Wiping the tech debt out with immutable code

Wiping the tech debt out with immutable code

Disclaimer: the idea of immutable code ain't mine - I've read/heard about it somewhere (can't recall precisely ;/) some time ago & it sticked with me.

Code maintenance is already a huge problem & it won't get any better by itself. Software is everywhere - even mundane, basic everyday tools get "digital" & ... flawed. Two, three years ago I was encountering bugs (in software I use) occasionally (well, except of Windows itself ;>), now it's a daily bread'n'butter - I don't even have patience to report them. Bad news is that not only many new ones appear, but in many cases the old ones are not fixed for months & longer.

As part of the crusade for high code quality, software craftsmanship good practices are being actively promoted in the community, but the battle seems doomed - tech debt (pretty much) always grows - what we can impact is only the speed of this growth. Efforts made to reduce the debt explicitly ...

  • ... tend to be very expensive while temporary
  • ... are struggling with clear business justification for sponsors
  • ... have no guarantee of success
  • ... sometimes end up in a worse state than the initial one

Wipe it out, like a boss

But maybe there's another way - instead of trying to reduce technical debt, ... reset it?

If code's natural lifecycle is to get less readable, more tangled, too verbose & hard to modify, so in the end we're so very tempted with the urge to re-write it ... why not do it then?

It's the highest time to get to the point: what immutable code actually means (because, surprise-surprise, it's not meant to be 100% immutable ;P). Just to make sure it's clear - actually it doesn't have that much in common with immutable data structures, append-only data stores, etc.

Immutable code is code that gets re-written each time devs feel it's necessary, regardless of the reason, e.g.:

  • bug to be fixed
  • change to be implemented
  • new/updated framework present

In simple words: each time when they are not happy with the code & agree that trivial, point changes won't help, they just re-write this piece of code, instead of updating it. Re-writing doesn't mean that old code has to be completely purged - it's up to devs what they want to keep..

Obviously this makes sense only if re-writing affects limited, properly isolated "component(s)" - hence some rules should be applied to keep the whole thing sane & safe:

  1. code should be organized around business domain model elements (entities) - it's old code that's expected to vanish, model's supposed to stay
  2. code composition should be as "flat" as possible -> no zillion layers, at least no visible publicly layers
  3. "component" interactions have to happen via well-defined, domain model-based interfaces that do not rely on leaking implementation details
  4. needless to say - "components" have to be fine-grained
  5. most important: dependencies - there can't be any except of interfaces (mentioned above) - that applies to data-level dependencies as well

Yes, it sounds very "microservice-ish". It wasn't the intention though.

Pain and gain

This is a courageous model for seasoned, experienced teams with high development agility - there's no point in denying. It brings a bunch of significant risks:

  • code is in very "fluid" state -> it requires very mature approach to deployment & automation (incl. testing)
  • it puts a tremendous focus on quality of domain modelling -> poorly designed model will lead to bad API that may require breaking changes once code behind is being re-written
  • flat composition of tiny, atomic components (;DDD) suggest increased number of cross-component interactions -> something that's always tricky to test & keep safe of regression
  • refactoring extravaganza may get out of control w/o strong sponsor/product manager influence

These get sweeten by a solid dose of delicious treat:

  • "tribal knowledge problem" disappears -> code portions to be analyzed are smaller & they can be easily replaced to suit the new maintainers; quite the opposite: devs have to learn the component to have it re-written
  • updating applications to newer versions of libraries/frameworks gets far more natural & can be "blended" in time (as a side effect of re-writing efforts) - bah, you can even re-implement the component using different language / platform
  • developers get the "ease of coding" skill -> they are getting far less afraid of "touching" code (especially legacy one), even if changes are more fundamental
  • re-writing is a great opportunity to remove old, dead code that's not useful anymore (e.g. was created for the sake of generalization that no-one never asked for ...)

Tapping my vials

What keeps me getting back to this idea of code immutability is ... Elixir. This language kinda encourages such approach due to its immanent characteristics:

  • breaking functionality into communicated GenServer processes (that don't shared anything, etc.) is a standard, forced practice
  • hot code swap (feature inherited from Erlang) is like a natural extension of component (in this case: process) in-place re-write
  • Elixir's functional code is very concise (syntax-wise)
  • Elixir's message-based communication is a very flexible & low-coupled interfacing mechanism

Pic: Copyright (c) http://www.banksidegallery.com/

About Sebastian Gebski

Geek, agilista, blogger, codefella, serial reader. In the daylight - I lead software delivery. #lean #dotnet #webdev #elixir. I speak here for myself only.