Every developer writes code. Every developer works or has worked on a Brownfield project. Working on a Brownfield project often makes developer complain about the code being poorly written and hard to maintain. That surely sounds familiar, right?

This is basically a pledge to good code. Bad code makes things worse and cost business money.

How much are we talking about?

There is no scientific study about this. Primarily because most projects are private and won't allow studies and there is still no clear metric that represent clean code. Mostly, metrics can't represent bad code. So how much money can be saved? Well... bad code hinder maintenance, comprehension and scare programmers of changing a class that was working well before. I don't think we can calculate now, but I think that Cyclomatic Complexity, LOC per functions and Code Coverage represent a big indicator of code that are hard to understand and difficult to make changes.

Code that have high cyclomatic complexity and huge LOC per functions scares programmers into making changes. Why? Because we all know that if we change something inside one of those method, the ripples of change will make something else break. This fear can be neutralized by high code coverage of those big methods and/or by splitting them up.

Time for totally unscientific numbers. I think that complex code will require more double the time to make modifications to. Why? Well... let's say that the developer will have to spend a considerate amount of times in the debugger instead of running tests. Tests for a (big) module should take less than 10-15 seconds to run (including the test runner initialization). Debugging the same module to verify a behaviour will take normally a minute or two. Rinse and repeat at least a dozen times and you find yourself at 1 minutes for running the tests and 12 minutes for debugging an application. This is just the beginning. If there is no tests, a huge and complex method will take literally take at least 10 minutes to understand (depend of context). A test "infected" code base will allow for quick failure verification without having to spend hours in the debugger. Calculate as much as you want but... as Robert C. Martin said:

The only way to go fast is to go well.

So are you saving time in your company or are you costing your company money? I think we can all earn something from writing clean code. Companies will save on maintenance cost, programmer will improve their craft and become better programmer that are proud of what they do.

I've been thinking about this for at least a week or two. In fact, it's been since I started (and finished) reading the book "Clean Code" by Robert C. Martin. There is probably only two way to go.

Fix the bad code

This method is called refactoring and "cleaning" the code. This of course, you can't truly know what code is bad without having a Static Analyser tool or programmers working on the code. The tool will allow you to spot piece of code that could bring bugs and/or be hard to work with. The problem, refactoring code or cleaning up code is really expensive on a business perspective. The trick is to fix it as you interact with the code. It is probably impossible to request time from your company to fix code that could cause bugs. If you ask your company to fix the code, you will probably receive this answer: "Why did you write it badly in the first place?". Which brings us to the other way to improve the code quality.

Don't write it

If you don't write the bad code in the first place, you won't have to fix it! That sounds simple to an experienced programmer that improved his craft with years but rookies will definitely leave bad code behind. Eventually, you will have to encounter this bad code. So how do you avoid the big refactoring of mistakes (not just rookies)? I believe that training might be a way to go. When I only had 1 year of experience in software development, I was writing WAY too many bad code. I still do. Not that I don't see it go through. Sometimes, things must be rushed, I don't understand fully the problem and some small abstraction mistakes gets in. I write way less bad code then when I started. However, this bad code is not just magically disappearing. It's stays there.

What about training?

I think that training and/or mentoring might be the way to go. Mentoring might be hard to sell but training is definitely not that hard to sell. Most employees got an amount of money related to their name within a company that represent training expenses that can be spent on them. What I particularly recommend is some courses in Object-Oriented design or Advanced Object-Oriented Design. Hell, you might even consider an xDD course (and by xDD... I mean TDD, BDD, DDD, RDD, etc.). Any of those courses will improve your skill and bring you closer to identifying clean code from bad code. Other training that will form you specific framework (like ASP.NET MVC or Entity Framework) will only show you how to get things done with those framework. The latter can be learned on your own or through a good  book.

So? What do you all thinks? Do you rather have a framework course or a "Clean Code" course?

I've always found that the best practices inside my field were not always respected. Doctors always wash their hands, architect follow all the rules to have a building that is safe for the people living/working inside it. However, with software, anyone can improvise himself "Software Architect" or "Software Developer" without having any problem to find a job. Most people in the .NET community will follow what is given to them by Microsoft. Be it SharePoint, Entity Framework, Linq To SQL, Visual Studio, or whatever. Sometimes, alternative is good because they offer you a different view on the state of things.

When I met Greg Young for the first time, it was in .NET Montreal Community meeting where he was doing a presentation on DDD. We took a beer together and talked about improving the level of those in Montreal. Improving the level of average developer in Montreal is a hell of a task. First, there is people like me, Greg and Eric De Carufel who are passionate with their craft and are not satisfied with the status quo. We believe in ALT.NET but are most of the time called "passionate programmer". The people like me and Eric are the easy one to help. Then there is those that want to improve themselves but that doesn't have time (life, family, house, etc.). They are not easy to attract and the best way to instruct them is to do it internally (official training or coworkers). Then there are those that don't care about their craft. Those are of no interest to me.

When I took a beer with Greg Young, he talked about action on what would be needed to improve the level. That is the reason why I started (or at least... still trying) to start the ALT.NET Montreal Community. We started a month a ago. We were only 7 back then. It was small but friendly. Now, on June 25th, we will hold our second Coding Dojo of the ALT.NET Montreal Community.

What is important to remember when starting a community I think is, to start! So, if there is anyone from Montreal who wants to help us boot start a community... the ALT.NET Montreal Community, you are all welcome to our next Coding Dojo on June 25th.

This must have been the most enlightening book I've ever read. It's filled with "evident" knowledge. Of course, some of them you have never thought about... but some that you just can't avoid nodding in approval.

As everyone know, I'm a .NET Developer and Uncle Bob is a Java developer (not exactly but the book have code in Java). There is some recommendation in the books that are targeted at Java developer and that don't apply to .NET.

So? If I had to tell what the book is about, what should I say?

I would say:

• Humans are good at mixing abstraction level
• Keep the variable/class/function clear and concise
• Commenting must be done with care otherwise it just clutter the code
• Refactor, refactor, refactor. A code base is never perfect but if you follow the Boy scout rule, the code base will always be better in the end
• Code should always have test and high coverage

Am I hitting the bulls eye here? What do you think?