This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
Continuing the line of thought from last time (Sharp Tools vs. Frameworks), another issue I see in quite a few frameworks and some systems is a code anti-pattern I'll call The Modular Monolith.
We all know that modularity is a good thing to have in a system. Modular code, in general, reduces coupling between components, allows easier reuse, and simplifies understanding. When done correctly, each module can be analyzed, tested, and understood independently of most of the rest of the system. In object oriented programming, the smallest module we work with is the class. Usually a group of classes work together as a subsystem (or package). In other paradigms, the smallest module might be a library.
In any case, we are all pretty much familiar with the benefits and concepts of modularity. At the present time, it would probably be hard to find anyone that does not accept that modularity is a good design principle.
In some systems or frameworks, you may run into a problem using a single class. When you try to include the class, you find dependencies on other classes. In some cases, this is perfectly reasonable. If the class you are including requires some low-level utility classes to do its work, that's understandable. But sometimes, you find that the class depends on other classes at the same level of complexity. If some of those classes depend on other classes that depend on other classes, you can eventually reach the point of needing the entire framework (or system) to use any part of it.
In this case, we no longer have modular code, we have a monolith. The oxymoron modular monolith refers to the fact that the code is modular in the sense that there are modules. The problem is that the modules are so tightly coupled together that they might as well be a single monolithic stone. No piece can be used without bringing the whole structure along for the ride.
One mechanism that can cause this problem is the over-use of Singletons. The Singleton, by its nature, can cause hidden coupling between the classes that use the Singleton and the classes the Singleton uses. This is one reason why the test-infected are usually against the use of the Singleton pattern. A system with multiple Singletons can result in connections that are almost impossible to unravel.
Another cause of this increased coupling is low-level classes that depend on high-level classes. This violation of layers is almost guaranteed to generate blobs of classes that must always be used as a unit. Many systems cause this problem through trying to connect error-reporting to low-level code. As the error reporting becomes more advanced, it brings in subsystems unrelated to the purpose of the utility class.
Frameworks aren't the only place you can see this anti-pattern. I've also run into this problem with systems written by people who have only worked in one system. The idea that code could be used outside the system never occurs to them. You can often recognize this situation with people who load up the multi-megabyte widget processing system as part of a piece of code to count the lines in a text file. Since they have always worked on this system, they treat it as the whole programming universe. All code must exist in the system.
The bad news is that these systems seem to be built on the modular monolith and the modular monolith further reinforces the attitude that everything must be done as part of the one system. This positive feedback makes stopping the behavior in either case almost impossible.
Posted by GWade at March 16, 2008 10:58 AM. Email comments