Anti Patterns

AntiPatterns
By Dan Tivadar
09.June.2016
What Is an AntiPattern?
 An AntiPattern is a literary form that describes a commonly occurring solution

to a problem that generates decidedly negative consequences. The
AntiPattern may be the result of a manager or developer not knowing any
better, not having sufficient knowledge or experience in solving a particular
type of problem, or having applied a perfectly good pattern in the wrong
context.
 Software Development AntiPatterns

 Software Architecture AntiPatterns
 Software Project Management AntiPatterns
Software Development AntiPatterns
 The Blob
 Continuous Obsolescence
 Lava Flow
 Ambiguous Viewpoint
 Functional Decomposition
 Poltergeists
 Boat Anchor
 Golden Hammer
 Dead End
 Spaghetti Code
 Input Kludge
 Walking through a Minefield
 Cut-And-Paste Programming
 Mushroom Management
Software Development AntiPatterns
 The Blob
 Continuous Obsolescence
 Lava Flow
 Ambiguous Viewpoint
 Functional Decomposition
 Poltergeists
 Boat Anchor
 Golden Hammer
 Dead End
 Spaghetti Code
 Input Kludge
 Walking through a Minefield
 Cut-And-Paste Programming
 Mushroom Management
Lava Flow
 AntiPattern Name: Lava Flow

 Also Known As: Dead Code
 Most Frequent Scale: Application
 Refactored Solution Name: Architectural Configuration Management
 Refactored Solution Type: Process
 Root Causes: Avarice, Greed, Sloth
 Unbalanced Forces: Management of Functionality, Performance, Complexity
 Anecdotal Evidence: "Oh that! Well Ray and Emil (they're no longer with the
company) wrote that routine back when Jim (who left last month) was trying a
workaround for Irene's input processing code (she's in another department now,
too). I don't think it's used anywhere now, but I'm not really sure. Irene didn't
really document it very clearly, so we figured we would just leave well enough
alone for now. After all, the bloomin' thing works doesn't it?!"
Lava Flow
General Form
 Over and over, we got the same answer: "I don't know what that class is for; it
was written before I got here." We gradually realized that between 30 and 50
percent of the actual code that comprised this complex system was not
understood or documented by any one currently working on it.
 Furthermore, as we analyzed it, we learned that the questionable code really
served no purpose in the current system; rather, it was there from previous
attempts or approaches by long-gone developers. The current staff, while
very bright, was loath to modify or delete code that they didn't write or didn't
know the purpose of, for fear of breaking something and not knowing why or
how to fix it.
Lava Flow
Symptoms And Consequences
 Frequent unjustifiable variables and code fragments in the system.

 Undocumented complex, important-looking functions, classes, or segments that don't clearly
relate to the system architecture.
 Very loose, "evolving" system architecture.
 Whole blocks of commented-out code with no explanation or documentation.
 Lots of "in flux" or "to be replaced" code areas.
 Unused (dead) code, just left in.
 Unused, inexplicable, or obsolete interfaces located in header files.
 If existing Lava Flow code is not removed, it can continue to proliferate as code is reused in
other areas.
 If the process that leads to Lava Flow is not checked, there can be exponential growth as
succeeding developers, too rushed or intimidated to analyze the original flows, continue to
produce new, secondary flows as they try to work around the original ones, this compounds the
problem.
 As the flows compound and harden, it rapidly becomes impossible to document the code or
understand its architecture enough to make improvements.
Functional Decomposition
 AntiPattern Name: Functional Decomposition

 Also Known As: No Object-Oriented AntiPattern "No OO"
 Most Frequent Scale: Application
 Refactored Solution Name: Object-Oriented Reengineering
 Root Causes: Avarice, Greed, Sloth
 Unbalanced Forces: Management of Complexity, Change
 Anecdotal Evidence: "This is our ‘main' routine, here in the class called
LISTENER."
Functional Decomposition
 Classes with "function" names such as Calculate_Interest or Display_Table may
indicate the existence of this AntiPattern.
 All class attributes are private and used only inside the class.
 Classes with a single action such as a function.
 An incredibly degenerate architecture that completely misses the point of
object-oriented architecture.
 Absolutely no leveraging of object-oriented principles such as inheritance and
polymorphism. This can be extremely expensive to maintain (if it ever worked
in the first place; but never underestimate the ingenuity of an old
programmer who's slowly losing the race to technology).
 No way to clearly document (or even explain) how the system works. Class
models make absolutely no sense.
 No hope of ever obtaining software reuse.
 Frustration and hopelessness on the part of testers.
Golden Hammer
 AntiPattern Name: Golden Hammer

 Also Known As: Old Yeller, Head-in-the sand
 Most Applicable Scale: Application
 Refactored Solution Name: Expand your horizons
 Root Causes: Ignorance, Pride, Narrow-Mindedness
 Unbalanced Forces: Management of Technology Transfer
 Anecdotal Evidence: "I have a hammer and everything else is a nail." "Our
database is our architecture."
Golden Hammer
 Identical tools and products are used for wide array of conceptually diverse
products.
 Solutions have inferior performance, scalability, and so on when compared to
other solutions in the industry.
 System architecture is best described by a particular product, application suite,
or vendor tool set.
 Developers debate system requirements with system analysts and end users,
frequently advocating requirements that are easily accommodated by a
particular tool and steering them away from areas where the adopted tool is
insufficient.
 Developers become isolated from the industry. They demonstrate a lack of
knowledge and experience with alternative approaches.
 Requirements are not fully met, in an attempt to leverage existing investment.
 Existing products dictate design and system architecture.
Spaghetti Code
 AntiPattern Name: Spaghetti Code

 Refactored Solution Name: Software Refactoring, Code Cleanup
 Refactored Solution Type: Software
 Root Causes: Ignorance, Sloth
 Unbalanced Forces: Management of Complexity, Change
 Anecdotal Evidence: "Ugh! What a mess!" "You do realize that the language
supports more than one function, right?" "It's easier to rewrite this code than
to attempt to modify it." "Software engineers don't write spaghetti code."
"The quality of your software structure is an investment for future
modification and extension."
Spaghetti Code
 After code mining, only parts of object and methods seem suitable for reuse. Mining Spaghetti
Code can often be a poor return on investment; this should be taken into account before a
decision to mine is made.
 Methods are very process-oriented; frequently, in fact, objects are named as processes.
 The flow of execution is dictated by object implementation, not by the clients of the objects.
 Minimal relationships exist between objects.
 Many object methods have no parameters, and utilize class or global variables for processing.
 The pattern of use of objects is very predictable.
 Code is difficult to reuse, and when it is, it is often through cloning. In many cases, however,
code is never considered for reuse.
 Object-oriented talent from industry is difficult to retain.
 Benefits of object orientation are lost; inheritance is not used to extend the system;
polymorphism is not used.
 Follow-on maintenance efforts contribute to the problem.
 Software quickly reaches a point of diminishing returns; the effort involved in maintaining an
existing code base is greater than the cost of developing a new solution from the ground up.
Cut-And-Paste Programming
 AntiPattern Name: Cut-and-Paste Programming

 Also Known As: Clipboard Coding, Software Cloning, Software Propagation
 Refactored Solution Name: Black Box Reuse
 Refactored Solution Type: Software
 Root Causes: Sloth
 Unbalanced Forces: Management of Resources, Technology Transfer
 Anecdotal Evidence: "Hey, I thought you fixed that bug already, so why is it
doing this again?" "Man, you guys work fast. Over 400,000 lines of code in
three weeks is outstanding progress!"
Cut-And-Paste Programming
 The same software bug reoccurs throughout software despite many local fixes.
 Lines of code increase without adding to overall productivity.
 Code reviews and inspections are needlessly extended.
 It becomes difficult to locate and fix all instances of a particular mistake.
 Code is considered self-documenting.
 Code can be reused with a minimum of effort.
 This AntiPattern leads to excessive software maintenance costs.
 Software defects are replicated through the system.
 Reusable assets are not converted into an easily reusable and documented form.
 Developers create multiple unique fixes for bugs with no method of resolving the
variations into a standard fix.
 Cut-and-Paste Programming form of reuse deceptively inflates the number of lines of
code developed without the expected reduction in maintenance costs associated with
other forms of reuse.

Anti Patterns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anti Patterns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anti Patterns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AntiPatterns

 An AntiPattern is a literary form that describes a commonly occurring solution

 Software Development AntiPatterns

 AntiPattern Name: Lava Flow

 Frequent unjustifiable variables and code fragments in the system.

 AntiPattern Name: Functional Decomposition

 AntiPattern Name: Golden Hammer

 AntiPattern Name: Spaghetti Code

 AntiPattern Name: Cut-and-Paste Programming

You might also like