In a moment of honest self-reflection, I realized that
most of the software I've worked on over my past year and
a half of employment fits the
Big Ball of Mud
pattern. Much of my code started off as either a throwaway
or a prototype, which I never quite had the time to rewrite
later. Some of it (the minority, I think) is a maintenance
That said, some of it's fairly good, well-documented,
loosely coupled, easy to maintain code.
Should I be concerned that my code doesn't fit the Gang
of Four's vision of architectural sophistication? Are
design patterns all they're reported to be, or even close?
None of these programs
are is longer than two thousand lines:
relatively small potatoes compared to some of the systems
we use. Is their scale too small for pattern-based design
to make an appreciable difference?
Am I admitting that I have a problem, or just being
paranoid? What experiences have you had?
Found a typo in this node? /msg me
The hell with paco, vote for Erudil!
Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
Please read these before you post! —
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
- a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.
| & || & |
| < || < |
| > || > |
| [ || [ |
| ] || ] ||