During our Software Construction, Design and Architecture class, we’ve gone over a multitude of different design techniques, patterns and tools to ensure that we write quality code. We’ve also touched on some design / code smells and the concept of technical debt. While design smells can give you an indication of something that might be wrong with your code, whether in a small section or in the overall design, anti-patterns represent a much more obvious, prevalent problem in your code.
Some of the most common examples of anti-patterns I’ve heard in conversations I’ve had with my friends, classmates and even teachers in a joking matter, like spaghetti code, and copying and pasting code snippets from random repos (which isn’t just bad practice for coding, it’d also be possible to infringe upon licenses or the lack thereof placed on that code). I think the reason why these are fairly common among the circles I’ve been in is just because everyone has done it before for a school assignment or something, and it’s just funny to joke about.
Some anti-patterns are a bit more involved with designing software in a meaningful sense, though. In a blog post from Lucidchart, some other anti-patterns found in software development and design are golden hammers, god objects, boat anchors and dead code. What’s interesting about these is that they actually are actual manifestations of design smells, in the most obvious ways.
For example, a boat anchor is a piece of code that isn’t being used yet but might be used in a future version, maybe. This results in needless complexity, an addition that isn’t necessary and makes it harder to read your code. Dead code is similar, code that gets executed but isn’t even used in the output of a program, causing immobility. Using a golden hammer means you are using the same tool for a bunch of different jobs, thinking that it is the best tool for all cases. This contributes to fragility, needless repetition and opacity depending on the implementation one goes about with a golden hammer. God objects are similar in a sense, as they’re objects that do too much and are responsible for too many functions. This violates encapsulation principles that are good practice in software design, while also resulting in immobility, viscosity and possibly even more. Dead code
This reinforces the idea of checking for code smells and refactoring code as needed, because otherwise you will build upon a foundation that was fundamentally problematic, and the rest of your code will reflect it no matter how much better it is. This all ties into technical debt, and brings all of the software design principles, concepts and ideas together into a picture that says: please maintain your code cleanly!
From the blog CS@Worcester – V's CompSCi Blog by V and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.