John Ousterhout contrasts his book "A Philosophy of Software Design" (APoSD) with Robert Martin's "Clean Code," arguing they offer distinct, complementary perspectives. APoSD focuses on high-level design principles for managing complexity, emphasizing modularity, information hiding, and deep classes with simple interfaces. Clean Code, conversely, concentrates on low-level coding style and best practices, addressing naming conventions, function length, and comment usage. Ousterhout believes both approaches are valuable but APoSD's strategic focus on managing complexity in larger systems is more critical for long-term software success than Clean Code's tactical advice. He suggests developers benefit from studying both, prioritizing APoSD's broader design philosophy before implementing Clean Code's stylistic refinements.
John Ousterhout, the author of "A Philosophy of Software Design" (APOSD), contrasts his book with Robert C. Martin's "Clean Code," highlighting key philosophical differences in their approaches to software design. While acknowledging the value of "Clean Code," particularly for novice programmers learning fundamental best practices, Ousterhout argues that it focuses too narrowly on tactical aspects of coding, neglecting the broader strategic considerations crucial for managing complexity in larger software systems.
"Clean Code," according to Ousterhout, emphasizes relatively superficial elements like code formatting, naming conventions, and avoiding duplication. While these practices contribute to code readability and maintainability, they don't address the core challenge of software design: minimizing complexity. Ousterhout contends that "Clean Code" offers a collection of rules and heuristics without a unifying principle to guide design decisions in complex scenarios. These rules, while individually beneficial, can sometimes conflict, leaving developers unsure how to prioritize them in different contexts.
In contrast, APOSD presents a cohesive philosophy centered on minimizing complexity as the primary design objective. The book argues that complexity is the root of most software development problems, making systems difficult to understand, modify, and debug. It proposes deep modules, interfaces that abstract away implementation details, and information hiding as key strategies to manage this complexity. This focus on strategic design decisions, Ousterhout believes, offers a more powerful framework for building and maintaining large, evolving software systems.
Ousterhout further elaborates on the distinction by comparing the books' treatment of comments. "Clean Code" advocates for self-documenting code and minimizing comments, arguing that they can become outdated and misleading. APOSD, however, views comments as crucial for explaining the why behind design choices, particularly the higher-level rationale that is not readily apparent from the code itself. These comments, focused on strategic decisions rather than low-level implementation details, serve as essential documentation for future developers navigating the system's complexity.
Ousterhout also contrasts the books' discussions on error handling. He argues that "Clean Code" primarily focuses on handling errors gracefully, while APOSD emphasizes designing systems to minimize the occurrence of errors in the first place. This proactive approach to error prevention, he suggests, is a more effective long-term strategy for building robust and reliable software.
Finally, Ousterhout acknowledges the importance of the practical advice presented in "Clean Code," particularly for less experienced developers. However, he underscores the limitations of a purely tactical approach, arguing that a deeper understanding of design principles, as presented in APOSD, is essential for tackling the complexity inherent in large software projects and building truly maintainable and scalable systems. He positions APOSD as a more advanced guide for experienced developers aiming to move beyond basic code hygiene and embrace a more strategic, complexity-focused approach to software design.
Summary of Comments ( 314 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43166362
HN commenters largely agree with Ousterhout's criticisms of "Clean Code," finding many of its rules dogmatic and unproductive. Several commenters pointed to specific examples from the book that they found counterproductive, like the single responsibility principle leading to excessive class fragmentation, and the obsession with short functions and methods obscuring larger architectural issues. Some felt that "Clean Code" focuses too much on low-level details at the expense of higher-level design considerations, which Ousterhout emphasizes. A few commenters offered alternative resources on software design they found more valuable. There was some debate over the value of comments, with some arguing that clear code should speak for itself and others suggesting that comments serve a crucial role in explaining intent and rationale. Finally, some pointed out that "Clean Code," while flawed, can be a helpful starting point for junior developers, but should not be taken as gospel.
The Hacker News post "Clean Code vs. A Philosophy Of Software Design" sparked a lively discussion with a variety of perspectives on the two books. Several commenters appreciated Ousterhout's emphasis on deep modularity and strategic design compared to what they perceived as Clean Code's focus on more superficial aspects of code style. One commenter, seemingly experienced with large codebases, expressed strong agreement with Ousterhout, highlighting the challenges of maintaining systems over time and the importance of design choices for long-term health and developer productivity. They found Ousterhout's advice practical and applicable to real-world scenarios, something they felt was sometimes lacking in Clean Code.
Another commenter questioned the target audience of Clean Code, suggesting that its advice might be more suitable for beginners still grappling with fundamental programming concepts. They appreciated the depth and strategic thinking encouraged by Ousterhout's book, implying it's better suited for experienced developers dealing with complex systems.
Several comments centered on the perceived rigidity and prescriptiveness of Clean Code, contrasting it with the more principle-based approach of Ousterhout's book. One commenter specifically criticized Clean Code's rules as sometimes arbitrary and lacking sufficient justification. This led to a discussion about the nuance required in applying coding principles, emphasizing that context and specific project requirements should always be considered. There was also a contrasting viewpoint that appreciated the concreteness of Clean Code's rules, finding them easier to grasp and implement, especially for less experienced developers.
The debate extended to specific examples from the books, with commenters dissecting the advice offered on function length and commenting. The practicality and usefulness of these specific recommendations were contested, highlighting the subjective nature of some coding practices.
A few comments touched on the larger context of software design, discussing the importance of considering the trade-offs between different approaches and the evolution of best practices over time. They acknowledged that while some aspects of Clean Code might be considered dated, it still holds value in certain contexts. The overall sentiment seemed to lean towards valuing the deep modularity principles espoused by Ousterhout, with Clean Code seen as potentially useful but needing to be applied judiciously.
Finally, some commenters expressed a desire for more concrete examples and case studies in Ousterhout's book to further illustrate his principles. Despite this, the overall tone of the discussion was one of appreciation for Ousterhout's contribution to the ongoing conversation about software design.