes - tough luck, they
can't extend both of them at once! If an interface is unavoidable, make an all-purpose
one and name it something like "ImplementableIface." Another gem from
academia is to append "Impl" to the names of classes that implement
interfaces. This can be used to great advantage, e.g. with classes that
implement Runnable.
-
Make all of your leaf classes final. After all, you're done with the
project - certainly no one else could possibly improve on your work by extending
your classes. And it might even be a security flaw - after all, isn't java.lang.String
final for just this reason? If other coders in your project complain, tell them
about the execution speed improvement you're getting.
-
Make as many of your variables as possible static. If you don't need more
than one instance of the class in this program, no one else ever will either.
Again, if other coders in the project complain, tell them about the execution
speed improvement you're getting.
-
Keep all of your unused and outdated methods and variables around in your code.
After all - if you needed to use it once in 1976, who knows if you will want to
use it again sometime? Sure the program's changed since then, but it might just
as easily change back, you "don't want to have to reinvent the wheel"
(supervisors love talk like that). If you have left the comments on those
methods and variables untouched, and sufficiently cryptic, anyone maintaining
the code will be too scared to touch them.
-
On a method called makeSnafucated insert only the comment /* make
snafucated */. Never define what snafucated means anywhere.
Only a fool does not already know, with complete certainty, what snafucated
means.
-
Reverse the parameters on a method called drawRectangle(height, width) to
drawRectangle(width, height) without making any change whatsoever to the name of
the method. Then a few releases later, reverse it back again. The maintenance
programmers can't tell by quickly looking at any call if it has been adjusted
yet. Generalisations are left as an exercise for the reader.
-
Instead of using a parameters to a single method, create as many separate
methods as you can. For example instead of setAlignment(int alignment)
where alignment is an enumerated constant, for left, right, center, create three
methods: setLeftAlignment, setRightAlignment, and setCenterAlignment.
Of course, for the full effect, you must clone the common logic to make it hard
to keep in sync.
-
The Kama Sutra technique has the added advantage of driving any users or
documenters of the package to distraction as well as the maintenance programmers.
Create a dozen overloaded variants of the same method that differ in only the
most minute detail. I think it was Oscar Wilde who observed that positions 47
and 115 of the Kama Sutra were the same except in 115 the woman had her fingers
crossed. Users of the package then have to carefully peruse the long list of
methods to figure out just which variant to use. The technique also balloons the
documentation and thus ensures it will more likely be out of date. If the boss
asks why you are doing this, explain it is solely for the convenience of the
users. Again for the full effect, clone any common logic.
-
Declare every method and variable public. After all, somebody, sometime might
want to use it. Once a method has been declared public, it can't very well be
retracted, now can it? This makes it very difficult to later change the way
anything works under the covers. It also has the delightful side effect of
obscuring what a class is for. If the boss asks if you are out of your mind,
tell him you are following the classic principles of transparent interfaces.
-
In C++, overload library functions by using #define. That way it looks like you
are using a familiar library function where in actuality you are using something
totally different.
-
In C++, overload +,-,*,/ to do things totally unrelated to addition, subtraction
etc. After all, if the Stroustroup can use the shift operator to do I/O, why
should you not be equally creative? If you overload +, make sure you do it in a
way that i = i + 5; has a totally different meaning from i += 5;
-
When documenting, and you need an arbitrary name to represent a filename use "file
". Never use an obviously arbitrary name like "Charlie.dat"
or "Frodo.txt". In general, in your examples, use arbitrary
names that sound as much like reserved keywords as possible. For example, good
names for parameters or variables would be:
"bank", "blank", "class", "const
", "constant", "input", "key",
"keyword", "kind", "output",
"parameter" "parm", "system",
"type", "value", "var" and "variable
".
If you use actual reserved words for your arbitrary names, which would be
rejected by your command processor or compiler, so much the better. If you do
this well, the users will be hopelessly confused between reserved keywords and
arbitrary names in your example, but you can look innocent, claiming you did it
to help them associate the appropriate purpose with each variable.
-
Always document your command syntax with your own, unique, undocumented brand of
BNF notation. Never explain the syntax by providing a suite of annotated sample
valid and invalid commands. That would demonstrate a complete lack of academic
rigour. Railway diagrams are almost as gauche. Make sure there is no obvious way
of telling a terminal symbol (something you would actually type) from an
intermediate one -- something that represents a phrase in the syntax. Never use
typeface, colour, caps, or any other visual clues to help the reader distinguish
the two. Use the exact same punctuation glyphs in your BNF notation that you use
in the command language itself, so the reader can never tell if a (...), [...],
{...} or "..." is something you actually type as part of the command,
or is intended to give clues about which syntax elements are obligatory,
repeatable or optional in your BNF notation. After all, if they are too stupid
to figure out your variant of BNF, they have no business using your program.
-
The macro preprocessor offers great opportunities for obfuscation. The key
technique is to nest macro expansions several layers deep so that you have to
discover all the various parts in many different *.hpp files. Placing executable
code into macros then including those macros in every *.cpp file (even those
that never use those macros) will maximize the amount of recompilation necessary
if ever that code changes.
-
Java is schizophrenic about array declarations. You can do them the old C, way
String x[], (which uses mixed pre-postfix notation) or the new way String[] x,
which uses pure prefix notation. If you want to really confuse people, mix the
notations:
e.g.
byte[] rowvector, colvector, matrix[];
which is equivalent to:
byte[] rowvector;
byte[] colvector;
byte[][] matrix;
-
Java offers great opportunity for obfuscation whenever you have to convert. As a
simple example, if you have to convert a double to a String, go circuitously,
via Double with new Double(d).toString() rather than the more direct Double.toString(d).
You can, of course, be far more circuitous than that! Avoid any conversion
techniques recommended by the Conversion
Amanuensis. You get bonus points for every extra temporary object you leave
littering the heap after your conversion.
-
Use threads with abandon.
-
Use exceptions for non-exceptional conditions. Routinely terminate loops with an ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
Pass return standard results from a method in an exception.
-
Never check input data for any kind of correctness or discrepancies. It will
demonstrate that you absolutely trust the company's equipment as well as that
you are a perfect team player who trusts all project partners and system
operators. Always return reasonable values even when data inputs are
questionable or erroneous.
-
If your boss thinks that his or her 20 year old FORTRAN experience is an
excellent guide to contemporary programming, rigidly follow all his or her
recommendations. As a result, the boss will trust you. That may help you in your
career. You will learn many new methods to obfuscate program code.
-
Use octal constants. Smuggle them into a list of decimal numbers like this:
-
You don't need great skill to write unmaintainable code. Just leap in and start
coding. Keep in mind that management still measures productivity in lines of
code even if you have to delete most of it later.
-
Stick with what you know and travel light; if you only carry a hammer then all
problems are nails.
-
Be never vigilant of the next Y2K. If you ever spot something that could sneak
up on a fixed deadline and destroy all life in the western hemisphere then do
not openly discuss it until we are under the critical 4 year till event
window of panic and opportunity. Do not tell friends, coworkers, or other
competent people of your discovery. Under no circumstances attempt to publish
anything that might hint at this new and tremendously profitable threat. Do send
one normal priority, jargon encrypted, memo to upper management to cover-your-a$$.
If at all possible attach the jargon encrypted information as a rider on an
otherwise unrelated plain-text memo pertaining to a more immediately pressing
business concern. Rest assured that we all see the threat too. Sleep sound at
night knowing that long after you've been forced into early retirement you will
be begged to come back at a logarithmically increased hourly rate!
-
Whenever possible ignore the coding standards currently in use by thousands of
developers in your project's target language and environment. For example insist
on STL style coding standards when writing an MFC based application.
-
Include powerful third party libraries in your project and then don't use them.
With practice you can remain completely ignorant of good tools and add the
unused tools to your resume in your "Other Tools" section.
-
Feign ignorance of libraries that are directly included with your development
tool. If coding in Visual C++ ignore the presence of MFC or the STL and code all
character strings and arrays by hand; this helps keep your pointer skills sharp
and it automatically foils any attempts to extend the code.
-
Always refuse to accept advances in the development environment arena.
Disbelieve rumors that all functions and variables are never more than one click
away and always assume that code developed in Visual Studio 6.0 will be
maintained by someone using edlin or vi. To this end insist on Draconian
commenting rules that bury the source code.
-
Hungarian Notation is the tactical nuclear weapon of source code obfuscation
techniques; use it! Due to the sheer volume of source code contaminated by this
idiom nothing can kill a maintenance engineer faster than a well planned
Hungarian Notation attack. The following tips will help you corrupt the original
intent of Hungarian Notation:
-
Insist on using "c" for const in C++ and other languages that directly
enforce the const-ness of a variable.
-
Seek out and use Hungarian warts that have meaning in languages other than your
current language. For example insist on the PowerBuilder "l_" and "a_
" {local and argument} scoping prefixes and always use the VB-esque style
of having a Hungarian wart for every control type when coding to C++. Try to
stay ignorant of the fact that megs of plainly visible MFC source code does not
use Hungarian warts for control types.
-
Always violate the Hungarian principle that the most commonly used variables
should carry the least extra information around with them. Achieve this end
through the techniques outlined above and by insisting that each class type have
a custom wart prefix. Never allow anyone to remind you that no wart tells
you that something is a class. The importance of this rule cannot be
overstated: if you fail to adhere to its principles the source code may become
flooded with shorter variable names that have a higher vowel/consonant ratio. In
the worst case scenario this can lead to a full collapse of obfuscation and the
spontaneous reappearance of English Notation in code!
-
Flagrantly violate the Hungarian-esque concept that function parameters and
other high visibility symbols must be given meaningful names, but that Hungarian
type warts all by themselves make excellent temporary variable names.
-
Insist on carrying outright orthogonal information in your Hungarian warts.
Consider this real world example: "a_crszkvc30LastNameCol". It took a
team of maintenance engineers nearly 3 days to figure out that this whopper
variable name described a const, reference, function argument that was holding
information from a database column of type Varchar[30] named "LastName"
which was part of the table's primary key. When properly combined with the
principle that "all variables should be public" this technique has the
power to render thousands of lines of source code obsolete instantly!
-
Use to your advantage the principle that the human brain can only hold 7 pieces
of information concurrently. For example code written to the above standard has
the following properties:
-
a single assignment statement carries 14 pieces of type and name information.
-
a single function call that passes three parameters and assigns a result carries
29 pieces of type and name information.
-
Seek to improve this excellent, but far too concise, standard. Impress
management and coworkers by recommending a 5 letter day of the week prefix to
help isolate code written on 'Monam' and 'FriPM'.
-
It is easy to overwhelm the short term memory with even a moderately complex
nesting structure, especially when the maintenance programmer can't see
the start and end of each block on screen simultaneously.
-
Create a build order that is so elaborate that no maintainer could ever get any
of his or her fixes to compile. Keep secret SmartJ
which renders make scripts almost obsolete. Similarly, keep secret that
the javac compiler is also available as a class. On pain of death,
never reveal how easy it is to write and maintain a speedy little custom java
program to find the files and do the make.
-
This trick works especially well in Ada, a language immune to many of the
standard obfuscation techniques. The people who originally named all the objects
and packages you use were morons. Rather than try to convince them to change,
just use renames and subtypes to rename everything to names of your own devising.
Make sure to leave a few references to the old names in, as a trap for the
unwary.
-
Extended ASCII characters are perfectly valid as variable names, including ß,
Ð, and ñ characters. They are quite impossible to type without
copying/pasting.
-
If you cannot find the right English word to convey the meaning of a temporary
variable (and you ignore the other suggestions about not giving meaningful names
to variables), you may use a foreign language word as the name of the variable.
For example, instead of using variable "p" for a "point",
you may use "punkt", which is the German word for it. Maintenance
coders without your firm grasp of German will enjoy the multicultural experience
of deciphering the meaning. It breaks the tedium of an otherwise tiring and
thankless job.
-
Some companies have a strict policy of no numeric literals; you must use named
constants. It is fairly easy to foil the intent of this policy. For example, one
clever C++ programmer wrote:
#defineK_ONE1
#defineK_TWO2
#defineK_THOUSAND999
-
#define in C++ deserves an entire essay on its own to explore its rich
possibilities for obfuscation. Use lower case #define variables so they
masquerade as ordinary variables. Never use parameters to your preprocessor
functions. Do everything with global #defines. One of the most imaginative uses
of the preprocessor I have heard of was requiring five passes through CPP before
the code was ready to compile.
-
Whenever you have to use methods in code you did not write, insulate your code
from that other dirty code by at least one layer of wrapper. After all,
the other author might some time in the future recklessly rename every
method. Then where would you be? You could of course, if he did such a thing,
insulate your code from the changes by writing a wrapper or you could let VAJ
handle the global rename. However, this is the perfect excuse to preemptively
cut him off at the pass with a wrapper layer of indirection, before he
does anything idiotic. One of Java's main faults is that there is no way to
solve many simple problems without dummy wrapper methods that do nothing but
call another method of the same name, or a closely related name. This means it
is possible to write wrappers four-levels deep that do absolutely nothing, and
almost no one will notice. To maximise the obscuration, at each level, rename
the methods, selecting random synonyms from a thesaurus. This gives the illusion
something of note is happening. Further, the renaming helps ensure the lack of
consistent project terminology. To ensure no one attempts to prune your levels
back to a reasonable number, invoke your code at the application level via each
of the levels.
-
Follow the language lawyer discussions in the newsgroups about what various bits
of tricky code should do e.g. a=a++; or f(a++,a++); then
sprinkle your code liberally with the examples.
-
Use special values in certain matrix locations as flags. A good choice is the [3][0]
element in a transformation matrix used with a homogeneous coordinate system.
-
Within the body of a loop, assume that the loop action is successful and
immediately update all pointer variables. If an exception is later detected on
that loop action, back out the pointer advancements as side effects of a
conditional expression following the loop body.
-
Take advantage of Cargill's quandary (I think this was his): "any design
problem can be solved by adding an additional level of indirection, except for
too many levels of indirection." Decompose OO programs until it becomes
nearly impossible to find a method which actually updates program state. Better
yet, arrange all such occurrences to be activated as callbacks from by
traversing pointer forests which are known to contain every function pointer
used within the entire system. Arrange for the forest traversals to be
activated as side-effects from releasing reference counted objects previously
created via deep copies which aren't really all that deep.
-
Use both accessor methods and public variables. That way, you can change an
object's variable without the overhead of calling the accessor, but still claim
that the class is a "Java Bean". This has the additional advantage of
frustrating the maintenence programmer who adds a logging function to try to
figure out who is changing the value.
-
Always use semicolons whenever they are syntactically allowed. For example:
-
A naming convention from the world of C++ is the use of "m_" in front
of members. This is supposed to help you tell them apart from methods, so long
as you forget that "method" also starts with the letter "m".
-
Use an "o" or "obj" prefix for each instance of the class to
show that you're thinking of the big, polymorphic picture.
-
About 20% of these techniques can't be used in Ada. Refuse to use Ada. If your
manager presses you, insist that no-one else uses it, and point out that it
doesn't work with your large suite of tools like lint and plummer that work
around C's failings.
-
Use scoping as confusingly as possible by recycling variable names in
contradictory ways. For example, suppose you have global variables A and B, and
functions foo and bar. If you know that variable A will be regularly passed to
foo and B to bar, make sure to define the functions as function foo(B) and
function bar(A) so that inside the functions A will always be referred to as B
and vice versa. With more functions and globals, you can create vast confusing
webs of mutually contradictory uses of the same names.
-
Choose all variable names to be words that have no association whatsoever with
the actual function of the program but which have strong inherent meaning as
words. For example, you could end up with statements like:
marypoppins = (julieAndrews
+ starship)
/ mailbox;
This confuses the reader because they have difficulty disassociating the
concepts of the words from the logic they're trying to think about. (Combine
this with the above method and it's basically impossible to recover, because
search and replace becomes impossible.)
-
Choose variable names that are English versions of operators, to get statements
like:
openParen = (slash
+ asterix) /
equals;
-
If English is your second language, use English for variable names, functions,
messages appearing on-screen, and comments. However randomly intersperse them
with words chosen from your native language. If your boss insists you use
English tell him you can organize your thoughts better in your own language, or
allege racial discrimination and threaten to sue your employers for a vast sum
of money. Now that your boss does not understand your code you can use
obscuration techniques that you would never get away with otherwise and will
foil a future maintenance programmer even if she is also native speaker or is
equipped with a bilingual dictionary.
-
Hide macro definitions in amongst rubbish comments. The programmer will get
bored and not finish reading the comments thus never discover the macro. Ensure
that the macro replaces what looks like a perfectly legitimate assignment with
some bizarre operation, a simple example:
-
Use three dimensional arrays. Lots of them. Move data between the arrays in
convoluted ways, say, filling the columns in arrayB with the rows from arrayA.
Doing it with an offset of 1, for no apparent reason, is a nice touch. Makes
the maintenance programmer nervous.
-
Use nesting to put the error recovery for a function call as far as possible
away from the call. This simple example can be elaborated to 10 or 12 levels of
nest:
if ( function_A()
== OK )
{
if ( function_B()
== OK )
{
/* Normal completion stuff */
}
else
{
/* some error recovery for Function_B */
}
}
else
{
/* some error recovery for Function_A */
}
-
Use as often as possible the friend-declaration in C++. Combine this with
handing the pointer of the creating class to a created class. Now you don't need
to fritter away your time in thinking about interfaces. Additionally you should
use the keywords private and protected to prove that your classes
are well encapsulated.
-
The real reason for #define was to help programmers who are familiar with
another programming language to switch to C. Maybe you will find declarations
like " #define begin { " or " #define end } " useful to
write more interesting code.
-
Keep the maintenance programmer guessing about what packages the methods you are
using are in. Instead of:
import MyPackage.Read;
import MyPackage.Write;
use:
Never fully qualify any method or class no matter how obscure. Let the
maintenance programmer guess which of the packages/classes it belongs to.
Of course, inconsistency in when you fully qualify and how you do your imports
helps most.
-
Go wild with encapsulation and oo. For example:
myPanel.add(
getMyButton() );
private JButton getMyButton(
)
-
Never create separate Listeners for each Component. Always have one listener
for every button in your project and simply use massive if...else statements to
test for which button was pressed.
-
When using ComboBoxes, use a switch statement with integer cases rather than
named constants for the possible values.
-
Everyone knows that debugging your dynamic storage is complicated and time
consuming. Instead of making sure each class has no storage leaks, reinvent
your own storage allocator. It just mallocs space out of a big arena. Instead
of freeing storage, force your users to periodically perform a system reset
that clears the heap. There's only a few things the system needs to keep track
of across resets -- lots easier than plugging all the storage leaks; and so long
as the users remember to periodically reset the system, they'll never run out
of heap space. Imagine them trying to change this strategy once deployed!
-
Make the body of every method as long as possible - hopefully you never write
any methods or functions with fewer than a thousand lines of code, deeply nested,
of course.
-
Memorize all of the subtle implicit conversion rules in the programming language.
Take full advantage of them. Never use a picture variable (in COBOL or PL/I) or
a general conversion routine (such as sprintf in C). Be sure to use floating-point
variables as indexes into arrays, characters as loop counters, and perform
string functions on numbers. After all, all of these operations are well-defined
and will only add to the clarity of your source code. Any maintainer who tries
to understand them will be very grateful to you because they will have to read
and learn the entire chapter on implicit data type conversion; a chapter that
they probably had completely overlooked before working on your programs.
-
Be sure to leave in some compiler warnings. Use the handy "-" prefix
in make to suppress the failure of the make due to any and all compiler errors.
This way, if a maintenance programmer carelessly inserts an error into your
source code, the make tool will nonetheless try to rebuild the entire package;
it might even succeed! And any programmer who compiles your code by hand will
think that they have broken some existing code or header when all that has
really happened is that they have stumbled across your harmless warnings. They
will again be grateful to you for the enjoyment of the process that they will
have to follow to find out that the error was there all along. Extra bonus
points: make sure that your program cannot possibly compile with any of the
compiler error checking diagnostics enabled. Sure, the compiler may be able to
do subscripts bounds checking, but real programmers don't use this feature, and
neither should you. Why let the compiler check for errors when you can use your
own expensive and rewarding time to find these subtle bugs?
-
Never write any test cases. Never perform code coverage or path coverage testing.
Automated testing is for wimps. Figure out which features account for 90% of
the uses of your routines, and allocate 90% of the tests to those paths. After
all, this technique probably tests only about 60% of your source code, and you
have just saved yourself 40% of the test effort. This can help you make up the
schedule on the back-end of the project. You'll be long gone by the time anyone
notices that all those nice "marketing features" don't work. The big,
famous software companies test code this way; so should you. And if for some
reason, you are still around, see the next item.
-
Never put out a "bug fix only" release. Be sure to combine bug fixes
with database format changes, complex user interface changes, and complete
rewrites of the administration interfaces. That way, it will be so hard to
upgrade that people will get used to the bugs and start calling them features.
And the people that really want these "features" to work differently
will have an incentive to upgrade to the new versions. This will save you
maintenance work in the long run, and get you more revenue from your customers.
-
Never test any code that handles the error cases, machine crashes, or OS
glitches. Never check return codes from the OS. That code never gets executed
anyway and slows down your test times. Besides, how can you possibly test your
code to handle disk errors, file read errors, OS crashes, and all those sorts of
events? Why, you would have to either an incredibly unreliable computer or a
test scaffold that mimicked such a thing. Modern hardware never fails, and who
wants to write code just for testing purposes? It isn't any fun. If users
complain, just blame the OS or hardware. They'll never know.
-
Never, ever do any performance testing. Hey, if it isn't fast enough, just tell
the customer to buy a faster machine. If you did do performance testing, you
might find a bottleneck, which might lead to algorithm changes, which might lead
to a complete redesign of your product. Who wants that? Besides, performance
problems that crop up at the customer site mean a free trip for you to some
exotic location. Just keep your shots up-to-date and your passport handy.
-
Change file formats with each release of your product. Yeah, your customers will
demand upwards compatibility, so go ahead and do that. But make sure that there
is no backwards compatibility. That will prevent customers from backing out the
newer release, and coupled with a sensible bug fix policy (see above), will
guarantee that once on a newer release, they will stay there. Extra bonus points:
Figure out how to get the old version to not even recognize files created by the
newer versions. That way, they not only can't read them, they will deny that
they are even created by the same application! Hint: PC word processors provide
a useful example of this sophisticated behavior.
-
Don't worry about finding the root cause of bugs in the code. Simply put in
compensating code in the higher-level routines. This is a great intellectual
exercise, akin to 3D chess, and will keep future code maintainers entertained
for hours as they try to figure out whether the problem is in the low-level
routines that generate the data or in the high-level routines that change
various cases all around. This technique is great for compilers, which are
inherently multi-pass programs. You can completely avoid fixing problems in the
early passes by simply making the later passes more complicated. With luck, you
will never have to speak to the little snot who supposedly maintains the front-end
of the compiler. Extra bonus points: make sure the back-end breaks if the front-end
ever generates the correct data.
-
The nested switch is the most difficult nesting for the human mind to unravel.
-
Sprinkle your code with bits of inline assembler just for fun. Almost no one
understands assembler anymore. Even a few lines of it can stop a maintenance
programmer cold.
-
Discourage any attempt to use external maintenance contractors by peppering your
code with insulting references to other leading software companies, especial
anyone who might be contracted to do the work. eg:
/* The optimised inner loop.
This stuff is too clever for the dullard at Software Services Inc., who would
probably use 50 times as memory & time using the dumb routines in <math.h>.
*/
class clever_SSInc
If possible, put insulting stuff in syntactically significant parts of the code,
as well as just the comments so that management will probably break the code if
they try to sanitize it before sending it out for maintenance.
-
Include sections of code that is commented out but at first glance does not
appear to be.
for(j=0;
j<array_len; j+
=8)
{
total +=
array[j+0
];
total +=
array[j+1
];
total +=
array[j+2
];
/* Main body of
total += array[j+3]; * loop is unrolled
total += array[j+4]; * for greater speed.
total += array[j+5]; */
total +=
array[j+6
];
total +=
array[j+7
];
}
Wiithout the colour coding would you notice that three lines of code are
commented out?
-
When implementing a very complicated algorithm, use the classic software
engineering principles of doing a sound design before beginning coding. Write an
extremely detailed design document that describes each step in a very
complicated algorithm. The more detailed this document is, the better.
In fact, the design doc should break the algorithm down into a hierarchy of
structured steps, described in a hierarchy of auto-numbered individual
paragraphs in the document. Use headings at least 5 deep. Make sure that that
when you are done, you have broken the structure down so completely that there
are over 500 such auto-numbered paragraphs. For example, one paragraph might be:
(this is a real example)
1.2.4.6.3.13 - Display all impacts for activity where selected mitigations can
apply (short pseudocode omitted).
then... (and this is the kicker) when you write the code, for each of
these paragraphs you write a corresponding global function named:
Act1_2_4_6_3_13()
Do not document these functions. After all, that's what the design document is
for!
Since the design doc is auto-numbered, it will be extremely difficult to keep it
up to date with changes in the code (because the function names, of course, are
static, not auto-numbered.) This isn't a problem for you because you will not
try to keep the document up to date. In fact, do everything you can to destroy
all traces of the document.
Those who come after you should only be able to find one or two contradictory,
early drafts of the design document hidden on some dusty shelving in the back
room near the dead 286 computers.
-
Avoid the assert() mechanism, because it could turn a three-day debugger fest
into a ten minute one.
-
Put C prototypes in individual files instead of common headers. This has the
dual advantage of requiring a change in parameter data type to be maintained in
every file, and avoids any chance that the compiler or linker will detect
type mismatches. This will be especially helpful when porting from 32 -> 64
bit platforms.
-
If the compiler will only distinguish the first, say, 8 characters of names,
then always use more characters, but vary the endings e.g. var_unit_update() in
one case and var_unit_setup() in another
-
If you have assembler modules which are called from C, try to call C back from
the assembler as often as possible, even if it's only for a trivial purpose and
make sure you make full use of the goto, bcc and other charming obfuscations of
assembler.
-
Declare a global array in module A, and a private one of the same name in the
header file for module B, so that it appears that it's the global array you are
using in module B, but it isn't. Make no reference in the comments to this
duplication.
-
Use _ or __ as an identifier.
-
Use accented characters on variable names. E.g.
typedef struct { int i; } ínt;
where the second int's i is actually iacute. Since these are structures the
three int's are not interchangeable, but with an 8-bit aware editor it's nearly
impossible to distinguish the slant of the accent mark. Insist the new "ints
" are for some specific, but very obscure, situation where a standard int
won't suffice. It helps to toss extra stuff into the structure before making
that claim!
-
In C/C++: Make sure to create parameters and local variables that have the same
name as member variables of the class whose method they appear in. For extra
points, create nested local variables inside {} blocks that have the same name
as these local variables. The goal is for careful examination of scope to be the
only way to tell which context is actually being used.
-
Write all your code in FORTRAN. If your boss ask why, you can reply that there
are lots of very useful libraries that you can use thus saving time. However the
chances of writing maintainable code in FORTRAN are zero, and therefore
following the unmaintainable coding guidelines is a lot easier.
-
Instead of globally renaming to bring two sections of code into sync, use
multiple TYPEDEFs of the same symbol.
-
This one is specific to Visual Foxpro. A variable is undefined and can't be
used unless you assign a value to it. This is what happens when you check a
variable's type:
lcx = TYPE('somevariable')
The value of lcx will be 'U' or undefined. BUT if you assign scope to the
variable it sort of defines it and makes it a logical FALSE. Neat, huh!?
LOCAL lcx
lcx = TYPE('somevariable')
The value of lcx is now 'L' or logical. It is further defined the value of
FALSE. Just imagine the power of this in writing unmaintainable code.
LOCAL lc_one, lc_two, lc_three... , lc_n
IF lc_one
DO some_incredibly_complex_operation_that_will_neverbe_executed WITH
make_sure_to_pass_parameters
ENDIF
IF lc_two
DO some_incredibly_complex_operation_that_will_neverbe_executed WITH
make_sure_to_pass_parameters
ENDIF
PROCEDURE some_incredibly_complex_oper....
* put tons of code here that will never be executed
* why not cut and paste your main procedure!
ENDIF
-
Avoid actual synchronization primitives in favor of a variety of spin locks --
repeatedly sleep then test a (non-volatile) global variable until it meets your
criterion. Spin locks are much easier to use and more "general" and "flexible
" than the system objects.
-
Sprinkle some system synchronization primitives in places where they are not
needed. I came across one critical section in a section of code where there was
no possibility of a second thread. I challenged the original developer and he
indicated that it helped document that the code was, well, "critical!"
-
Instead of using exceptions to handle error processing, have your error message
routine set a global variable. Then make sure that every long-running loop in
the system checks this global flag and terminates if an error occurs. Add
another global variable to signal when a user presses the 'reset' button. Of
course all the major loops in the system also have to check this second flag.
Hide a few loops that don't terminate on demand.
-
If your system includes an NT device driver, require the application to malloc I/O
buffers and lock them in memory for the duration of any transactions, and free/unlock
them after. This will result in an application that crashes NT if prematurely
terminated with that buffer locked. But nobody at the client site likely will
be able to change the device driver, so they won't have a choice.
-
One way to help ensure the code is full of bugs is to ensure the maintenance
programmers never hear about them. This requires subverting the help desk.
Never answer the phone. Use an automated voice that says "thank you for
calling the helpline. To reach a real person press "1" or leave a
voice mail wait for the tone". Email help requests should be ignored other
than to assign them a tracking number. The standard response to any problem is "
I think your account is locked out. The person able to authorise reinstatement
is not available just now."
-
Consider function documentation prototypes used to allow automated documentation
of the code. These prototypes should be copied from one function (or method or
class) to another, but never fill in the fields. If for some reason you are
forced to fill in the fields make sure that all parameters are named the same
for all functions, and all cautions are the same but of course not related to
the current function at all.
-
Convert all common utility functions into asm.
-
Leave all important library functions written in qbasic, then just write an asm
wrapper to handle the large->medium memory model mapping.
-
Incorporate a scripting command language into your client/server apps that is
byte compiled at runtime.
-
Make sure all API functions are wrapped at least 6-8 times, with function
definitions in separate source files. Using #defines to make handy shortcuts to
these functions also helps.
-
Pass all data as a void * and then typecast to the appropriate structure. Using
byte offsets into the data instead of structure casting is fun too.
-
When you need a character constant, use many different formats: ' ', 32, 0x20,
040. Make liberal use of the fact that 10 and 010 are not the same number in C
or Java.
-
Testing is for cowards. A brave coder will bypass that step. Too many
programmers are afraid of their boss, afraid of losing their job, afraid of
customer hate mail and afraid of being sued. This fear paralyzes action, and
reduces productivity. Studies have shown that eliminating the test phase means
that managers can set ship dates well in advance, an obvious aid in the planning
process. With fear gone, innovation and experimentation can blossom. The role
of the programmer is to produce code, and debugging can be done by a cooperative
effort on the part of the help desk and the legacy maintenance group.
If we have full confidence in our coding ability, then testing will be
unnecessary. If we look at this logically, then any fool can recognize that
testing does not even attempt to solve a technical problem, rather, this is a
problem of emotional confidence. A more efficient solution to this lack of
confidence issue is to eliminate testing completely and send our programmers to
self-esteem courses. After all, if we choose to do testing, then we have to
test every program change, but we only need to send the programmers to one
course on building self-esteem. The cost benefit is as amazing as it is obvious.
-
One followon trick in the Hungarian notation is "change the type of a
variable but leave the variable name unchanged". This is almost invariably
done in windows apps with the migration from Win16 :- WndProc(HWND hW, WORD wMsg,
WORD wParam, LONG lParam) to Win32 WndProc(HWND hW, UINT wMsg, WPARAM wParam,
LPARAM lParam) where the w values hint that they are words, but they really
refer to longs. The real value of this approach comes clear with the Win64
migration, when the parameters will be 64 bits wide, but the old "w"
and "l" prefixes will remain forever.
-
Put all the code in the makefile: your successors will be really impressed how
you managed to write a makefile which generates a batch file that generates some
header files and then builds the app, such that they can never tell what effects
a change will have, or be able to migrate to a modern IDE. For maximum effect
use an obsolete make tool, such as an early brain dead version of NMAKE without
the notion of dependencies.
-
Have the makefile generated batch file copy source files from multiple
directories with undocumented overrwrite rules. This permits code branching
without the need for any fancy source code control system, and stops your
successors ever finding out which version of DoUsefulWork() is the one they
should edit.
-
Write an empty interface called something like "WrittenByMe", and make
all of your classes implement it. Then, write wrapper classes for any of Java's
built-in classes that you use. The idea is to make sure that every single
object in your program implements this interface. Finally, write all methods so
that both their arguments and return types are WrittenByMe. This makes it
nearly impossible to figure out what some methods do, and introduces all sorts
of entertaining casting requirements. For a further extension, have each team
member have his/her own personal interface (e.g., WrittenByJoe); any class
worked on by a programmer gets to implement his/her interface. You can then
arbitrary refer to objects by any one of a large number of meaningless
interfaces!
-
Subtlety is a wonderful thing, although sometimes a sledge-hammer is more subtle
than other tools. So, a refinement on misleading comments: create classes with
names like FooFactory containing comments with references to the GoF
creational patterns (ideally with http links to bogus UML design documents) that
have nothing to do with object creation. Play off the maintainer's delusions of
competence. More subtly, create Java classes with protected constructors and
methods like Foo f = Foo.newInstance()that return actual new
instances, rather than the expected singleton. The opportunities for side-effects
are endless.
-
If you discover a bug in your compiler or interpreter, be sure to make that
behaviour essential for your code to work properly. After all you don't use
another compiler, and neither should anyone else!
-
Here's a real life example written by a master. Let's look at all the different
techniques he packed into this single C function.
void* Realocate(void*buf, int os, int ns)
{
void*temp;
temp = malloc(os);
memcpy((void*)temp, (void*)buf, os);
free(in);
buf = malloc(ns);
memset(buf, 0, ns);
memcpy((void*)buf, (void*)temp, ns);
return buf;
}
-
Reinvent simple functions which are part of the standard libraries.
-
The word Realocate is not spelled correctly. Never underestimate the power of
creative spelling.
-
Make a temporary copy of input buffer for no real reason.
-
Cast things for no reason. memcpy() takes (void*), so cast our pointers even
though they're already (void*). Bonus for the fact that you could pass anything
anyway.
-
Never bothered to free temp. This will cause a slow memory leak, that may not
show up until the program has been running for days.
-
Copy more than necessary from the buffer just in case. This will only cause a
core dump on Unix, not Windows.
-
It should be obvious that os and ns stand for "old size" and "new
size".
-
After allocating buf, memset it to 0. Don't use calloc() because somebody might
rewrite the ANSI spec so that calloc() fills the buffer with something other
than 0. (Never mind the fact that we're about to copy exactly the same amount
of data into buf.)
-
If a module in a library needs an array to hold an image, just define a static
array. Nobody will ever have an image bigger than 512 x 512, so a fixed-size
array is OK. For best precision, make it an array of doubles. Bonus effect for
hiding a 2 Meg static array which causes the program to exceed the memory of the
client's machine and thrash like crazy even if they never use your routine.
-
If you need several variables of a given type, just define an array of them,
then access them by number. Pick a numbering convention that only you know and
don't document it. And don't bother to define #define constants for the indexes.
Everybody should just know that the global variable widget[15] is the cancel
button. This is just an up-to-date variant on using absolute numerical addresses
in assembler code.
-
If you have to define a structure to hold data for callbacks, always call the
structure PRIVDATA. Every module can define it's own PRIVDATA. In VC++, this
has the advantage of confusing the debugger so that if you have a PRIVDATA
variable and try to expand it in the watch window, it doesn't know which
PRIVDATA you mean, so it just picks one.
-
Since global variables are "evil", define a structure to hold all the
things you'd put in globals. Call it something clever like
EverythingYoullEverNeed. Make all functions take a pointer to this structure (call
it handle to confuse things more). This gives the impression that you're not
using global variables, you're accessing everything through a "handle".
Then declare one statically so that all the code is using the same copy anyway.
-
If your compiler issues "unused local variable" warnings, don't get
rid of the variable. Instead, just find a clever way to use it. My favorite is...
i = i;
-
Buy a copy of a baby naming book and you'll never be at a loss for variable
names. Fred is a wonderful name, and easy to type. If you're looking for easy
to type variable names, try adsf or aoeu if you type with a DSK
keyboard.
-
If you must use descriptive variable and function names, misspell them.
-
If you use intercapitalization for function names (capitalize the first letter
of each word), randomly capitalize the first letter of a syllable in the middle
of a word. For example: ComputeRasterHistoGram().
Philosophy
The people who design languages are the people who write the compilers and
system classes. Quite naturally they design to make their work easy and
mathematically elegant. However, there are 10,000 maintenance programmers to
every compiler writer. The grunt maintenance programmers have absolutely no say
in the design of languages. Yet the total amount of code they write dwarfs the
code in the compilers.
An example of the result of this sort of elitist thinking is the JDBC interface.
It makes life easy for the JDBC implementor, but a nightmare for the maintenance
programmer. It is far clumsier than the FORTRAN interface that came out
with SQL three decades ago.
Maintenance programmers, if somebody ever consulted them, would demand ways to
hide the housekeeping details so they could see the forest for the trees. They
would demand all sorts of shortcuts so they would not have to type so much and
so they could see more of the program at once on the screen. They would complain
loudly about the myriad petty time-wasting tasks the compilers demand of them.
There are some efforts in this direction: NetRexx, Bali, and visual editors (e.g. IBM's Visual Age is a start)
that can collapse detail irrelevant to the current purpose.
The Shoemaker Has No Shoes
Imagine having an accountant as a client who insisted on maintaining his general
ledgers using a word processor. You would do you best to persuade him that his
data should be structured. He needs validation with cross field checks. You
would persuade him he could do so much more with that data when stored in a
database, including controlled simultaneous update.
Imagine taking on a software developer as a client. He insists on maintaining
all his data with a text editor. He is not yet even exploiting the word
processor's colour, type size or fonts.
Think of what might happen if we started storing source code as structured data.
We could view the same source code in many alternate ways, e.g. as Java,
as NextRex, as a decision table, as a flow chart, as a loop structure skeleton (with
the detail stripped off), as Java with various levels of detail or comments
removed, as Java with highlights on the variables and method invocations of
current interest, or as Java with generated comments about argument names and/or
types. We could display complex arithmetic expressions in 2D, the way TeX and
mathematicians do. You could see code with additional or fewer parentheses, (depending
on how comfortable you feel with the precedence rules ).
Parenthesis nests could use varying size and colour to help matching by eye.
With changes as transparent overlay sets that you can optionally remove or apply,
you could watch in real time as other programmers on your team, working in a
different country, modified code in classes that you were working on too.
You could use the full colour abilities of the modern screen to give subliminal
clues, e.g. by automatically assigning a portion of the spectrum to each package/class
using a pastel shades as the backgrounds to any references to methods or
variables of that class. You could bold face the definition of any identifier to
make it stand out.
You could ask what methods/constructors will produce an object of type X? What
methods will accept an object of type X as a parameter? What variables are
accessible in this point in the code? By clicking on a method invocation or
variable reference, you could see its definition, helping sort out which version
of a given method will actually be invoked. You could ask to globally visit all
references to a given method or variable, and tick them off once each was dealt
with. You could do quite a bit of code writing by point and click.
Some of these ideas would not pan out. But the best way to find out which would
be valuable in practice is to try them. Once we had the basic tool, we could
experiment with hundreds of similar ideas to make like easier for the
maintenance programmer.
I discuss this further under SCID and in the SCID student project.
Contributors
The following are some of the people who contributed to this list. My lawyers
recommended I exclude those who taught by example.
-
Hugh McDonald, hughmcd@ican
-
Gareth Meyrick, gareth@pangloss.ucsf.edu
-
Jarle Stabell, jarle.stabell@dokpro.uio.no
-
Ko-Haw Nieh, niko@quality.com
-
Jim Johnson, jimj@jumpmusic.com
-
Jim Hyslop, Jim.Hyslop@mars.leitch.com
-
George Ruban, gruban%adsl4@gte.com
-
Mats Carlid, mats@adbk.se
-
John P. McGrath, mcgrath@enter.net
-
Brian Hurt, brianh@bit3.com
-
Chris Schlenker, Christoph.Schlenker@gfk.de
-
Nicholas Widdows, nicholas.widdows@traceplc.co.uk
-
Greg Compestine, gregcompestine@caleb-bldr.com
-
Carl L. Gay, sigue@thecia.net
-
Leonid Efros, l_efros@hotmail.com
-
Richard W. Noble, rwnoble@san.rr.com
-
Simon Broad, simon.broad@macro4.com
-
Doron Rajwan, doron@capella.co.il
-
Austin Rosenfeld, ablomi@yahoo.com
-
Wes Groleau, wwgrol@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com
-
Joshua Schpok, schpok@hotmail.com
-
Russ Fink, rfink@bbn.com
-
John Matthews, John.Matthews@nectech.co.uk
-
Neugroschl Scott, Neugroschl.Scott@LittonDSD.com
-
Scott Herod, scott@evt.com
-
Allan Stokes, allan@stokes.ca
-
Martin Minow, minow@pobox.com
-
Wolfgang Formann, w.formann@neuss.netsurf.de
-
Jym Dyer, jym@igc.org
-
Ted Dennison, dennison@ssd.fsi.com
-
Tom Farrell, tfarrell@skepsis.com
-
Daniel von Asmuth, radical@tux.warande.net
-
Damian Saunders, damian.saunders@gtl.com
-
Bob Morris, bob@bomoco.com
-
Neil Hancock, neil.hancock@macro4.com
-
Dirk Hauberg, dirkhauberg@amic.de
-
Nathan Laan, nlaan@ualberta.ca
-
James J. Besemer, jb@cascade-sys.com
-
William Harris, william@carsinfo.com ()
-
David Pottage, david.pottage@insignia.com
-
Marian ION, marian.ion@telestore.fr
-
Torrey Hoffman, thoffman1@hotmail.com
-
Paul Green, Paul_Green@stratus.com
-
Harry Bearman, hbearman@pdxinc.com
-
Stephen Friedl, friedl@mtndew.com
-
Gil, gil@humbug.co.uk
-
Bear Giles, bear@coyotesong.com
-
Ray Trent, rat@synaptics.com
-
Maarten Sneep, sneep@nat.vu.nl
-
Greg Lindstrom, glinds@acxiom.com
-
Jeff Johnson, jeff@san-dc.com
-
James J. Beseme, jb@cascade-sys.com
-
Babette Turner-Underwood, babettet@tmi.ca
-
Bent Nielsen, bn@dksin.dk
-
Richard Sanders, Richard_Sanders@Dell.com
-
James Brown, james.brown-eds@eds.com
-
Steve Loughran, slo3@iseran.com
-
Jonathan Deber, jonathan.deber@utoronto.ca
-
Ben Tilly, Ben_Tilly@trepp.com
-
David Williss, dwilliss@inetnebr.com
-
Bernice Maslan, bernice.maslan@360.com
An early version of this article appeared in Java Developers' Journal (volume 2
issue 6). I also spoke on this topic in 1997 November and again in 1999 at the Colorado Summit Conference. It has been
gradually growing ever since. I have had quite a few requests for permission to
build links here. You are welcome to create links, but please don't repost the
essay since the original changes frequently.
If you enjoyed this essay you might like this one on how to write like a newbie. There is a ton of stuff on
this site quite unlike anything else on the web. Have a quick look at my gay glossary.