From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

Context: In this study we report on a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) for Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs), based on an automatic search including primary studies from journals, conferences, and workshops during the period from 2006 until 2012.Objective: The main objective of the described work was to perform an SMS on DSLs to better understand the DSL research field, identify research trends, and any possible open issues. The set of research questions was inspired by a DSL survey paper published in 2005.Method: We conducted a SMS over 5 stages: defining research questions, conducting the search, screening, classifying, and data extraction. Our SMS included 1153 candidate primary studies from the ISI Web of Science and ACM Digital Library, 390 primary studies were classified after screening.Results: This SMS discusses two main research questions: research space and trends/demographics of the literature within the field of DSLs. Both research questions are further subdivided into several research sub-questions. The results from the first research question clearly show that the DSL community focuses more on the development of new techniques/methods rather than investigating the integrations of DSLs with other software engineering processes or measuring the effectiveness of DSL approaches. Furthermore, there is a clear lack of evaluation research. Amongst different DSL development phases more attention is needed in regard to domain analysis, validation, and maintenance. The second research question revealed that the number of publications remains stable, and has not increased over the years. Top cited papers and venues are mentioned, as well as identifying the more active institutions carrying DSL research.Conclusion: The statistical findings regarding research questions paint an interesting picture about the mainstreams of the DSL community, as well as open issues where researchers can improve their research in their future work.

Domain-Specific Languages

Software engineering means developing software for a purpose. For systems that interact with a physical problem world, the proximate purpose is a desired behaviour of that problem world: the fundamental engineering task is to develop the system behaviour and specify the software that will evoke it. This chapter sketches a discipline for this task, in which behaviours are always understood as the result of interactions of a software machine and a physical problem world. Complex behaviour is designed in terms of simple constituent behaviours. The running behaviour instances form a dynamic tree in which control of the tree is exercised by the software machines at the nodes. Some salient concepts, principles, practices and concerns of this discipline are discussed. After an introductory section, the development of a simple behaviour is clarified, and the iterative relationship between behaviour and requirements is illustrated. Requirements state the benefits expected from the system behaviour. An abstract goal behaviour is proposed, intended to satisfy the requirements. After elaboration into a concrete behaviour of the physical problem world, it is again evaluated against the requirements. The nature and development of complex behaviour is discussed. Development is partly top-down and partly bottom-up: top-down development decomposes a well-understood function into subfunctions; bottom-up development combines disparate functions springing from distinct requirements. In both, the identification and design of constituent behaviours is distinguished from their combination into a complex whole. The chapter ends with some general observations on the principles embodied in the approach described.

Present and Ulterior Software Engineering

Program comprehension is the main activity of the software developers. Although there has been substantial research to support the programmer, the high amount of time developers need to understand source code remained constant over thirty years. Beside more complex software, what might be the reason? In this paper, I explore the past of program-comprehension research, discuss the current state, and outline what future research on program comprehension might bring.

Program Comprehension: Past, Present, and Future

Debugging is an inevitable activity in most software projects, often difficult and more time-consuming than expected, giving it the nickname the "dirty little secret of computer science." Surprisingly, we have little knowledge on how software engineers debug software problems in the real world, whether they use dedicated debugging tools, and how knowledgeable they are about debugging. This study aims to shed light on these aspects by following a mixed-methods research approach. We conduct an online survey capturing how 176 developers reflect on debugging. We augment this subjective survey data with objective observations on how 458 developers use the debugger included in their integrated development environments (IDEs) by instrumenting the popular Eclipse and IntelliJ IDEs with the purpose-built plugin WatchDog 2.0. To clarify the insights and discrepancies observed in the previous steps, we followed up by conducting interviews with debugging experts and regular debugging users. Our results indicate that IDE-provided debuggers are not used as often as expected, as "printf debugging" remains a feasible choice for many programmers. Furthermore, both knowledge and use of advanced debugging features are low. These results call to strengthen hands-on debugging experience in computer science curricula and have already refined the implementation of modern IDE debuggers.

On the dichotomy of debugging behavior among programmers

Debuggers are crucial tools for developing object-oriented software systems as they give developers direct access to the running systems. Nevertheless, traditional debuggers rely on generic mechanisms to explore and exhibit the execution stack and system state, while developers reason about and formulate domain-specific questions using concepts and abstractions from their application domains. This creates an abstraction gap between the debugging needs and the debugging support leading to an inefficient and error-prone debugging effort. To reduce this gap, we propose a framework for developing domain-specific debuggers called the Moldable Debugger. The Moldable Debugger is adapted to a domain by creating and combining domain-specific debugging operations with domain-specific debugging views, and adapts itself to a domain by selecting, at run time, appropriate debugging operations and views. We motivate the need for domain-specific debugging, identify a set of key requirements and show how our approach improves debugging by adapting the debugger to several domains.

/pdf/the-moldable-debugger-a-framework-for-developing-domain-1l55m8mj3c.pdf

The Moldable Debugger: A Framework for Developing Domain-Specific Debuggers

/pdf/practical-domain-specific-debuggers-using-the-moldable-f7zzrv4tbj.pdf

Practical domain-specific debuggers using the Moldable Debugger framework

Object inspectors are an essential category of tools that allow developers to comprehend the run-time of object-oriented systems Traditional object inspectors favor a generic view that focuses on the low-level details of the state of single objects Based on 16 interviews with software developers and a follow-up survey with 62 respondents we identified a need for object inspectors that support different high-level ways to visualize and explore objects, depending on both the object and the current developer need We propose the Moldable Inspector, a novel inspector model that enables developers to adapt the inspection workflow to suit their immediate needs by making the inspection context explicit, providing multiple interchangeable domain-specific views for each object, and supporting a workflow that groups together multiple levels of connected objects We show that the Moldable Inspector can address multiple kinds of development needs involving a wide range of objects

http://scg.unibe.ch/archive/papers/Chis15a-MoldableInspector.pdf

The moldable inspector

Exception handling allows developers to deal with abnormal situations that disrupt the execution flow of a program. There are mainly three types of exceptions: standard exceptions provided by the programming language itself, custom exceptions defined by the project developers, and third-party exceptions defined in external libraries. We conjecture that there are multiple factors that affect the use of these exception types. We perform an empirical study on long-lived Java projects to investigate these factors. In particular, we analyze how developers rely on the different types of exceptions in throw statements and exception handlers. We confirm that the domain, the type, and the development phase of a project affect the exception handling patterns. We observe that applications have significantly more error handling code than libraries and they increasingly rely on custom exceptions. Also, projects that belong to different domains have different preferences of exception types. For instance, content management systems rely more on custom exceptions than standard exceptions whereas the opposite is true in parsing frameworks.

Exception evolution in long-lived Java systems

Engineering Academic Software

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Andrei Chiş

Author Tools

Chat about Author