Brygar’s principle of Simplicity resonates with Abstraction, as both focus on reducing complexity and emphasizing essential features. For example, an abstract Shape class might define a method draw(), but the specific implementation (how a circle or square is drawn) is handled in the subclasses Circle and Square. This simplifies the user interface by exposing only the necessary functionality.

Consistency aligns with Encapsulation, which involves bundling data and the methods that operate on it into a single unit and controlling access to the object’s internal state. For example, a Student class might have private fields like name and age. These fields are accessed or modified only through controlled public methods like getName() or setName(), ensuring that the class remains consistent in its behavior.

Modularity is closely related to Polymorphism, which enables objects of different classes to be treated as objects of a common superclass. By treating different objects as instances of the same class or interface, we can add new types without modifying existing code. For example, the Shape interface could allow the addition of new shapes (like Rectangle or Triangle) without altering the code for existing shapes.

Finally, Reusability directly connects with Inheritance, as inheritance allows one class to inherit properties and behaviors from another, making it easier to reuse and extend code. For instance, a Bird class could serve as a parent for Parrot and Eagle classes, where the child classes inherit common attributes like wingspan and methods like fly().

This blog post helped me understand how these design principles connect to each other. The assignment’s focus on defining the OOD principles and understanding their importance has deepened my appreciation for Abstraction and Encapsulation as tools for simplifying and protecting code. I now feel more confident in applying these principles to make my software designs both flexible and maintainable.

This blog post made me understand how it all connects. I now have a clearer understanding of how to approach system design in a more structured and efficient way. By focusing on Reusability and Simplicity, I’ll be able to write code that is easier to maintain and scale over time.

Link to the Resource:
Four Design Principles by Ivan Brygar

From the blog SoftwareDiary by Oanh Nguyen and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

While writing software it is important to know, how to maintain clean and understandable code. Despite best efforts, developers can unintentionally introduce code design smells precise indicators of deeper design problems. While these smells don’t directly cause bugs, they reduce code readability, maintainability, and scalability.

In class we learned the 6 common Design Smells, so I referenced the class materials and found an helpful article on Refactoring Guru. This webpage offers a practical explanation of common smells such as long methods, large classes, feature envy, and shotgun surgery.

Why I Selected This Resource

The reason why I chose this resource resonates with the principles we’ve covered in our class on software design and architecture. Its structured, accessible approach demystifies complex design issues, offering developers clear steps to refactor and improve their code. I’ve often seen myself facing challenges and struggling with tangled code where debugging or adding features feels almost somewhat overwhelming. These tools and insights help a and provide a roadmap for addressing such challenges systematically, and thoughtfully throughout the design process.

My Reflections on the Resource

The discussion on bloaters, like long methods and large classes, I think this was particularly something worth learning. These smells arise when a method or class tries to handle too much, violating the Single Responsibility Principle. I realized that in past projects, I’ve struggled with methods growing unmanageably large as features were added. Refactoring Guru suggests breaking these methods into smaller, more focused ones using techniques like extract method, improving both readability and reusability.

Another key takeaway was the concept of change preventers, such as shotgun surgery, where making a small change requires altering code in multiple places. This often signals that responsibilities are poorly distributed across the system. The resource recommends consolidating functionality into a single class or method, reducing the risk of errors and making future updates more straightforward.

Applications for Future Practices

Refactoring Guru’s emphasis on identifying smells early and refactoring incrementally aligns well with agile development practices. Moving forward, I plan to use this more than one of these materials as a checklist during code reviews to spot and address issues proactively. Techniques like extract method, extract class, and move method will hopefully become part of my tools for tackling coupled code. By continuing improving my skills to detect and refactor code smells, I want to create cleaner, more sustainable codebases that will be easier for both my team and future developers to work with. Thank you for reading my blog post and I hope you learned some

https://refactoring.guru/refactoring

https://refactoring.guru/refactoring/smells

From the blog CS@Worcester – function & form by Nathan Bui and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Intro

Imagine inheriting a massive, poorly designed codebase. Every change you make breaks something else. For software developers, such nightmares can be avoided by adhering to the SOLID principles, a foundational guideline for creating maintainable, scalable systems. These principles are a must-know for any software developer seeking to improve the quality of their work. They provide a roadmap for developers to create cleaner, more maintainable codebases, which is why I was drawn to this resource

Blog Summary

The blog goes through each of the five principles, explaining what they are, why they are important, and giving a code examples utilizing each one.

1. Single Responsibility Principle (SRP): A class should have only one reason to change, ensuring focused and cohesive functionality. The blog illustrates SRP with an example of separating user management from content creation, showing how this approach simplifies debugging and enhances code clarity.

2. Open-Closed Principle (OCP): Software entities should be open for extension but closed for modification, promoting adaptability without risking existing functionality. For OCP, the blog demonstrates how using inheritance and interfaces allows developers to add new functionality, using Square and Rectangle classes inheriting from the Shape base class.

3. Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP): Subtypes must be substitutable for their base types without altering the correctness of the program. The example provided for LSP highlights how properly designed subclasses, such as an Eagle and a Penguin inheriting from a Bird class, ensure seamless substitution without breaking the program.

4. Interface Segregation Principle (ISP): Clients should not be forced to depend on interfaces they do not use, encouraging lean and specific interfaces. In discussing ISP, the blog uses an example of splitting a large interface into smaller, more specific ones, ensuring that classes only implement what they actually need.

5. Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP): High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules but instead rely on abstractions. For DIP, the blog explains how decoupling high-level modules from low-level details using abstraction layers, like interfaces, makes the codebase more flexible and easier to maintain.

Why I chose this resource

I selected this blog to write about because it breaks down each principle in a concise way, clearly explaining each one in a way that is easy to understand at all levels. It’s a great resource to quickly go back to when you need a refresher on any of the principles.

Reflection on SOLID

After learning about SOLID, I see that it might take an extra step of thinking to adhere to the principles at first, but I think it’s well worth it for the resulting code structure. The easy way to code is messily throwing together code that works without a second thought, but doing that is very dangerous for the longevity of a program. I believe that after following SOLID for a while it will become second nature and will become the natural way of coding, which is why I think it’s important to learn about SOLID early and consciously until it does become a subconscious practice. In one of my past projects, I struggled with messy code that implemented multiple responsibilities in one class. Debugging it was a nightmare, but had I known about the SRP principle it could have been avoided entirely. Reflecting on these principles has already influenced how I plan on approaching my code, and I’m eager to incorporate them into my future work.

Future Application

Given the importance of SOLID principles for large-scale software, I believe it’s essential to internalize and apply them in future projects to thrive in the software development space. By crafting modular classes and reducing dependency, I aim to create services and systems that are easy to maintain and adapt as requirements expand and evolve.

Citation

“Essential Software Design Principles You Should Know Before the Interview” By Arslan Ahmad

https://www.designgurus.io/blog/essential-software-design-principles-you-should-know-before-the-interview

From the blog CS@Worcester – The Science of Computation by Adam Jacher and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

I chose the blog post, “People Don’t Understand OOP” by Sigma because it addresses recurring challenges in programming, specifically around OOP. Understanding how to improve my approach to OOP principles would help me write cleaner, more effective code that’s easier to maintain and adapt over time. Not following these concepts has led to messy code in previous years. Personally, I feel like I made a lot of these mistakes when I first started coding, however as more classes have gone by I have been able to break some of these bad habits. Unfortunately, there are times when I will make these mistakes when coding without thinking so that is what led me to choose this blog post, so I can learn how to not make these mistakes in the future.

The blog post  explores common misunderstandings surrounding Object-Oriented Programming (OOP). The author, Sigma,  argues that misconceptions often stem from oversimplified metaphors and an incomplete grasp of fundamental principles like encapsulation and abstraction. Frequent mistakes include equating OOP with buzzwords like inheritance and getters/setters, while neglecting its core concepts such as bundling related state and behavior into cohesive units (objects) and minimizing dependencies through proper encapsulation.

The post highlights that encapsulation is not merely about hiding internal state but about reducing interdependencies and ensuring modularity. Public properties, often critiqued for exposing internal states, are likened to getters and setters in their inability to prevent object coupling. The author points out that real-world OOP is much more nuanced, involving trade-offs that depend on the problem domain and language constraints. A detailed comparison of popular languages, including JavaScript, Python, Rust, and Go, demonstrates varying implementations of OOP features like inheritance, subtyping, and encapsulation. 

From the article, I was able to rethink my use of OOP principles and highlighted that simplicity and adaptability should be the goal when programming. Going forward, I plan to be more thoughtful about whether OOP concepts like inheritance are necessary or if simpler, more flexible design choices would work. The article taught me that well-designed OOP should evolve naturally rather than forcefully adhering to principles. This perspective will help me develop solutions that adapt to change more easily, making my work in software development more efficient and adaptable. After reading, I feel like I will be able to not make as many mistakes that lead to inefficient use of OOP creating a better and more efficient workflow when coding.

From the blog CS@Worcester – Giovanni Casiano – Software Development by Giovanni Casiano and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

This week, I found an article questioning the relevancy of UML as Agile development processes are becoming more and more used today. This was an interesting article for me to read as it points out some of the flaws with trying to use UML while developing software with Agile, but also a couple of potential ways it can still be useful. The overall notion I got from reading this article was that UML has it’s time and place, but it is certainly becoming a thing of the past as developers start to lean more toward an Agile development process.

The article states that in an Agile environment requirements are typically not defined in detail prior to starting the project, as well as the design of the software. As the project progresses, the requirements and design will usually evolve over time. Also, formal documentation during a project isn’t as much of a necessity while going through an Agile development process. These three big components of Agile clash quite a bit with trying to implement UML as UML pretty much requires the exact opposite of these three components. Basically, you can’t define the design and details prior to the project because of insufficient information which you would need with UML, and it would also need a lot of effort to update the UML diagrams as the project evolves.

There are a couple ways UML diagrams could still be useful as listed in the article as well:

Once development is completed, it may be helpful to use UML diagrams to support the system. Using UML to define and standardize the architecture would also be another reason to still practice it.

I think, as I stated earlier, there is a time and a place for using UML. Obviously, if you haven’t adopted an Agile development process then UML could still be on the table to use; most people do use Agile now though. Because of this, you can certainly still use UML diagrams, but if you want it to be in an efficient manner, it should be used in one of or both of the ways mentioned directly above. It’s still great to have the knowledge of most certainly, as UML from what I’ve read and heard other people speaking isn’t completely outdated, but it definitely isn’t going to be something worth stressing over if you’re not the most knowledgeable on how it works.

From the blog CS@Worcester – RBradleyBlog by Ryan Bradley and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.