Original at: http://mindprod.com/unmain.html
How To Write Unmaintainable Code
Introduction
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
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
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.
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 at 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.
You might get the idea that every language feature makes code unmaintainable --
not so, only if properly misused.
Naming
Much of the skill in writing unmaintainable code is the art of naming variables
and methods. They don't matter at all to the comuputer. That gives you huge
latitude to use them to befuddle the maintenance programmer.
-
New Uses For Names For Baby:
Buy a copy of a baby naming book and you'll never be at a loss for variable
names. Fred is a wonderful name, and easy to type. If you're looking for easy
to type variable names, try adsf or aoeu if you type with a DSK
keyboard.
-
Creative Missspelling:If you must use
descriptive variable and function names, misspell them.
-
Be Abstract: In naming functions and
variables, 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.
-
A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.S.: Use acronyms to keep the
code terse. Real men never define acronyms; they understand them genetically.
-
Thesaurus Surrogatisation: 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.
-
Use Plural Forms From Other Languages. A
contributor was the proud author of a VMS script that kept track of the "statii"
returned from various "Vaxen". Esperanto, Klingon and Hobbitese
qualify as languages for these purposes. For pseudo-Esperanto pluraloj, add oj.
You will be doing your part toward world peace.
-
CapiTaliSaTion:If you use
intercapitalization for function names (capitalize the first letter of each word),
randomly capitalize the first letter of a syllable in the middle of a word. For
example: ComputeRasterHistoGram().
-
Recyle Classnames as Member Names: In C/C++:
Make sure to create parameters and local variables that have the same name as
member variables of the class whose method they appear in. For extra points,
create nested local variables inside {} blocks that have the same name as these
local variables. The goal is for careful examination of scope to be the only way
to tell which context is actually being used.
-
Åccented Letters: Use accented
characters on variable names. E.g.
typedef struct { int i; } ínt;
where the second int's i is actually iacute. Since these are structures the
three int's are not interchangeable, but with an 8-bit aware editor it's nearly
impossible to distinguish the slant of the accent mark. Insist the new "ints
" are for some specific, but very obscure, situation where a standard int
won't suffice. It helps to toss extra stuff into the structure before making
that claim!
-
Exploit Compiler Name Length Limits: If the
compiler will only distinguish the first, say, 8 characters of names, then
always use more characters, but vary the endings e.g. var_unit_update() in one
case and var_unit_setup() in another
-
Underscore, a Friend Indeed: Use _ or __ as
an identifier.
-
Mix English and Bahasa Indonesia: If English
is your second language, use English for variable names, functions, messages
appearing on-screen, and comments. However randomly intersperse them with words
chosen from your native language. If your boss insists you use English tell him
you can organize your thoughts better in your own language, or allege racial
discrimination and threaten to sue your employers for a vast sum of money. Now
that your boss does not understand your code you can use obscuration techniques
that you would never get away with otherwise and will foil a future maintenance
programmer even if she is also native speaker or is equipped with a bilingual
dictionary.
-
Extended ASCII: Extended ASCII characters
are perfectly valid as variable names, including ß, Ð, and ñ
characters. They are quite impossible to type without copying/pasting.
-
Deutch, Français, Esperanto 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.
-
Consider equals As A Variable Name:
Choose variable names that are English versions of operators, to get statements
like:
openParen = (slash
+ asterix) /
equals;
-
Bedazzling Variable Names:
Choose all variable names to be words that have no association whatsoever with
the actual function of the program but which have strong inherent meaning as
words. For example, you could end up with statements like:
marypoppins = (julieAndrews
+ starship)
/ mailbox;
This confuses the reader because they have difficulty disassociating the
concepts of the words from the logic they're trying to think about. (Combine
this with the above method and it's basically impossible to recover, because
search and replace becomes impossible.)
-
Rename and Reuse: 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.
-
Reuse Names: Java lets you create methods
that have the same name as the class, but that are not constructors. Exploit
this to sow confusion.
-
When To Use i: Never use i for the
innermost loop variable. Use anything but. Use i liberally for any
other purpose especially for non-int variables. Similarly use n as a
loop index.
-
Conventions Schemtions:
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.
-
Lower Case l Looks A Lot Like Digit 1: Use
lower case l to indicate long constants. e.g. 10l is more likely to be mistaken
for 101 that 10L is.
-
Reuse of Global Names as Private: Declare a
global array in module A, and a private one of the same name in the header file
for module B, so that it appears that it's the global array you are using in
module B, but it isn't. Make no reference in the comments to this duplication.
-
Recycling Revisited: Use scoping as
confusingly as possible by recycling variable names in contradictory ways. For
example, suppose you have global variables A and B, and functions foo and bar.
If you know that variable A will be regularly passed to foo and B to bar, make
sure to define the functions as function foo(B) and function bar(A) so that
inside the functions A will always be referred to as B and vice versa. With more
functions and globals, you can create vast confusing webs of mutually
contradictory uses of the same names.
-
Recycle Your Variables: 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.
-
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.
-
Misleading names: 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.
-
m_: a naming convention from the world of C++
is the use of "m_" in front of members. This is supposed to help you
tell them apart from methods, so long as you forget that "method" also
starts with the letter "m".
-
o_apple obj_apple:
Use an "o" or "obj" prefix for each instance of the class to
show that you're thinking of the big, polymorphic picture.
-
Hungarian Notation: 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.
-
Hungarian Notation Revisited: One followon
trick in the Hungarian notation is "change the type of a variable but leave
the variable name unchanged". This is almost invariably done in windows
apps with the migration from Win16 :- WndProc(HWND hW, WORD wMsg, WORD wParam,
LONG lParam) to Win32 WndProc(HWND hW, UINT wMsg, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam)
where the w values hint that they are words, but they really refer to longs. The
real value of this approach comes clear with the Win64 migration, when the
parameters will be 64 bits wide, but the old "w" and "l"
prefixes will remain forever.
-
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle : If you have to
define a structure to hold data for callbacks, always call the structure
PRIVDATA. Every module can define it's own PRIVDATA. In VC++, this has the
advantage of confusing the debugger so that if you have a PRIVDATA variable and
try to expand it in the watch window, it doesn't know which PRIVDATA you mean,
so it just picks one.
Camouflage
Much of the skill in writing unmaintainable code is the art of camouflage,
hiding things, or making things appear to be what they are not. Many depend on
the fact the compiler is more capable at making fine distinctions than either
the human eye or the text editor. Here are some of the best camouflaging
techniques.
-
Code That Masquerades As Comments and Vice Versa:
Include sections of code that is commented out but at first glance does not
appear to be.
for(j=0;
j<array_len; j+
=8)
{
total +=
array[j+0
];
total +=
array[j+1
];
total +=
array[j+2
];
/* Main body of
total += array[j+3]; * loop is unrolled
total += array[j+4]; * for greater speed.
total += array[j+5]; */
total +=
array[j+6
];
total +=
array[j+7
];
}
Without the colour coding would you notice that three lines of code are
commented out?
-
Hide Macro Definitions: Hide macro
definitions in amongst rubbish comments. The programmer will get bored and not
finish reading the comments thus never discover the macro. Ensure that the macro
replaces what looks like a perfectly legitimate assignment with some bizarre
operation, a simple example:
-
Use Continuation to hide varables: Instead
of using
#define local_var xy_z
break up "xy_z" onto two lines:
#define local_var xy\
_z // local_var OK
That way a global search for xy_z will come up with nothing for that file. To
the C preprocessor, the "\" at the end of the line means glue this
line to the next one.
-
Arbitrary Names That Masquerade as Keywords:
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.
-
Code Names Must Not Match Screen Names:
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".
-
Don't Change Names: Instead of globally
renaming to bring two sections of code into sync, use multiple TYPEDEFs of the
same symbol.
-
How to Hide Forbidden Globals:
Since global variables are "evil", define a structure to hold all the
things you'd put in globals. Call it something clever like
EverythingYoullEverNeed. Make all functions take a pointer to this structure (call
it handle to confuse things more). This gives the impression that you're not
using global variables, you're accessing everything through a "handle".
Then declare one statically so that all the code is using the same copy anyway.
-
Hide Instances With Synonyms: Maintenance
programmers, in order to see if they'll be any cascading effects to a change
they make, do a global search for the variables named. This can be defeated by
this simple expedient of having synonyms, such as
#define xxx global_var // in file std.h
#define xy_z xxx // in file ..\other\substd.h
#define local_var xy_z // in file ..\codestd\inst.h
These defs should be scattered through different include-files. They are
especially effective if the include-files are located in different directories.
The other technique is to reuse a name in every scope. The compiler can tell
them apart, but a simple minded text searcher cannot. Unfortunately SCIDs
in the coming decade will make this simple technique impossible. since the
editor understands the scope rules just as well as the compiler.
-
Long Similar Variable Names: 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 variable names that differ from each other only in case e.g.
HashTable and Hashtable.
-
Similar-Sounding Similar-Looking Variable Names:
Although we have one variable named xy_z, there's certainly no reason not to
have many other variables with similar names, such as xy_Z, xy__z, _xy_z, _xyz,
XY_Z, xY_z, and Xy_z.
Variables that resemble others except for capitalization and underlines have the
advantage of confounding those who like remembering names by sound or letter-spelling,
rather than by exact representations.
-
Overload and Bewilder: 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.
-
Choosing The Best Overload Operator: 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;
-
#define: #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 I have heard of was
requiring five passes through CPP before the code was ready to compile.
Documentation
Since the computer ignores comments and documentation, you can lie outrageously
and do everything in your power to befuddle the poor maintenance programmer.
-
Lie in the comments: You don't have to
actively lie, just fail to keep comments as up to date with the code.
-
Document the obvious: Pepper the code with
comments like /* add 1 to i */ however, never document wooly stuff like
the overall purpose of the package or method.
-
Avoid Documenting the "Obvious":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.
-
On the Proper Use Of Documentation Templates:
Consider function documentation prototypes used to allow automated documentation
of the code. These prototypes should be copied from one function (or method or
class) to another, but never fill in the fields. If for some reason you are
forced to fill in the fields make sure that all parameters are named the same
for all functions, and all cautions are the same but of course not related to
the current function at all.
-
On the Proper Use of Design Documents:
When implementing a very complicated algorithm, use the classic software
engineering principles of doing a sound design before beginning coding. Write an
extremely detailed design document that describes each step in a very
complicated algorithm. The more detailed this document is, the better.
In fact, the design doc should break the algorithm down into a hierarchy of
structured steps, described in a hierarchy of auto-numbered individual
paragraphs in the document. Use headings at least 5 deep. Make sure that when
you are done, you have broken the structure down so completely that there are
over 500 such auto-numbered paragraphs. For example, one paragraph might be: (this
is a real example)
1.2.4.6.3.13 - Display all impacts for activity where selected mitigations can
apply (short pseudocode omitted).
then... (and this is the kicker) when you write the code, for each of
these paragraphs you write a corresponding global function named:
Act1_2_4_6_3_13()
Do not document these functions. After all, that's what the design document is
for!
Since the design doc is auto-numbered, it will be extremely difficult to keep it
up to date with changes in the code (because the function names, of course, are
static, not auto-numbered.) This isn't a problem for you because you will not
try to keep the document up to date. In fact, do everything you can to destroy
all traces of the document.
Those who come after you should only be able to find one or two contradictory,
early drafts of the design document hidden on some dusty shelving in the back
room near the dead 286 computers.
-
Units of Measure: 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.
-
Gotchas 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 in the movie Bambi "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. An
anonymous comment that says "This needs to be fixed!" can do wonders,
especially if it's not clear what the comment refers to. Keep it vague, and
nobody will feel personally criticized.
-
Documenting Variables: 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!
-
Disparage In the Comments: Discourage any
attempt to use external maintenance contractors by peppering your code with
insulting references to other leading software companies, especial anyone who
might be contracted to do the work. e.g.:
/* The optimised inner loop.
This stuff is too clever for the dullard at Software Services Inc., who would
probably use 50 times as memory & time using the dumb routines in <math.h>.
*/
class clever_SSInc
If possible, put insulting stuff in syntactically significant parts of the code,
as well as just the comments so that management will probably break the code if
they try to sanitize it before sending it out for maintenance.
-
COMMENT AS IF IT WERE CØBØL ON PUNCH
CARDS:
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.
-
Monty Python Comments: On a method called makeSnafucatedinsert
only the comment /* make snafucated */. Never define what snafucatedmeans
anywhere. Only a fool does not already know, with complete
certainty, what snafucated means. For classic examples of this technque,
consult the Sun AWT JavaDOC.
Program Design
-
The key to writing maintainable code is to specify each fact about the
application in only one place. To change your mind, you need change it in only
one place, and you are guaranteed the entire program will still work. Therefore,
the key to writing unmaintainable code is to specify a fact over and over, in as
many places as possible, in as many variant ways as possible. Happily,
languages like Java go out of their way to make writing this sort of
unmaintainable code easy. For example, it is almost impossible to change the
type of a widely used variable because all the casts and conversion functions
will no longer work, and the types of the associated temporary variables will no
longer be appropriate. Further, if the variable is displayed on the screen, all
the associated display and data entry code has to be tracked down and manually
modified. The Algol family of languages which include C and Java treat storing
data in an array, Hashtable, flat file and database with totally
different syntax. In languages like Abundance, and to some extent Smalltalk,
the syntax is identical; just the declaration changes. Take advantage of Java's
ineptitude. Put data you know will grow too large for RAM, for now into an
array. That way the maintenance programmer will have a horrendous task
converting from array to file access later. Similarly place tiny files in
databases so the maintenance programmer can have the fun of converting them to
array access when it comes time to performance tune.
-
Exploit Java's Redundancy: Java insists you
specify the type of every variable twice. Java programmers are so used to this redundancy they won't notice if you make
the two types slightly different, as in this example:
Bubblegum b = new
Bubblegom();
Unfortunately the
popularity of the ++ operator makes it harder to get away with pseudo-redundant code like this:
-
Never Validate: 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.
-
Be polite, Never Assert: Avoid the assert()
mechanism, because it could turn a three-day debug fest into a ten minute one.
-
Avoid Encapsulation: 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.
-
Clone & Modify: In the name of
efficiency, use cut/paste/clone/modify. This works much faster than using many
small reusable modules. This is especially useful in shops that measure your
progress by the lines of code you've written.
-
Use Static Arrays: If a module in a library
needs an array to hold an image, just define a static array. Nobody will ever
have an image bigger than 512 x 512, so a fixed-size array is OK. For best
precision, make it an array of doubles. Bonus effect for hiding a 2 Meg static
array which causes the program to exceed the memory of the client's machine and
thrash like crazy even if they never use your routine.
-
Dummy Interfaces: Write an empty interface
called something like "WrittenByMe", and make all of your classes
implement it. Then, write wrapper classes for any of Java's built-in classes
that you use. The idea is to make sure that every single object in your program
implements this interface. Finally, write all methods so that both their
arguments and return types are WrittenByMe. This makes it nearly impossible to
figure out what some methods do, and introduces all sorts of entertaining
casting requirements. For a further extension, have each team member have his/her
own personal interface (e.g., WrittenByJoe); any class worked on by a programmer
gets to implement his/her interface. You can then arbitrary refer to objects by
any one of a large number of meaningless interfaces!
-
Giant Listeners: Never create separate
Listeners for each Component. Always have one listener for every button in your
project and simply use massive if...else statements to test for which button was
pressed.
-
Too Much Of A Good ThingTM: Go
wild with encapsulation and oo. For example:
myPanel.add(
getMyButton() );
private JButton getMyButton(
)
-
Friendly Friend: Use as often as possible
the friend-declaration in C++. Combine this with handing the pointer of the
creating class to a created class. Now you don't need to fritter away your time
in thinking about interfaces. Additionally you should use the keywords private
and protected to prove that your classes are well encapsulated.
-
Use Three Dimensional Arrays: Lots of them.
Move data between the arrays in convoluted ways, say, filling the columns in
arrayB with the rows from arrayA. Doing it with an offset of 1, for no apparent
reason, is a nice touch. Makes the maintenance programmer nervous.
-
Mix and Match: Use both accessor methods and
public variables. That way, you can change an object's variable without the
overhead of calling the accessor, but still claim that the class is a "Java
Bean". This has the additional advantage of frustrating the maintenence
programmer who adds a logging function to try to figure out who is changing the
value.
-
Wrap, wrap, wrap: 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 some of
your code at the application level via each of the levels.
-
Wrap Wrap Wrap Some More: Make sure all API
functions are wrapped at least 6-8 times, with function definitions in separate
source files. Using #defines to make handy shortcuts to these functions also
helps.
-
No Secrets!: 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.
-
The Kama Sutra: This 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 and sit back and wait for it the copies to gradually get out of
sync.
-
Permute and Baffle: 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.
-
Theme and Variations: Instead of using a
parameter 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.
-
Static Is Good: 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.
-
Cargill's Quandry: Take advantage of Cargill's
quandary (I think this was his): "any design problem can be solved by
adding an additional level of indirection, except for too many levels of
indirection." Decompose OO programs until it becomes nearly impossible to
find a method which actually updates program state. Better yet, arrange all such
occurrences to be activated as callbacks from by traversing pointer forests
which are known to contain every function pointer used within the entire system.
Arrange for the forest traversals to be activated as side-effects from releasing
reference counted objects previously created via deep copies which aren't really
all that deep.
-
Packratting: 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.
-
And That's Final: 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.
-
Eschew The Interface: 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! If an interface is unavoidable, make an all-purpose one and
name it something like "ImplementableIface." Another gem from academia
is to append "Impl" to the names of classes that implement interfaces.
This can be used to great advantage, e.g. with classes that implement Runnable.
-
Avoid Layouts: 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.
-
Environment variables: 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!
-
Table Driven Logic: 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.
-
Modify Mom's Fields: 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.
-
The Magic Of Global Variables:
The use of global variables is so obvious that no one thought to mention it
until this point. Instead of using exceptions to handle error processing, have
your error message routine set a global variable. Then make sure that every
long-running loop in the system checks this global flag and terminates if an
error occurs. Add another global variable to signal when a user presses the 'reset'
button. Of course all the major loops in the system also have to check this
second flag. Hide a few loops that don't terminate on demand.
-
Globals, We Can't Stress These Enough!: If
God didn't want us to use global variables, he wouldn't have invented them.
Rather than disappoint God, use and set as many global variables as possible.
Each function should use and set at least two of them, even if there's no reason
to do this. After all, any good maintenance programmer will soon figure out this
is an exercise in detective work, and she'll be happy for the exercise that
separates real maintenance programmers from the dabblers.
-
Globals, One More Time, Boys: Global
variables save you from having to specify arguments in functions. Take full
advantage of this. Elect one or more of these global variables to specify what
kinds of processes to do on the others. Maintenance programmers foolishly
assume that C functions will not have side effects. Make sure they squirrel
results and internal state information away in global variables.
-
Backing Out: Within the body of a loop,
assume that the loop action is successful and immediately update all pointer
variables. If an exception is later detected on that loop action, back out the
pointer advancements as side effects of a conditional expression following the
loop body.
-
Local Variables: 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.
-
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle : If you have to
define a structure to hold data for callbacks, always call the structure
PRIVDATA. Every module can define it's own PRIVDATA. In VC++, this has the
advantage of confusing the debugger so that if you have a PRIVDATA variable and
try to expand it in the watch window, it doesn't know which PRIVDATA you mean,
so it just picks one.
-
Configuration Files: These usually have the
form keyword=value. The values are loaded into Java variables at load time. The
most obvious obfuscation technique is to use slightly different names for the
keywords and the Java variables. Use configuration files even for constants that
never change at run time. Parameter file variables require at least five times
as much code to maintain as a simple variable would.
Coding Obfuscation
-
Obfuscated C: Follow the obfuscated C
contests on the Internet and learn.
-
Find a Forth or APL Guru: In those worlds,
the terser your code and the more bizarre the way it works, the more you are
revered. Sit at their lotus feet.
-
I'll Take a Dozen: Never use one
housekeeping variable when you could just as easily use two or three.
-
Jude the Obscure:Always look for the most
obscure way to do common tasks. For example, instead of using arrays to convert
an integer to the corresponding string, use code like this:
char *p;
switch (n)
{
case 1:
p = "one";
if (0)
case 2:
p = "two";
if (0)
case 3:
p = "three";
printf("%s", p);
break;
}
-
Foolish Consistency Is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds:
When you need a character constant, use many different formats: ' ', 32, 0x20,
040. Make liberal use of the fact that 10 and 010 are not the same number in C
or Java.
-
Casting: Pass all data as a void * and then
typecast to the appropriate structure. Using byte offsets into the data instead
of structure casting is fun too.
-
The Nested Switch: is the most difficult
nesting for the human mind to unravel.
-
Exploit Implicit Conversion: Memorize all of
the subtle implicit conversion rules in the programming language. Take full
advantage of them. Never use a picture variable (in COBOL or PL/I) or a general
conversion routine (such as sprintf in C). Be sure to use floating-point
variables as indexes into arrays, characters as loop counters, and perform
string functions on numbers. After all, all of these operations are well-defined
and will only add to the clarity of your source code. Any maintainer who tries
to understand them will be very grateful to you because they will have to read
and learn the entire chapter on implicit data type conversion; a chapter that
they probably had completely overlooked before working on your programs.
-
Raw ints: When using ComboBoxes, use a
switch statement with integer cases rather than named constants for the possible
values.
-
Semicolons!:
Always use semicolons whenever they are syntactically allowed. For example:
-
Use Octal: Smuggle octal literals into a
list of decimal numbers like this:
-
Convert Indirectly: 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.
-
Nesting: 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. If they span several lines, so much the better.
-
Numeric Literals: 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.
-
C's Eccentric View Of Arrays: 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.
-
L o n g L i n e s: 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.
-
Exceptions: 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.
-
When To Use Exceptions:
Use exceptions for non-exceptional conditions. Routinely terminate loops with an ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
Pass return standard results from a method in an exception.
-
Use threads With Abandon: title says it all.
-
Lawyer Code: Follow the language lawyer
discussions in the newsgroups about what various bits of tricky code should do e.g.
a=a++; or f(a++,a++); then sprinkle your code liberally with
the examples.
-
C's Eccentric View Of Arrays: 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.
-
Early Returns: 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.
-
Avoid {}: 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.
For best results with this technique, use Perl. You can pepper the code with
additional ifs after the statements, to amazing effect.
-
Tabs From Hell: 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.
-
Magic Matrix Locations: Use special values
in certain matrix locations as flags. A good choice is the [3][0] element in a
transformation matrix used with a homogeneous coordinate system.
-
Magic Array Slots revisited:
If you need several variables of a given type, just define an array of them,
then access them by number. Pick a numbering convention that only you know and
don't document it. And don't bother to define #define constants for the indexes.
Everybody should just know that the global variable widget[15] is the cancel
button. This is just an up-to-date variant on using absolute numerical addresses
in assembler code.
-
Never Beautify: 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 also 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;
-
The Macro Preprocessor: It 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.
-
Exploit Schizophrenia: 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;
-
Hide Error Recovery Code: Use nesting to put
the error recovery for a function call as far as possible away from the call.
This simple example can be elaborated to 10 or 12 levels of nest:
if ( function_A()
== OK )
{
if ( function_B()
== OK )
{
/* Normal completion stuff */
}
else
{
/* some error recovery for Function_B */
}
}
else
{
/* some error recovery for Function_A */
}
-
Pseudo C: The real reason for #define was to
help programmers who are familiar with another programming language to switch to
C. Maybe you will find declarations like " #define begin { " or "
#define end } " useful to write more interesting code.
-
Confounding Imports: Keep the maintenance
programmer guessing about what packages the methods you are using are in.
Instead of:
import MyPackage.Read;
import MyPackage.Write;
use:
Never fully qualify any method or class no matter how obscure. Let the
maintenance programmer guess which of the packages/classes it belongs to.
Of course, inconsistency in when you fully qualify and how you do your imports
helps most.
Testing
Leaving bugs in your programs gives the maintenance programmer who comes along
later something interesting to do. A well done bug should leave absolutely no
clue as to when it was introduced or where. The laziest way to accomplish this
is simply never to test your code.
-
Never Test: Never test any code that handles
the error cases, machine crashes, or OS glitches. Never check return codes from
the OS. That code never gets executed anyway and slows down your test times.
Besides, how can you possibly test your code to handle disk errors, file read
errors, OS crashes, and all those sorts of events? Why, you would have to either
an incredibly unreliable computer or a test scaffold that mimicked such a thing.
Modern hardware never fails, and who wants to write code just for testing
purposes? It isn't any fun. If users complain, just blame the OS or hardware.
They'll never know.
-
Never, Ever Do Any Performance Testing: Hey,
if it isn't fast enough, just tell the customer to buy a faster machine. If you
did do performance testing, you might find a bottleneck, which might lead to
algorithm changes, which might lead to a complete redesign of your product. Who
wants that? Besides, performance problems that crop up at the customer site mean
a free trip for you to some exotic location. Just keep your shots up-to-date
and your passport handy.
-
Never Write Any Test Cases: Never perform
code coverage or path coverage testing. Automated testing is for wimps. Figure
out which features account for 90% of the uses of your routines, and allocate 90%
of the tests to those paths. After all, this technique probably tests only about
60% of your source code, and you have just saved yourself 40% of the test effort.
This can help you make up the schedule on the back-end of the project. You'll be
long gone by the time anyone notices that all those nice "marketing
features" don't work. The big, famous software companies test code this way;
so should you. And if for some reason, you are still around, see the next item.
-
Testing is for cowards: A brave coder will
bypass that step. Too many programmers are afraid of their boss, afraid of
losing their job, afraid of customer hate mail and afraid of being sued. This
fear paralyzes action, and reduces productivity. Studies have shown that
eliminating the test phase means that managers can set ship dates well in
advance, an obvious aid in the planning process. With fear gone, innovation and
experimentation can blossom. The role of the programmer is to produce code, and
debugging can be done by a cooperative effort on the part of the help desk and
the legacy maintenance group.
If we have full confidence in our coding ability, then testing will be
unnecessary. If we look at this logically, then any fool can recognize that
testing does not even attempt to solve a technical problem, rather, this is a
problem of emotional confidence. A more efficient solution to this lack of
confidence issue is to eliminate testing completely and send our programmers to
self-esteem courses. After all, if we choose to do testing, then we have to
test every program change, but we only need to send the programmers to one
course on building self-esteem. The cost benefit is as amazing as it is obvious.
-
Ensuring It Only Works In Debug Mode: If you've
defined TESTING as 1
#define TESTING 1
this gives you the wonderful opportunity to have separate code sections, such as
#if TESTING==1
#endif
which can contain such indispensable tidbits as
x = rt_val;
so that if anyone resets TESTING to 0, the program won't work. And with
the tiniest bit of imaginative work, it will not only befuddle the logic, but
confound the compiler as well.
Choice Of Language
Computer languages are gradually evolving to become more fool proof. Using
state of the art languages is unmanly. Insist on using the oldest language you
can get away with, octal machine language if you can (Like Hans und Frans, I am
no girlie man; I am so virile I used to code by plugging gold tipped wires into
a plugboard of IBM unit record equipment (punch cards), or by poking holes in
paper tape with a hand punch), failing that assembler, failing that FORTRAN or
COBOL, failing that C, and BASIC, failing that C++.
-
FØRTRAN Write all your code in
FORTRAN. If your boss ask why, you can reply that there are lots of very useful
libraries that you can use thus saving time. However the chances of writing
maintainable code in FORTRAN are zero, and therefore following the
unmaintainable coding guidelines is a lot easier.
-
Avoid Ada: About 20% of these techniques can't
be used in Ada. Refuse to use Ada. If your manager presses you, insist that no-one
else uses it, and point out that it doesn't work with your large suite of tools
like lint and plummer that work around C's failings.
-
Use ASM: Convert all common utility
functions into asm.
-
Use QBASIC: Leave all important library
functions written in QBASIC, then just write an asm wrapper to handle the large->medium
memory model mapping.
-
Inline Assembler: Sprinkle your code with
bits of inline assembler just for fun. Almost no one understands assembler
anymore. Even a few lines of it can stop a maintenance programmer cold.
-
MASM call C: If you have assembler modules
which are called from C, try to call C back from the assembler as often as
possible, even if it's only for a trivial purpose and make sure you make full
use of the goto, bcc and other charming obfuscations of assembler.
-
Avoid coding in Abundance, or using any of its
principles kludged into other languages. It was designed from the
ground up with the primary goal of making the maintenance programmer's job
easier. Similarly avoid Eiffel or Ada since they were designed to catch bugs
before a program goes into production.
Dealing With Others
There are many hints sprinkled thoroughout the tips above on how to rattle
maintenance programmers though frustration, and how to foil your boss's attempts
to stop you from writing unmaintainable code, or even how to foment an RWAR that
involves everyone on the topic of how code should be formatted in the repository.
-
Your Boss Knows Best:
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.
-
Subvert The Help Desk: One way to help
ensure the code is full of bugs is to ensure the maintenance programmers never
hear about them. This requires subverting the help desk. Never answer the phone.
Use an automated voice that says "thank you for calling the helpline. To
reach a real person press "1" or leave a voice mail wait for the tone".
Email help requests should be ignored other than to assign them a tracking
number. The standard response to any problem is " I think your account is
locked out. The person able to authorise reinstatement is not available just
now."
-
Keep Your Mouth Shut: 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!
-
Baffle 'Em With Bullshit: Subtlety is a
wonderful thing, although sometimes a sledge-hammer is more subtle than other
tools. So, a refinement on misleading comments: create classes with names like FooFactory
containing comments with references to the GoF creational patterns (ideally with
http links to bogus UML design documents) that have nothing to do with object
creation. Play off the maintainer's delusions of competence. More subtly,
create Java classes with protected constructors and methods like Foo f = Foo.newInstance()that
return actual new instances, rather than the expected singleton. The
opportunities for side-effects are endless.
-
Book Of The Month Club: 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.
Roll Your Own
You've always wanted to write system level code. Now is your chance. Ignore the
standard libraries and write your own. It will look great on your resumé.
-
Roll Your Own BNF: 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.
-
Roll Your Own Allocator: Everyone knows that
debugging your dynamic storage is complicated and time consuming. Instead of
making sure each class has no storage leaks, reinvent your own storage allocator.
It just mallocs space out of a big arena. Instead of freeing storage, force
your users to periodically perform a system reset that clears the heap. There's
only a few things the system needs to keep track of across resets -- lots easier
than plugging all the storage leaks; and so long as the users remember to
periodically reset the system, they'll never run out of heap space. Imagine
them trying to change this strategy once deployed!
Tricks In Offbeat Languages
-
Visual Basic Declarations: Instead of:
dim Count_num as string
dim Color_var as string
dim counter as integer
use:
Dim Count_num$, Color_var$, counter%
-
Visual Basic Madness: If reading from a text
file, read 15 characters more than you need to then embed the actual text string
like so:
ReadChars = .ReadChars (29,0)
ReadChar = trim(left(mid(ReadChar,len(ReadChar)-15,len(ReadChar)-5),7))
If ReadChars = "alongsentancewithoutanyspaces"
Mid,14,24 = "withoutanys"
and left,5 = "without"
-
Delphi/Pascal Only: Don't use functions and
procedures. Use the label/goto statements then jump around a lot inside your
code using this. It'll drive 'em mad trying to trace through this. Another idea,
is just to use this for the hang of it and scramble your code up jumping to and
fro in some haphazard fashion.
-
Perl Only: Use trailing if's and unless's
especially at the end of really long lines.
-
Visual Foxpro Only: This one is specific to
Visual Foxpro. A variable is undefined and can't be used unless you assign a
value to it. This is what happens when you check a variable's type:
lcx = TYPE('somevariable')
The value of lcx will be 'U' or undefined. BUT if you assign scope to the
variable it sort of defines it and makes it a logical FALSE. Neat, huh!?
LOCAL lcx
lcx = TYPE('somevariable')
The value of lcx is now 'L' or logical. It is further defined the value of
FALSE. Just imagine the power of this in writing unmaintainable code.
LOCAL lc_one, lc_two, lc_three... , lc_n
IF lc_one
DO some_incredibly_complex_operation_that_will_neverbe_executed WITH
make_sure_to_pass_parameters
ENDIF
IF lc_two
DO some_incredibly_complex_operation_that_will_neverbe_executed WITH
make_sure_to_pass_parameters
ENDIF
PROCEDURE some_incredibly_complex_oper....
* put tons of code here that will never be executed
* why not cut and paste your main procedure!
ENDIF
Miscellaneous Techniques
If you give someone a program, you will frustrate them for a day; if you
teach them how to program, you will frustrate them for a lifetime.
Anonymous
-
Don't Recompile: Let's start off with
probably the most fiendish technique ever devised: Compile the code to an
executable. If it works, then just make one or two small little changes in the
source code...in each module. But don't bother recompiling these. You can
do that later when you have more time, and when there's time for debugging. When
the hapless maintenance programmer years later makes a change and the code no
longer works, she will erroneously assume it must be something she recently
changed. You will send her off on a wild goose chase that will keep her busy for
weeks.
-
S.I. vs American Measure: 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!
-
CANI: Constant And Never-ending
Improvement.
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?
-
About Box: 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.
-
Ch ch ch Changes: 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.
-
Put C Prototypes In Individual Files:
instead of common headers. This has the dual advantage of requiring a change in
parameter data type to be maintained in every file, and avoids any chance
that the compiler or linker will detect type mismatches. This will be especially
helpful when porting from 32 -> 64 bit platforms.
-
No Skill Required: 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.
-
Carry Only One Hammer: Stick with what you
know and travel light; if you only carry a hammer then all problems are nails.
-
Standards Schmandards: 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.
-
Third Party Libraries: 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.
-
Avoid Libraries: 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.
-
Create a Build Order: Make it 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.
-
More Fun With Make: Have the makefile-generated-batch-file
copy source files from multiple directories with undocumented overrwrite rules.
This permits code branching without the need for any fancy source code control
system, and stops your successors ever finding out which version of DoUsefulWork()
is the one they should edit.
-
IDE, Not Me!: Put all the code in the
makefile: your successors will be really impressed how you managed to write a
makefile which generates a batch file that generates some header files and then
builds the app, such that they can never tell what effects a change will have,
or be able to migrate to a modern IDE. For maximum effect use an obsolete make
tool, such as an early brain dead version of NMAKE without the notion of
dependencies.
-
Bypassing Company Coding Standards: 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
-
Compiler Warnings: Be sure to leave in some
compiler warnings. Use the handy "-" prefix in make to suppress the
failure of the make due to any and all compiler errors. This way, if a
maintenance programmer carelessly inserts an error into your source code, the
make tool will nonetheless try to rebuild the entire package; it might even
succeed! And any programmer who compiles your code by hand will think that they
have broken some existing code or header when all that has really happened is
that they have stumbled across your harmless warnings. They will again be
grateful to you for the enjoyment of the process that they will have to follow
to find out that the error was there all along. Extra bonus points: make sure
that your program cannot possibly compile with any of the compiler error
checking diagnostics enabled. Sure, the compiler may be able to do subscripts
bounds checking, but real programmers don't use this feature, and neither should
you. Why let the compiler check for errors when you can use your own expensive
and rewarding time to find these subtle bugs?
-
Combine Bug Fixes With Upgrades: Never put
out a "bug fix only" release. Be sure to combine bug fixes with
database format changes, complex user interface changes, and complete rewrites
of the administration interfaces. That way, it will be so hard to upgrade that
people will get used to the bugs and start calling them features. And the people
that really want these "features" to work differently will have an
incentive to upgrade to the new versions. This will save you maintenance work
in the long run, and get you more revenue from your customers.
-
Change File Formats With Each Release Of Your Product:
Yeah, your customers will demand upwards compatibility, so go ahead and do that.
But make sure that there is no backwards compatibility. That will prevent
customers from backing out the newer release, and coupled with a sensible bug
fix policy (see above), will guarantee that once on a newer release, they will
stay there. Extra bonus points: Figure out how to get the old version to not
even recognize files created by the newer versions. That way, they not only can't
read them, they will deny that they are even created by the same application!
Hint: PC word processors provide a useful example of this sophisticated
behaviour.
-
Compensate For Bugs: Don't worry about
finding the root cause of bugs in the code. Simply put in compensating code in
the higher-level routines. This is a great intellectual exercise, akin to 3D
chess, and will keep future code maintainers entertained for hours as they try
to figure out whether the problem is in the low-level routines that generate the
data or in the high-level routines that change various cases all around. This
technique is great for compilers, which are inherently multi-pass programs. You
can completely avoid fixing problems in the early passes by simply making the
later passes more complicated. With luck, you will never have to speak to the
little snot who supposedly maintains the front-end of the compiler. Extra bonus
points: make sure the back-end breaks if the front-end ever generates the
correct data.
-
Use Spin Locks:
Avoid actual synchronization primitives in favor of a variety of spin locks --
repeatedly sleep then test a (non-volatile) global variable until it meets your
criterion. Spin locks are much easier to use and more "general" and "flexible
" than the system objects.
-
Sprinkle sync code liberally: Sprinkle some
system synchronization primitives in places where they are not needed. I
came across one critical section in a section of code where there was no
possibility of a second thread. I challenged the original developer and he
indicated that it helped document that the code was, well, "critical!"
-
Graceful Degradation: If your system
includes an NT device driver, require the application to malloc I/O buffers and
lock them in memory for the duration of any transactions, and free/unlock them
after. This will result in an application that crashes NT if prematurely
terminated with that buffer locked. But nobody at the client site likely will be
able to change the device driver, so they won't have a choice.
-
Custom Script Language: Incorporate a
scripting command language into your client/server apps that is byte compiled at
runtime.
-
Compiler Dependent Code: If you discover a
bug in your compiler or interpreter, be sure to make that behaviour essential
for your code to work properly. After all you don't use another compiler, and
neither should anyone else!
-
A Real Life Example: Here's a real life
example written by a master. Let's look at all the different techniques he
packed into this single C function.
void* Realocate(void*buf, int os, int ns)
{
void*temp;
temp = malloc(os);
memcpy((void*)temp, (void*)buf, os);
free(in);
buf = malloc(ns);
memset(buf, 0, ns);
memcpy((void*)buf, (void*)temp, ns);
return buf;
}
-
Reinvent simple functions which are part of the standard libraries.
-
The word Realocate is not spelled correctly. Never underestimate the
power of creative spelling.
-
Make a temporary copy of input buffer for no real reason.
-
Cast things for no reason. memcpy() takes (void*), so cast our pointers even
though they're already (void*). Bonus for the fact that you could pass anything
anyway.
-
Never bothered to free temp. This will cause a slow memory leak, that may not
show up until the program has been running for days.
-
Copy more than necessary from the buffer just in case. This will only cause a
core dump on Unix, not Windows.
-
It should be obvious that os and ns stand for "old size" and "new
size".
-
After allocating buf, memset it to 0. Don't use calloc() because somebody might
rewrite the ANSI spec so that calloc() fills the buffer with something other
than 0. (Never mind the fact that we're about to copy exactly the same amount
of data into buf.)
-
How To Fix Unused Variable Errors: If your
compiler issues "unused local variable" warnings, don't get rid of the
variable. Instead, just find a clever way to use it. My favorite is...
i = i;
-
It's The Size That Counts: It almost goes
without saying that the larger a function is, the better it is. And the more
jumps and GOTOs the better. That way, any change must be analysed through many
scenarios. It snarls the maintenance programmer in the spaghettiness of it all.
And if the function is truly gargantuan, it becomes the Godzilla of the
maintenance programmers, stomping them mercilessly to the ground before they
have an idea of what's happened.
-
A Picture is a 1000 Words; A Function is 1000 Lines:
Make the body of every method as long as possible - hopefully you never write
any methods or functions with fewer than a thousand lines of code, deeply nested,
of course.
-
One Missing File: Make sure that one or more
critical files is missing. This is best done with includes of includes. For
example, in your main module, you have
#include <stdcode.h>
Stdcode.h is available. But in stdcode.h, there's a reference to
#include "a:\\refcode.h"
and refcode.h is no where to be found.
-
Write Everywhere, Read Nowhere: At least one
variable should be set everywhere and used almost nowhere. Unfortunately, modern
compilers usually stop you from doing the reverse, read everywhere, write
nowhere, but you can still do it in C or C++.
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 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
-
Scott Herod, scott@evt.com
-
Allan Stokes, allan@stokes.ca
-
Martin Minow, minow@pobox.com
-
Wolfgang Formann, w.formann@neuss.netsurf.de
-
Jym Dyer, jym@igc.org
-
Ted Dennison, dennison@ssd.fsi.com
-
Tom Farrell, tfarrell@skepsis.com
-
Daniel von Asmuth, radical@tux.warande.net
-
Damian Saunders, damian.saunders@gtl.com
-
Bob Morris, bob@bomoco.com
-
Neil Hancock, neil.hancock@macro4.com
-
Dirk Hauberg, dirkhauberg@amic.de
-
Nathan Laan, nlaan@ualberta.ca
-
James J. Besemer, jb@cascade-sys.com
-
William Harris, william@carsinfo.com ()
-
David Pottage, david.pottage@insignia.com
-
Marian ION, marian.ion@telestore.fr
-
Torrey Hoffman, thoffman1@hotmail.com
-
Paul Green, Paul_Green@stratus.com
-
Harry Bearman, hbearman@pdxinc.com
-
Stephen Friedl, friedl@mtndew.com
-
Gil, gil@humbug.co.uk
-
Bear Giles, bear@coyotesong.com
-
Ray Trent, rat@synaptics.com
-
Maarten Sneep, sneep@nat.vu.nl
-
Greg Lindstrom, glinds@acxiom.com
-
Jeff Johnson, jeff@san-dc.com
-
James J. Beseme, jb@cascade-sys.com
-
Babette Turner-Underwood, babettet@tmi.ca
-
Bent Nielsen, bn@dksin.dk
-
Richard Sanders, Richard_Sanders@Dell.com
-
James Brown, james.brown-eds@eds.com
-
Steve Loughran, slo3@iseran.com
-
Jonathan Deber, jonathan.deber@utoronto.ca
-
Ben Tilly, Ben_Tilly@trepp.com
-
David Williss, dwilliss@inetnebr.com
-
Bernice Maslan, bernice.maslan@360.com
-
Kari Hoijarvi, Kari.Hoijarvi@vaisala.com
-
Asha Goldberg, asha@jps.net
-
Christopher M. Jones, christopher_j@uswest.net
-
Tim Russell, Tim.Russell@versatel.nl
-
Damian Wright, damian@radmark.co.za
An early version of 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. There is a ton of stuff on
this site quite unlike anything else on the web. Have a quick look at my home
page or my Java Glossary which is a central place
to find out everything you ever wanted to know about Java or perhaps my Gay
& Black Glossary.