How To Write Unmaintainable Code
Last updated Wednesday, 15-Dec-1999 13:42:46 PDT by Roedy Green
©1997-1999 Canadian Mind Products.
Introduction
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
Napoleon
Because of the slashdot plug, hits peaked at 250 a second on this
page, and the hit counters stopped kicking over. I am also
getting a slew of email with suggestions for ever more subtle
techniques of writing unmaintainable code. It will take a while
for me to get back to you and to incorporate your suggestions.
Please be patient. The essay has been like rock candy, seed the
string with sugar, soak in sugar water, soon it grows out of
control.
An earlier version of this essay is also available in Spanish.
In the interests of creating employment opportunities in the Java
programming field, I am passing on these tips from the masters on
how to write code that is so difficult to maintain, that the
people who come after you will take years to make even the
simplest changes. Further, if you follow all these rules
religiously, you will even guarantee yourself a lifetime
of employment, since no one but you has a hope in hell of
maintaining the code. Then again, if you followed all
these rules religiously, even you wouldn't be able to maintain
the code!
General Principles
To foil the maintenance programmer, you have to understand how he
thinks. He has your giant program. He has no time to read it all,
much less understand it. He wants to rapidly find the place to make his
change, make it and get out and have no unexpected side effects from
the change.
He views your code through a tube taken from the centre of a roll
of toilet paper. He can only see a tiny piece of your program at a
time. You want to make sure he can never get the big picture from
doing that. You want to make it as hard as possible for him to find
the code he is looking for. But even more important, you want to
make it as awkward as possible for him to safely ignore
anything.
Specific Techniques
- Lie in the comments. You don't have to actively lie, just
fail to keep comments as up to date with the code.
- Pepper the code with comments like /* add 1 to i */
however, never document wooly stuff like the overall purpose of
the package or method.
- Make sure that every method does a little bit more (or less)
than its name suggests. As a simple example, a method named
isValid(x) should as a side effect convert x to binary
and store the result in a database.
- Use acronyms to keep the code terse. Real men never define
acronyms; they understand them genetically.
- In the interests of efficiency, avoid encapsulation. Callers
of a method need all the external clues they can get to remind
them how the method works inside.
- If, for example, you were writing an airline reservation
system, make sure there are at least 25 places in the code that
need to be modified if you were to add another airline. Never
document where they are. People who come after you have no
business modifying your code without thoroughly understanding
every line of it.
- In the name of efficiency, use cut/paste/clone/modify. This
works much faster than using many small reusable modules.
- Never put a comment on a variable. Facts about
how the variable is used, its bounds, its legal values, its
implied/displayed number of decimal points, its units of measure,
its display format, its data entry rules (e.g. total fill, must
enter), when its value can be trusted etc. should be gleaned from
the procedural code. If your boss forces you to write comments,
lard method bodies with them, but never comment a variable, not
even a temporary!
- Try to pack as much as possible into a single line. This
saves the overhead of temporary variables, and makes source files
shorter by eliminating new line characters and white space. Tip:
remove all white space around operators. Good programmers can
often hit the 255 character line length limit imposed by some
editors. The bonus of long lines is that programmers who cannot
read 6 point type must scroll to view them.
- Cd wrttn wtht vwls s mch trsr. When using abbreviations
inside variable or method names, break the boredom with several
variants for the same word, and even spell it out longhand once
in while. This helps defeat those lazy bums who use text search
to understand only some aspect of your program. Consider variant
spellings as a variant on the ploy, e.g. mixing International
colour, with American color and dude-speak
kulerz. If you spell out names in full, there is only one
possible way to spell each name. These are too easy for the
maintenance programmer to remember. Because there are so many
different ways to abbreviate a word, with abbreviations, you can
have several different variables that all have the same apparent
purpose. As an added bonus, the maintenance programmer might not
even notice they are separate variables.
- Never use an automated source code tidier (beautifier) to
keep your code aligned. Lobby to have them banned them from your
company on the grounds they create false deltas in PVCS (version
control tracking) or that every programmer should have his own
indenting style held forever sacrosanct for any module he wrote.
Insist that other programmers observe those idiosyncratic
conventions in "his" modules. Banning beautifiers is
quite easy, even though they save the millions of keystrokes
doing manual alignment and days wasted misinterpreting poorly
aligned code. Just insist that everyone use the same
tidied format, not just for storing in the common repository, but
while they are editing. This starts an RWAR and the boss, to keep
the peace, will ban automated tidying. Without automated tidying,
you are now free to accidentally misalign the code to give
the optical illusion that bodies of loops and ifs are longer or
shorter than they really are, or that else clauses match a
different if than they really do. e.g.
if (a)
if (b) x = y;
else x = z;
- Never underestimate how much havoc you can create by
indenting with tabs instead of spaces, especially when there is
no corporate standard on how much indenting a tab represents.
Embed tabs inside string literals, or use a tool to convert
spaces to tabs that will do that for you.
- Never put in any { } surrounding your if/else blocks unless
they are syntactically obligatory. If you have a deeply nested
mixture of if/else statements and blocks, especially with
misleading indentation, you can trip up even an expert
maintenance programmer.
- Rigidly follow the guidelines about no goto, no early
returns, and no labelled breaks especially when you can increase
the if/else nesting depth by at least 5 levels.
- Use very long variable names or class names that differ from
each other by only one character, or only in upper/lower case. An
ideal variable name pair is swimmer and swimner.
Exploit the failure of most fonts to clearly discriminate between
ilI1| or oO08 with identifier pairs like
parselnt and parseInt or D0Calc and
DOCalc. l is an exceptionally fine choice for a
variable name since it will, to the casual glance, masquerade as
the constant 1. Create varible names that differ from each other
only in case e.g. HashTable and Hashtable.
- Wherever scope rules permit, reuse existing unrelated
variable names. Similarly, use the same temporary variable for
two unrelated purposes (purporting to save stack slots). For a
fiendish variant, morph the variable, for example, assign a value
to a variable at the top of a very long method, and then
somewhere in the middle, change the meaning of the variable in a
subtle way, such as converting it from a 0-based coordinate to a
1-based coordinate. Be certain not to document this change in
meaning.
- Use lower case l to indicate long constants. e.g. 10l is more likely
to be mistaken for 101 that 10L is.
- Ignore the conventions in Java for where to use upper case in
variable and class names i.e. Classes start with upper case,
variables with lower case, constants are all upper case, with
internal words capitalised. After all, Sun does (e.g. instanceof
vs isInstanceOf, Hashtable). Not to worry, the compiler won't
even issue a warning to give you away. If your boss forces you to
use the conventions, when there is any doubt about whether an
internal word should be capitalised, avoid capitalising or make a
random choice, e.g. use both inputFileName and outputfilename.
You can of course drive your team members insane by inventing
your own insanely complex naming conventions then berate
others for not following them. The ultimate technique is to
create as many variable names as possible that differ subtlely
from each other only in case.
- Never use i for the innermost loop variable. Use
anything but. Use i liberally for any other purpose
especially for non-int variables. Similary use n as a
loop index.
- Never use local variables. Whenever you feel the temptation
to use one, make it into an instance or static variable instead
to unselfishly share it with all the other methods of the class.
This will save you work later when other methods need similar
declarations. C++ programmers can go a step further by making all
variables global.
- Never document gotchas in the code. If you suspect there may
be a bug in a class, keep it to yourself. If you have ideas about
how the code should be reorganised or rewritten, for heaven's
sake, do not write them down. Remember the words of Thumper
"If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at
all". What if the programmer who wrote that code saw
your comments? What if the owner of the company saw them? What if
a customer did? You could get yourself fired.
- To break the boredom, use a thesaurus to look up as much
alternate vocabulary as possible to refer to the same action,
e.g. display, show, present. Vaguely hint
there is some subtle difference, where none exists. However, if
there are two similar functions that have a crucial difference,
always use the same word in describing both functions (e.g.
print to mean write to a file, and to a print on a laser,
and to display on the screen). Under no circumstances, succumb to
demands to write a glossary with the special purpose project
vocabulary unambiguously defined. Doing so would be
unprofessional breach of the structured design principle of
information hiding.
- In naming functions, make heavy use of abstract words like
it, everything, data, handle,
stuff, do, routine, perform and the
digits e.g. routineX48, PerformDataFunction,
DoIt, HandleStuff and
do_args_method.
- In Java, all primitives passed as parameters are effectively
read-only because they are passed by value. The callee can modify
the parameters, but that has no effect on the caller's variables.
In contrast all objects passed are read-write. The reference is
passed by value, which means the object itself is effectively
passed by reference. The callee can do whatever it wants to the
fields in your object. Never document whether a method actually
modifies the fields in each of the passed parameters. Name your
methods to suggest they only look at the fields when they
actually change them.
- Never document the units of measure of any variable, input,
output or parameter. e.g. feet, metres, cartons. This is not so
important in bean counting, but it is very important in
engineering work. As a corollary, never document the units of
measure of any conversion constants, or how the values were
derived. It is mild cheating, but very effective, to salt the
code with some incorrect units of measure in the comments. If you
are feeling particularly malicious, make up your own unit
of measure; name it after yourself or some obscure person and
never define it. If somebody challenges you, tell them you did so
that you could use integer rather than floating point
arithmetic.
- In engineering work there are two ways to code. One is to
convert all inputs to S.I. (metric) units of measure, then do
your calculations then convert back to various civil units of
measure for output. The other is to maintain the various mixed
measure systems throughout. Always choose the second. It's the
American way!
- I am going to let you in on a little-known coding secret.
Exceptions are a pain in the behind. Properly-written code never
fails, so exceptions are actually unnecessary. Don't waste time
on them. Subclassing exceptions is for incompetents who know
their code will fail. You can greatly simplify your program by
having only a single try/catch in the entire application (in
main) that calls System.exit(). Just stick a perfectly standard
set of throws on every method header whether they could throw any
exceptions or not.
- C compilers transform myArray[i] into *(myArray
+ i), which is equivalent to *(i + myArray) which
is equivalent to i[myArray]. Experts know to put this to
good use. Unfortunately, this technique can only be used in
native classes.
- If you have an array with 100 elements in it, hard code the
literal 100 in as many places in the program as possible. Never
use a static final named constant for the 100, or refer to it as
myArray.length. To make changing this constant even more
difficult, use the literal 50 instead of 100/2, or 99 instead of
100-1. You can futher disguise the 100 by checking for a ==
101 instead of a > 100 or a > 99 instead
of a >= 100.
Consider things like page sizes, where the lines consisting of x
header, y body, and z footer lines, you can apply the
obfuscations independently to each of these and to their
partial or total sums.
These time-honoured techniques are
especially effective in a program with two unrelated arrays that
just accidentally happen to both have 100 elements. There are
even more fiendish variants. To lull the maintenance programmer
into a false sense of security, dutifully create the named
constant, but very occasionally "accidentally"
use the literal 100 value instead of the named constant. Most
fiendish of all, in place of the literal 100 or the correct named
constant, sporadically use some other unrelated named constant
that just accidentally happens to have the value 100, for now. It
almost goes without saying that you should avoid any consistent
naming scheme that would associate an array name with its size
constant.
- Eschew any form of table-driven logic. It starts out
innocently enough, but soon leads to end users proofreading and
then shudder, even modifying the tables for
themselves.
- Nest as deeply as you can. Good coders can get up to 10
levels of ( ) on a single line and 20 { } in a single method. C++
coders have the additional powerful option of preprocessor
nesting totally independent of the nest structure of the
underlying code. You earn extra Brownie points whenever the
beginning and end of a block appear on separate pages in a
printed listing. Wherever possible, convert nested ifs into
nested [? :] ternaries.
- Join a computer book of the month club. Select authors who
appear to be too busy writing books to have had any time to
actually write any code themselves. Browse the local bookstore
for titles with lots of cloud diagrams in them and no coding
examples. Skim these books to learn obscure pedantic words you
can use to intimidate the whippersnappers that come after you.
Your code should impress. If people can't understand your
vocabulary, they must assume that you are very intelligent and
that your algorithms are very deep. Avoid any sort of homely
analogies in your algorithm explanations.
- Make "improvements" to your code often, and force
users to upgrade often - after all, no one wants to be running an
outdated version. Just because they think they're happy with the
program as it is, just think how much happier they will be after
you've "fixed" it! Don't tell anyone what the
differences between versions are unless you are forced to - after
all, why tell someone about bugs in the old version they might
never have noticed otherwise?
- The About Box should contain only the name of the program,
the names of the coders and a copyright notice written in
legalese. Ideally it should link to several megs of code that
produce an entertaining animated display. However, it should
never contain a description of what the program is for,
its minor version number, or the date of the most recent code
revision, or the website where to get the updates, or the
author's email address. This way all the users will soon all be
running on different versions, and will attempt to install
version N+2 before installing version N+1.
- The more changes you can make between versions the better,
you don't want users to become bored with the same old API or
user interface year after year. Finally, if you can make this
change without the users noticing, this is better still - it will
keep them on their toes, and keep them from becoming
complacent.
- If you have to write classes for some other programmer to
use, put environment-checking code (getenv() in C++ /
System.getProperty() in Java) in your classes' nameless static
initializers, and pass all your arguments to the classes this
way, rather than in the constructor methods. The advantage is
that the initializer methods get called as soon as the class
program binaries get loaded, even before any of the
classes get instantiated, so they will usually get executed
before the program main(). In other words, there will be no way
for the rest of the program to modify these parameters before
they get read into your classes - the users better have set up
all their environment variables just the way you had them!
- Choose your variable names to have absolutely no relation to
the labels used when such variables are displayed on the screen.
E.g. on the screen label the field "Postal Code"
but in the code call the associated variable
"zip".
- Java lets you create methods that have the same name as the
class, but that are not constructors. Exploit this to sow
confusion.
- Never use layouts. That way when the maintenance programmer
adds one more field he will have to manually adjust the absolute
co-ordinates of every other thing displayed on the screen. If
your boss forces you to use a layout, use a single giant
GridBagLayout, and hard code in absolute grid co-ordinates.
- In Java, disdain the interface. If your supervisors complain,
tell them that Java interfaces force you to
"cut-and-paste" code between different classes that
implement the same interface the same way, and they know
how hard that would be to maintain. Instead, do as the Java AWT
designers did - put lots of functionality in your classes that
can only be used by classes that inherit from them, and use lots
of "instanceof" checks in your methods. This way, if
someone wants to reuse your code, they have to extend your
classes. If they want to reuse your code from two different
classes - tough luck, they can't extend both of them at
once!
- Make all of your leaf classes final. After all, you're
done with the project - certainly no one else could possibly
improve on your work by extending your classes. And it might even
be a security flaw - after all, isn't java.lang.String final for
just this reason? If other coders in your project complain, tell
them about the execution speed improvement you're getting.
- Make as many of your variables as possible static. If
you don't need more than one instance of the class in this
program, no one else ever will either. Again, if other coders in
the project complain, tell them about the execution speed
improvement you're getting.
- Keep all of your unused and outdated methods and variables
around in your code. After all - if you needed to use it once in
1976, who knows if you will want to use it again sometime? Sure
the program's changed since then, but it might just as easily
change back, you "don't want to have to reinvent the
wheel" (supervisors love talk like that). If you have left
the comments on those methods and variables untouched, and
sufficiently cryptic, anyone maintaining the code will be too
scared to touch them.
- On a method called makeSnafucated insert only the
comment /* make snafucated */. Never define what
snafucated means anywhere. Only a fool does
not already know, with complete certainty, what snafucated
means.
- Reverse the parameters on a method called
drawRectangle(height, width) to drawRectangle(width, height)
without making any change whatsoever to the name of the method.
Then a few releases later, reverse it back again. The maintenance
programmers can't tell by quickly looking at any call if it has
been adjusted yet. Generalisations are left as an exercise for
the reader.
- Instead of using a parameters to a single method, create as
many separate methods as you can. For example instead of
setAlignment(int alignment) where alignment is an
enumerated constant, for left, right, center, create three
methods: setLeftAlignment, setRightAlignment,
and setCenterAlignment. Of course, for the full effect,
you must clone the common logic to make it hard to keep in
sync.
- The Kama Sutra technique has the added advantage of
driving any users or documenters of the package to distraction as
well as the maintenance programmers. Create a dozen overloaded
variants of the same method that differ in only the most minute
detail. I think it was Oscar Wilde who observed that positions 47
and 115 of the Kama Sutra were the same except in 115 the woman
had her fingers crossed. Users of the package then have to
carefully peruse the long list of methods to figure out just
which variant to use. The technique also balloons the
documentation and thus ensures it will more likely be out of
date. If the boss asks why you are doing this, explain it is
solely for the convenience of the users. Again for the full
effect, clone any common logic.
- Declare every method and variable public. After all,
somebody, sometime might want to use it. Once a method has been
declared public, it can't very well be retracted, now can it?
This makes it very difficult to later change the way anything
works under the covers. It also has the delightful side effect of
obscuring what a class is for. If the boss asks if you are out of
your mind, tell him you are following the classic principles of
transparent interfaces.
- In C++, overload library functions by using #define. That way
it looks like you are using a familiar library function where in
actuality you are using something totally different.
- In C++, overload +,-,*,/ to do things totally unrelated to
addition, subtraction etc. After all, if the Stroustroup can use
the shift operator to do I/O, why should you not be equally
creative? If you overload +, make sure you do it in a way that
i = i + 5; has a totally different meaning from i +=
5;
- When documenting, and you need an arbitrary name to represent
a filename use "file". Never use an obviously
arbitrary name like "Charlie.dat" or
"Frodo.txt". In general, in your examples, use
arbitrary names that sound as much like reserved keywords as
possible. For example, good names for parameters or variables
would be:
"bank",
"blank",
"class",
"const",
"constant",
"input",
"key",
"keyword",
"kind",
"output",
"parameter"
"parm",
"system",
"type",
"value",
"var" and
"variable".
If you use actual reserved words for your arbitrary names, which
would be rejected by your command processor or compiler, so much
the better. If you do this well, the users will be hopelessly
confused between reserved keywords and arbitrary names in your
example, but you can look innocent, claiming you did it to help
them associate the appropriate purpose with each variable.
- Always document your command syntax with your own, unique,
undocumented brand of BNF notation. Never explain the syntax by
providing a suite of annotated sample valid and invalid commands.
That would demonstrate a complete lack of academic rigour.
Railway diagrams are almost as gauche. Make sure there is no
obvious way of telling a terminal symbol (something you would
actually type) from an intermediate one -- something that
represents a phrase in the syntax. Never use typeface, colour,
caps, or any other visual clues to help the reader distinguish
the two. Use the exact same punctuation glyphs in your BNF
notation that you use in the command language itself, so the
reader can never tell if a (...), [...], {...} or "..."
is something you actually type as part of the command, or is
intended to give clues about which syntax elements are
obligatory, repeatable or optional in your BNF notation. After
all, if they are too stupid to figure out your variant of BNF,
they have no business using your program.
- The macro preprocessor offers great opportunities for
obfuscation. The key technique is to nest macro expansions
several layers deep so that you have to discover all the various
parts in many different *.hpp files. Placing executable code into
macros then including those macros in every *.cpp file (even
those that never use those macros) will maximize the amount of
recompilation necessary if ever that code changes.
- Java is schizophrenic about array declarations. You can do
them the old C, way String x[], (which uses mixed pre-postfix
notation) or the new way String[] x, which uses pure prefix
notation. If you want to really confuse people, mix the
notations:
e.g.
byte[] rowvector, colvector, matrix[];
which is equivalent to:
byte[] rowvector;
byte[] colvector;
byte[][] matrix;
- Java offers great opportunity for obfuscation whenever you
have to convert. As a simple example, if you have to convert a
double to a String, go circuitously, via Double with new
Double(d).toString() rather than the more direct
Double.toString(d). You can, of course, be far more
circuitous than that! Avoid any conversion techniques recommended
by the Conversion Amanuensis.
You get bonus points for every extra temporary object you leave
littering the heap after your conversion.
- Use threads with abandon.
- Use exceptions for non-exceptional conditions. Routinely
terminate loops with an ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
Pass return standard results from a method in an exception.
- Never check input data for any kind of correctness or
discrepancies. It will demonstrate that you absolutely trust the
company's equipment as well as that you are a perfect team player
who trusts all project partners and system operators. Always
return reasonable values even when data inputs are
questionable or erroneous.
- If your boss thinks that his or her 20 year old FORTRAN
experience is an excellent guide to contemporary programming,
Rigidly follow all his or her recommendations. As a result, the
boss will trust you. That may help you in your career. You will
learn many new methods to obfuscate program code.
- Use octal constants. Smuggle them into a list of decimal numbers like this:
- You don't need great skill to write unmaintainable code. Just
leap in and start coding. Keep in mind that management still
measures productivity in lines of code even if you have to delete
most of it later.
- Stick with what you know and travel light; if you only carry
a hammer then all problems are nails.
- Be never vigilant of the next Y2K. If you ever spot
something that could sneak up on a fixed deadline and destroy all
life in the western hemisphere then do not openly discuss it
until we are under the critical 4 year till event window of
panic and opportunity. Do not tell friends, coworkers, or other
competent people of your discovery. Under no circumstances
attempt to publish anything that might hint at this new and
tremendously profitable threat. Do send one normal priority,
jargon encrypted, memo to upper management to cover-your-a$$. If
at all possible attach the jargon encrypted information as a
rider on an otherwise unrelated plain-text memo pertaining to a
more immediately pressing business concern. Rest assured that we
all see the threat too. Sleep sound at night knowing that long
after you've been forced into early retirement you will be begged
to come back at a logarithmically increased hourly rate!
- Whenever possible ignore the coding standards currently in
use by thousands of developers in your project's target language
and environment. For example insist on STL style coding standards
when writing an MFC based application.
- Include powerful third party libraries in your project and
then don't use them. With practice you can remain completely
ignorant of good tools and add the unused tools to your resume in
your "Other Tools" section.
- Feign ignorance of libraries that are directly included with
your development tool. If coding in Visual C++ ignore the
presence of MFC or the STL and code all character strings and
arrays by hand; this helps keep your pointer skills sharp and it
automatically foils any attempts to extend the code.
- Always refuse to accept advances in the development
environment arena. Disbelieve rumors that all functions and
variables are never more than one click away and always assume
that code developed in Visual Studio 6.0 will be maintained by
someone using edlin or vi. To this end insist on Draconian
commenting rules that bury the source code.
- Hungarian Notation is the tactical nuclear weapon of source
code obfuscation techniques; use it! Due to the sheer volume of
source code contaminated by this idiom nothing can kill a
maintenance engineer faster than a well planned Hungarian
Notation attack. The following tips will help you corrupt the
original intent of Hungarian Notation:
- Insist on using "c" for const in C++ and other
languages that directly enforce the const-ness of a variable.
- Seek out and use Hungarian warts that have meaning in
languages other than your current language. For example insist on
the PowerBuilder "l_" and "a_" {local and argument} scoping
prefixes and always use the VB-esque style of having a Hungarian
wart for every control type when coding to C++. Try to stay
ignorant of the fact that megs of plainly visible MFC source code
does not use Hungarian warts for control types.
- Always violate the Hungarian principle that the most
commonly used variables should carry the least extra information
around with them. Achieve this end through the techniques
outlined above and by insisting that each class type have a
custom wart prefix. Never allow anyone to remind you that
no wart tells you that something is a class. The
importance of this rule cannot be overstated: if you fail to
adhere to its principles the source code may become flooded with
shorter variable names that have a higher vowel/consonant ratio.
In the worst case scenario this can lead to a full collapse of
obfuscation and the spontaneous reappearance of English Notation
in code!
- Flagrantly violate the Hungarian-esque concept that
function parameters and other high visibility symbols must be
given meaningful names, but that Hungarian type warts all by
themselves make excellent temporary variable names.
- Insist on carrying outright orthogonal information in your
Hungarian warts. Consider this real world example:
"a_crszkvc30LastNameCol". It took a team of maintenance engineers
nearly 3 days to figure out that this whopper variable name
described a const, reference, function argument that was holding
information from a database column of type Varchar[30] named
"LastName" which was part of the table's primary key. When
properly combined with the principle that "all variables should
be public" this technique has the power to render thousands of
lines of source code obsolete instantly!
- Use to your advantage the principle that the human brain can
only hold 7 pieces of information concurrently. For example code
written to the above standard has the following properties:
- a single assignment statement carries 14 pieces of type and
name information.
- a single function call that passes three parameters and
assigns a result carries 29 pieces of type and name
information.
- Seek to improve this excellent, but far too concise,
standard. Impress management and coworkers by recommending a 5
letter day of the week prefix to help isolate code written on
'Monam' and 'Fripm'.
- It is easy to overwhelm the short term memory with even a
moderately complex nesting structure, especially when the
maintenance programmer can't see the start and end of each block on
screen simultaneously.
- Create a build order that is so elaborate that no maintainer
could ever get any of his or her fixes to compile. Keep secret
SmartJ which renders make scripts almost obsolete.
Similarly, keep secret that the javac compiler is also
available as a class. On pain of death, never reveal how easy it
is to write and maintain a speedy little custom java program to
find the files and do the make.
- This trick works especially well in Ada, a language immune to
many of the standard obfuscation techniques. The people who
originally named all the objects and packages you use were
morons. Rather than try to convince them to change, just use
renames and subtypes to rename everything to names of your own
devising. Make sure to leave a few references to the old names
in, as a trap for the unwary.
- Extended ASCII characters are perfectly valid as variable
names, including ß, Ð, and ñ characters. They
are quite impossible to type without copying/pasting.
- If you cannot find the right English word to convey the
meaning of a temporary variable (and you ignore the other
suggestions about not giving meaningful names to variables), you
may use a foreign language word as the name of the variable. For
example, instead of using variable "p" for a
"point", you may use "punkt", which is the
German word for it. Maintenance coders without your firm grasp of
German will enjoy the multicultural experience of deciphering the
meaning. It breaks the tedium of an otherwise tiring and
thankless job.
- Some companies have a strict policy of no numeric literals; you must
use named constants. It is fairly easy to foil the intent of this
policy. For example, one clever C++ programmer wrote:
#define K_ONE 1
#define K_TWO 2
#define K_THOUSAND 999
- #define in C++ deserves an entire essay on its own to explore
its rich possibilities for obfuscation. Use lower case #define
variables so they masquerade as ordinary variables. Never use
parameters to your preprocessor functions. Do everything with
global #defines. One of the most imaginative uses of the
preprocessor was requiring five passes through CPP before the
code was ready to compile.
- Whenever you have to use methods in code you did not write,
insulate your code from that other dirty code by at least
one layer of wrapper. After all, the other author might
some time in the future recklessly rename every method. Then
where would you be? You could of course, if he did such a thing,
insulate your code from the changes by writing a wrapper or you
could let VAJ handle the global rename. However, this is the
perfect excuse to preemptively cut him off at the pass with a
wrapper layer of indirection, before he does anything
idiotic. One of Java's main faults is that there is no way to
solve many simple problems without dummy wrapper methods that do
nothing but call another method of the same name, or a closely
related name. This means it is possible to write wrappers
four-levels deep that do absolutely nothing, and almost no one
will notice. To maximise the obscuration, at each level, rename
the methods, selecting random synonyms from a thesaurus. This
gives the illusion something of note is happening. Further, the
renaming helps ensure the lack of consistent project terminology.
To ensure no one attempts to prune your levels back to a
reasonable number, invoke your code at the application level via
each of the levels.
Philosophy
The people who design languages are the people who write the
compilers and system classes. Quite naturally they design to make
their work easy and mathematically elegant. However, there are
10,000 maintenance programmers to every compiler writer. The
grunt maintenance programmers have absolutely no say in the
design of languages. Yet the total amount of code they write
dwarfs the code in the compilers.
An example of the result of this sort of elitist thinking is the
JDBC interface. It makes life easy for the JDBC implementor, but
a nightmare for the maintenance programmer. It is far
clumsier than the Fortran interface that came out with SQL
three decades ago.
Maintenance programmers, if somebody ever consulted them, would
demand ways to hide the housekeeping details so they could see
the forest for the trees. They would demand all sorts of
shortcuts so they would not have to type so much and so they
could see more of the program at once on the screen. They would
complain loudly about the myriad petty time-wasting tasks the
compilers demand of them.
There are some efforts in this direction: NetRexx, Bali, and visual editors (e.g. IBM's Visual
Age is a start) that can collapse detail irrelevant to the
current purpose.
The Shoemaker Has No Shoes
Imagine having an accountant as a client who insisted on
maintaining his general ledgers using a word processor. You would
do you best to persuade him that his data should be structured.
He needs validation with cross field checks. You would persuade
him he could do so much more with that data when stored in a
database, including controlled simultaneous update.
Imagine taking on a software developer as a client. He insists on
maintaining all his data with a text editor. He is not yet even
exploiting the word processor's colour, type size or fonts.
Think of what might happen if we started storing source code as
structured data. We could view the same source code in
many alternate ways, e.g. as Java, as NextRex, as a decision
table, as a flow chart, as a loop structure skeleton (with the
detail stripped off), as Java with various levels of detail or
comments removed, as Java with highlights on the variables and
method invocations of current interest, or as Java with generated
comments about argument names and/or types. We could display
complex arithmetic expressions in 2D, the way TeX and
mathematicians do. You could see code with additional or fewer
parentheses, (depending on how comfortable
you feel with the precedence rules ).
Parenthesis nests could use varying size and colour to help
matching by eye. With changes as transparent overlay sets that
you can optionally remove or apply, you could watch in real time
as other programmers on your team, working in a different
country, modified code in classes that you were working on too.
You could use the full colour abilities of the modern screen to
give subliminal clues, e.g. by automatically assigning a portion
of the spectrum to each package/class using a pastel shades as
the backgrounds to any references to methods or variables of that
class. You could bold face the definition of any identifier to
make it stand out.
You could ask what methods/constructors will produce an object of
type X? What methods will accept an object of type X as a
parameter? What variables are accessible in this point in the
code? By clicking on a method invocation or variable reference,
you could see its definition, helping sort out which version of a
given method will actually be invoked. You could ask to globally
visit all references to a given method or variable, and tick them
off once each was dealt with. You could do quite a bit of code
writing by point and click.
Some of these ideas would not pan out. But the best way to find
out which would be valuable in practice is to try them. Once we
had the basic tool, we could experiment with hundreds of similar
ideas to make like easier for the maintenance programmer.
I discuss this further under SCID and in the SCID student project.
Contributors
The following are some of the people who contributed to this
list. My lawyers recommended I exclude those who taught by
example.
- Hugh McDonald, hughmcd@ican
- Gareth Meyrick, gareth@pangloss.ucsf.edu
- Jarle Stabell, jarle.stabell@dokpro.uio.no
- Ko-Haw Nieh, niko@quality.com
- Jim Johnson, jimj@jumpmusic.com
- Jim Hyslop, Jim.Hyslop@mars.leitch.com
- George Ruban, gruban%adsl4@gte.com
- Mats Carlid, mats@adbk.se
- John P. McGrath, mcgrath@enter.net
- Brian Hurt, brianh@bit3.com
- Chris Schlenker, Christoph.Schlenker@gfk.de
- Nicholas Widdows, nicholas.widdows@traceplc.co.uk
- Greg Compestine, gregcompestine@caleb-bldr.com
- Carl L. Gay, sigue@thecia.net
- Leonid Efros, l_efros@hotmail.com
- Richard W. Noble, rwnoble@san.rr.com
- Simon Broad, simon.broad@macro4.com
- Doron Rajwan, doron@capella.co.il
- austin rosenfeld, ablomi@yahoo.com
- Wes Groleau, wwgrol@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com
- Joshua Schpok, schpok@hotmail.com
- Russ Fink, rfink@bbn.com
- John Matthews, John.Matthews@nectech.co.uk
- Neugroschl Scott, Neugroschl.Scott@LittonDSD.com
This article appeared in Java Developers' Journal (volume 2 issue
6). I also spoke on this topic in 1997 November at the Colorado Summit
Conference. It has been gradually growing ever since. I have
had quite a few requests for permission to build links here. You
are welcome to create links, but please don't repost the essay
since the original changes frequently.
If you enjoyed this essay you might like this one on how to write like a newbie.