Posted by Steve on 08/29/07 15:51

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:W5idncnku_TD10nbnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
| Steve wrote:
| > "Michael Fesser" <netizen@gmx.de> wrote in message
| > news:cng0d3dhkhm507nvjtg590i1gs1bl605ta@4ax.com...
| > | .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
| > |
| > | >But if you change the function name, parameter list and/or return
value,
| > | >you have to change all of the code calling it. This is NOT
refactoring.
| > |
| > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rename_Method
| > |
| > | http://www.refactoring.com/catalog/renameMethod.html
| >
| > apparently, i'm not up on my lingo.
| >
| > so what if i change an interface with optional parameters? i then don't
need
| > to change *any* calling code, yet i've changed the interface. is this
now
| > refactoring? further, most php is not written in OOP but with
proceedural
| > code. so, the 'interface' would be a browser, in most cases.
technically, i
| > could change any and all code yet not be mucking with the 'interface'.
and
| > so that we're all clear...an 'interface' *only* exists as a
communication
| > point between a caller and an *OBJECT*. functions alone and of
themselves
| > are NOT interfaces.
| >
|
| OK, I should have clarified - you can't change the interface except to
| *extend* it. Adding optional parameters would be extending the interface.
|
| In this case, the "interface" wouldn't be the browser - the browser has
| nothing to do with PHP. Rather, it would be the common function calls.
| Interfaces existed long before OO programming! For instance, fopen()
| is an interface to the file system.

well, the op was regarding best programming practices in gereral. either
way, the user interface is very much a part of any language whether it is a
command-line or gui. in general, especially in case of the command-line, it
is equally effected by such changes (think of argument changes or command
name changes). i understand the difference between what we're talking about
and this idea, but the two don't always have a black/white distinction. the
main point i was trying to make is that functions are not interfaces, and if
they are - such as fopen being an 'interface' to the file system - then so
too are the methods a user interacts with in an application - their (caller)
way into accessing a set of features ('interfaces'). such an equation
doesn't help in distinguishing development tasks.


| > as far as i'm concerned, when i 'refactor', i'm doing whatever needs to
be
| > done to existing code to make it better for no other reason (new
| > enhancement, new logical/business requirement, etc.) than to make it
better
| > (easier to maintain, bring it under standards of practice, make it
faster,
| > etc.). imo, it's not worth splitting hairs over. i suppose it is a good
| > thing that when my boss and i talk about 'refactoring' some code, we
| > understand each other...which is the whole point of a word.
| >
|
| Then how do you differ between "refactoring" and "rewriting"? There is
| a difference!

besides symantics, what is the superior definition and use of 'refactoring'.
anytime you 'refactor' code, you 'rewrite' it. i'm fine, as an employer,
when a developer says, 'i redid/willdo this to do/behave/help with this...it
impacted (will impact) this/these things.' THAT is more meaningful than
EITHER term. moreover, i just don't thing 'redid' and 'willdo' would have
sounded very 'extreme' and hence was not included in the book(s). ;^)

when discussing changes that need to be made in code with a client, i don't
use either term. i talk about things he understands like speed, flexibility,
longevity, scale, and costs (both long and short-term). when discussing
changes with my boss, i talk about strategy and architecture. and with my
employees, i talk about what i need done specific to all of the above...and
if in the course of their changes, they see a pattern, potential problem, or
oportunity that should be addressed, we get down to *specifics*...not lingo.

but that's just me. everything is a rewrite...or an origination. what
benefit is it to anyone to split hairs over a term that is itself, already
controvertial and unclear?

don't get me wrong, jerry. i think saunders kaufman has his head squarely up
his ass, which explains why he's 'in the dark' on this topic. however, i've
done all the 'extreme' stuff including paired programming, bidding, etc.. as
i've said, it comes from common practices in other fields all the way back
to the early 1900's. ain't nothn' 'extreme' about it as far as programming
is concerned. as for the lingo associated with it, may it forever be limited
to the context of the book that espoused it. for me, i use specifics when i
need someone else to understand what i'm doing or what they need to do.
'refactoring' is not specific enough.

if it works for someone else, i'm glad.

cheers.

[Back to original message]