Mr. Bean, in his typical chaotic fashion, perfectly illustrates a common scenario in software development. He starts with a simple feature request, and before he knows it, he’s entangled in layers of code, configurations, and dependencies. From entity classes to repositories, application services, validators, mappings, controllers, and IoC container registrations – the process escalates rapidly. Sound familiar? This whirlwind of steps, much like the intricate workings of a modern car, can quickly become overwhelming.
Mr. Bean struggling with complexity, a visual metaphor for overly complicated code.
Just like understanding the sophisticated electronics and mechanics of a car – what some might call “car programming” in a broader sense – modern software architecture can feel incredibly complex. We often find ourselves striving for advanced code structures, believing that intricate designs equate to robust and enterprise-grade applications. Generic factories, reflection-based aspect programming, and providers intertwined with generators become badges of honor, signifying a supposedly “serious” approach to architecture.
There was a time when I subscribed to this very notion. I recall a team-building event where a colleague approached me, recounting his three-month journey to grasp our project’s architecture. “Initially,” he admitted, “I was completely lost. But now that I understand it, I think it’s brilliant!” My initial reaction was pride. I had crafted something so sophisticated that it demanded significant time to decipher, surely a mark of its quality. However, a nagging thought crept in: perhaps it wasn’t complex in a good way. Perhaps it was merely complicated.
The system was riddled with “magical,” generic code capable of almost anything, perhaps even making coffee if you squinted hard enough. The pinnacle of this complexity was a class boasting fourteen generic parameters – a testament to our commitment to “serious business applications,” or so we thought.
But is this obsession with complexity truly beneficial? Is all this ceremony genuinely necessary? I once believed so. Now, I’m convinced that the most exceptional code evokes a different reaction: “Wow, that’s so simple! Why didn’t I think of that?” Ironically, achieving this simplicity demands considerable effort. It requires upfront design, iterative refinement, and ruthlessly eliminating every unnecessary abstraction.
Sometimes simplicity lies in subtle adjustments, like strategically placed if statements. Other times, it necessitates broader shifts, such as embracing new patterns and paradigms – functional programming, Event Sourcing, or CQRS, for example. Venturing into different programming languages and technologies can also offer fresh perspectives.
While my roots are in the .NET world – my comfort zone – I actively seek exposure to other technologies. In a recent project, I found myself coding more extensively in TypeScript and Node.js than C#. Working across diverse languages and environments provides a valuable lens through which to re-examine your own code. For instance, I used to harbor a strong dislike for JavaScript, even labeling it a “shitty language.” Now, I realize my aversion stemmed from a lack of understanding and proficiency at the time. Changing my mindset unlocked its strengths: its dynamism, simplicity, and functional leanings have been incredibly instructive.
Returning to Visual Studio and .NET after such experiences often prompts the thought, “Why does this feel so heavy?” This is why I appreciate the advancements in C#9, such as records and Nullable Reference Types, and the move towards less ceremony, like eliminating the need for a Main method or creating endpoints without full controllers. Fewer layers, less boilerplate – the better.
The phrase “a programmer should know this and remember that” frequently surfaces in our field. However, the more we demand programmers memorize and recall, the higher the likelihood of oversights and errors. This reliance on rote repetition can stifle critical thinking, leading to mindless copy-pasting – a breeding ground for subtle and elusive bugs.
Therefore, consider these questions as food for thought:
- Reflect on the journey of a request within your systems. How many classes and layers does it traverse before reaching the database?
- Inventory your generic classes, particularly those burdened with numerous parameters. What challenges do they introduce?
- Do you understand the principle of composition over inheritance and its benefits in creating simpler, more maintainable systems?
Ponder whether these intricate structures are truly essential or if they, perhaps, mirror Mr. Bean’s convoluted approach to opening his car. Share your insights in the comments below.
Cheers,
Oskar
P.S. If you found this article insightful, you might also enjoy “Generic Does Not Mean Simple!”
