|Don't ask to ask, just ask|
Comment onby gods
|on Feb 11, 2000 at 00:06 UTC||Need Help??|
Your points seem to fit rather well with Extreme Programming ;-)
I agree with you that unecessary features should be avoided. I also agree with you that code should be as maintainable as possible during all stages of development. What I disagree with you on is the priority of the two and how they interact.
I would have broken Ovid's code down into subroutines like he did in the second example in his post. I find code in such a format is far easier to maintain and ultimately saves a lot of time. So if the modular version of the code is more maintainable, then in order to adopt its use, the benefits of increased maintainability should outweigh the costs of adding a 'feature.'
Let's examine the costs then. There are three reasons why I avoid adding features that are not absolutely unecessary:
If at the beginning of a project you decide to modularize the code, you will not be introducing any additional bugs. In addition, if modularity is put off until later, and then required, programmers may introduce new bugs during the transition.
Number two may partially apply. It may take extra time to set up the program as modular (then again it may not), but this time is not spent on a wasted feature, it is spent on making the program more maintainable and reusable. Assuming you agree that modular code is more maintainable, number three gives the advantage to modularity as well.
So you have to weigh a possible small price/time increase against greater long term maintainability. I find that I consistantly value maintainability enough to spend the extra time modularizing my code.