I just read the post Hyperfocus and balance of Arc Riley from PySoy who talks about trying to get to the Hyperfocus state without endangering his health. Since I have similar needs1, I am developing some strategies for that myself (though not for my health, but because my wife and son can’t be expected to let me work 8h without any interruptions in my free time).
I try to change my programming habits instead of changing myself to fit to the requirements of my habits, though.
The guideline I learned from writing PnP roleplaying games is to keep the number of things to know below 7 at each point (well, the actual limitation for average humans is 4 objects!). For a function of code I would convert that as follows:
Only 4 things left for the code of your function. (three if you use class attributes/global values and function arguments. Two, if you have complex custom data-structures with peculiar names or access-methods which you have to understand for doing anything. One if you also have to remember the commands of an unfamiliar editor or VCS tool. See how fast this approaches zero even starting with 7 things?)
Add an if-switch, for-loop or similar and you have only 3 things left.
You need those for what the function should actually do, so better put further complexities into subfunctions.
But if you want to be able to hack that code while you feel dumb (compared to those streaks of genius when you can actually hold the whole structure of your program in your head and forsee every effect of a given change before actually doing it), you need to make sure that you don’t have to take all 7 things into account. Tune it down for the times when you feel dumb by starting with 5 things2, and you get:
2 things for your function. Some Logic and calling stuff are 2 things.
If it is an if-switch, let it be just an if-switch calling other functions. Yes, it may feel much easier to do it directly here, when you are fully embedded in your code and feel great, but it will bite you when you are down. Which is exactly when you won’t want to be bitten by your own code.
The effects of any given change should be contained in the part of the code you work in - and in one type of code.
As web framework, Django seperates the templates, the URI definitions, the program code and the database access from each other. (see how these are already 4 cathegories, hitting the limit of our mind again?)
For a game on the other hand, you might want to seperate story, game logic, presentation (what you see on the screen) and input/user actions. Also people who write a scenario or level should only have to work in one type of code, neatly confined in a file or a small set of files which reside in the same place.
And for a scientific program, data input, task definition, processing and data output might be seperated.
Remember that this seperation does not only mean that you put them into different files, but that these parts are only loosely coupled:
They only use lean and clearly defined interfaces and don’t need to know much about each other.
This does not only make your program easier to adapt (because the parts you need to change for implementing a given feature are smaller). If you apply it not only to the bigger structure, but to every part of the program, it’s main advantage is that any part of the code can be understood without having to understand other parts.
And you can still understand and hack your code, when your child is sick, your wife is overworked, you slept only 3 hours the night before - and can only work for half an hour straight, because it’s evening and you don’t want to be a creep (but this change has to be finished nontheless).
Note that finding a design which allows that is far more complex than it sounds. If people can read your code and say “oh, that’s easy. I can hack that” (and manage to do so), then you did it right.
Designing a simple structure to solve a complex task is far harder than designing a complex structure to solve that task.
Where I got bitten badly by my high-performance coding habits is the keyboard layout evolution program. I did not catch my error when the structure grew too complex (while adding stuff), and now that I do not have as much uninterrupted time as before, I cannot actually work on it efficiently anymore. I’m glad that this happened with a mostly finished project on whoose evolution no ones future depended. Still it is sad that this will keep me from turning it into a realtime visual layout optimizer. I can still work on its existing functionality (I kept improving it for the most importang task: the cost calculation), but adding new functionality is a huge pain. ↩
See how I actually don’t get below 5 here? A good TODO list which shows you the task so you can forget it while coding might get you down to 4. But don’t bet on it. Not knowing where you are or where you want to go are recipes for desaster… And if you make your functions too small, the collection of functions gets more complex, or the object hierarchy too deep, adding complexity at other places. Well, no one said creating well-structured programs were easy. You need to find the right compromise for you. ↩
Diese Seite nutzt Drupal.
Design: Arne Babenhauserheide.
Werke von Arne Babenhauserheide.
Lizensiert unter freien Lizenzen.