- •Table of Contents
- •About the Author
- •About the Technical Reviewer
- •Acknowledgments
- •Software Entropy
- •Clean Code
- •C++11: The Beginning of a New Era
- •Who This Book Is For
- •Conventions Used in This Book
- •Sidebars
- •Notes, Tips, and Warnings
- •Code Samples
- •Coding Style
- •C++ Core Guidelines
- •Companion Website and Source Code Repository
- •UML Diagrams
- •The Need for Testing
- •Unit Tests
- •What About QA?
- •Rules for Good Unit Tests
- •Test Code Quality
- •Unit Test Naming
- •Unit Test Independence
- •One Assertion per Test
- •Independent Initialization of Unit Test Environments
- •Exclude Getters and Setters
- •Exclude Third-Party Code
- •Exclude External Systems
- •What Do We Do with the Database?
- •Don’t Mix Test Code with Production Code
- •Tests Must Run Fast
- •How Do You Find a Test’s Input Data?
- •Equivalence Partitioning
- •Boundary Value Analysis
- •Test Doubles (Fake Objects)
- •What Is a Principle?
- •KISS
- •YAGNI
- •It’s About Knowledge!
- •Building Abstractions Is Sometimes Hard
- •Information Hiding
- •Strong Cohesion
- •Loose Coupling
- •Be Careful with Optimizations
- •Principle of Least Astonishment (PLA)
- •The Boy Scout Rule
- •Collective Code Ownership
- •Good Names
- •Names Should Be Self-Explanatory
- •Use Names from the Domain
- •Choose Names at an Appropriate Level of Abstraction
- •Avoid Redundancy When Choosing a Name
- •Avoid Cryptic Abbreviations
- •Avoid Hungarian Notation and Prefixes
- •Avoid Using the Same Name for Different Purposes
- •Comments
- •Let the Code Tell the Story
- •Do Not Comment Obvious Things
- •Don’t Disable Code with Comments
- •Don’t Write Block Comments
- •Don’t Use Comments to Substitute Version Control
- •The Rare Cases Where Comments Are Useful
- •Documentation Generation from Source Code
- •Functions
- •One Thing, No More!
- •Let Them Be Small
- •“But the Call Time Overhead!”
- •Function Naming
- •Use Intention-Revealing Names
- •Parameters and Return Values
- •Avoid Flag Parameters
- •Avoid Output Parameters
- •Don’t Pass or Return 0 (NULL, nullptr)
- •Strategies for Avoiding Regular Pointers
- •Choose simple object construction on the stack instead of on the heap
- •In a function’s argument list, use (const) references instead of pointers
- •If it is inevitable to deal with a pointer to a resource, use a smart one
- •If an API returns a raw pointer...
- •The Power of const Correctness
- •About Old C-Style in C++ Projects
- •Choose C++ Strings and Streams over Old C-Style char*
- •Use C++ Casts Instead of Old C-Style Casts
- •Avoid Macros
- •Managing Resources
- •Resource Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII)
- •Smart Pointers
- •Unique Ownership with std::unique_ptr<T>
- •Shared Ownership with std::shared_ptr<T>
- •No Ownership, but Secure Access with std::weak_ptr<T>
- •Atomic Smart Pointers
- •Avoid Explicit New and Delete
- •Managing Proprietary Resources
- •We Like to Move It
- •What Are Move Semantics?
- •The Matter with Those lvalues and rvalues
- •rvalue References
- •Don’t Enforce Move Everywhere
- •The Rule of Zero
- •The Compiler Is Your Colleague
- •Automatic Type Deduction
- •Computations During Compile Time
- •Variable Templates
- •Don’t Allow Undefined Behavior
- •Type-Rich Programming
- •Know Your Libraries
- •Take Advantage of <algorithm>
- •Easier Parallelization of Algorithms Since C++17
- •Sorting and Output of a Container
- •More Convenience with Ranges
- •Non-Owning Ranges with Views
- •Comparing Two Sequences
- •Take Advantage of Boost
- •More Libraries That You Should Know About
- •Proper Exception and Error Handling
- •Prevention Is Better Than Aftercare
- •No Exception Safety
- •Basic Exception Safety
- •Strong Exception Safety
- •The No-Throw Guarantee
- •An Exception Is an Exception, Literally!
- •If You Can’t Recover, Get Out Quickly
- •Define User-Specific Exception Types
- •Throw by Value, Catch by const Reference
- •Pay Attention to the Correct Order of Catch Clauses
- •Interface Design
- •Attributes
- •noreturn (since C++11)
- •deprecated (since C++14)
- •nodiscard (since C++17)
- •maybe_unused (since C++17)
- •Concepts: Requirements for Template Arguments
- •The Basics of Modularization
- •Criteria for Finding Modules
- •Focus on the Domain of Your Software
- •Abstraction
- •Choose a Hierarchical Decomposition
- •Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)
- •Single Level of Abstraction (SLA)
- •The Whole Enchilada
- •Object-Orientation
- •Object-Oriented Thinking
- •Principles for Good Class Design
- •Keep Classes Small
- •Open-Closed Principle (OCP)
- •A Short Comparison of Type Erasure Techniques
- •Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP)
- •The Square-Rectangle Dilemma
- •Favor Composition over Inheritance
- •Interface Segregation Principle (ISP)
- •Acyclic Dependency Principle
- •Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)
- •Don’t Talk to Strangers (The Law of Demeter)
- •Avoid Anemic Classes
- •Tell, Don’t Ask!
- •Avoid Static Class Members
- •Modules
- •The Drawbacks of #include
- •Three Options for Using Modules
- •Include Translation
- •Header Importation
- •Module Importation
- •Separating Interface and Implementation
- •The Impact of Modules
- •What Is Functional Programming?
- •What Is a Function?
- •Pure vs Impure Functions
- •Functional Programming in Modern C++
- •Functional Programming with C++ Templates
- •Function-Like Objects (Functors)
- •Generator
- •Unary Function
- •Predicate
- •Binary Functors
- •Binders and Function Wrappers
- •Lambda Expressions
- •Generic Lambda Expressions (C++14)
- •Lambda Templates (C++20)
- •Higher-Order Functions
- •Map, Filter, and Reduce
- •Filter
- •Reduce (Fold)
- •Fold Expressions in C++17
- •Pipelining with Range Adaptors (C++20)
- •Clean Code in Functional Programming
- •The Drawbacks of Plain Old Unit Testing (POUT)
- •Test-Driven Development as a Game Changer
- •The Workflow of TDD
- •TDD by Example: The Roman Numerals Code Kata
- •Preparations
- •The First Test
- •The Second Test
- •The Third Test and the Tidying Afterward
- •More Sophisticated Tests with a Custom Assertion
- •It’s Time to Clean Up Again
- •Approaching the Finish Line
- •Done!
- •The Advantages of TDD
- •When We Should Not Use TDD
- •TDD Is Not a Replacement for Code Reviews
- •Design Principles vs Design Patterns
- •Some Patterns and When to Use Them
- •Dependency Injection (DI)
- •The Singleton Anti-Pattern
- •Dependency Injection to the Rescue
- •Adapter
- •Strategy
- •Command
- •Command Processor
- •Composite
- •Observer
- •Factories
- •Simple Factory
- •Facade
- •The Money Class
- •Special Case Object (Null Object)
- •What Is an Idiom?
- •Some Useful C++ Idioms
- •The Power of Immutability
- •Substitution Failure Is Not an Error (SFINAE)
- •The Copy-and-Swap Idiom
- •Pointer to Implementation (PIMPL)
- •Structural Modeling
- •Component
- •Interface
- •Association
- •Generalization
- •Dependency
- •Template and Template Binding
- •Behavioral Modeling
- •Activity Diagram
- •Action
- •Control Flow Edge
- •Other Activity Nodes
- •Sequence Diagram
- •Lifeline
- •Message
- •State Diagram
- •State
- •Transitions
- •External Transitions
- •Internal Transitions
- •Trigger
- •Stereotypes
- •Bibliography
- •Index
Chapter 6 Modularization
requirement regarding the graphical user interface has to be implemented, then this class has obviously too many responsibilities.
Another type of aspect relates to the system’s domain. If the same software unit must be changed, either because there are new requirements regarding the customer management, or there are new requirements regarding the invoicing, this software unit has too many responsibilities.
If we look again at the general hierarchical decomposition of a system as depicted in Figure 6-1, we can see that on every hierarchy level, every depicted part and software unit should have one well-defined and clear responsibility.
Single Level of Abstraction (SLA)
The principle of Single Level of Abstraction (SLA) states that each software unit—and this includes all units mentioned in the section on the SRP—should be composed of parts that are all at the next lower level of abstraction.
Software units usually have different levels of abstraction. For example, take a method of a class. The instructions within this method should all be at the same level of abstraction. Assigning a value to one of the class’s attribute is on a lower level of abstraction than calling another method from within that method. The reason for this is that a method call can conceal the execution of a significant amount of complex logic.
If you take a look at the literature, the SLA is always only explained on the basis of the lines of code within a function or method. However, the principle should also be applied to the software units above the functions and methods, e.g., to larger software components. The building blocks that make up the software component, maybe a bunch of collaborating classes, should all be at the same next lower level of abstraction.
Why is this principle important?
First of all, the single level of abstraction fosters the readability of the code significantly. Mixing levels of abstraction can be very challenging for readers of the code, because our brain must permanently handle a mental shift between thinking about higher-level concepts and low-level implementation details.
Another great advantage is that SLA harmonizes extremely well with the aforementioned principles SRP, the practice of hierarchical decomposition, and especially with the domain-centric approach.
226