Back to Home Blog

Software Engineering

Mastering Codebase Organization: Essential Strategies for Software Engineers

mastering_codebase_organization_strategies.webp

As a seasoned software engineer with over a decade of experience, I've learned that the primary challenge in software development isn't just about naming variables, classes, or methods correctly.

It's also about understanding where to place them within the codebase. Proper code organization is crucial for long-term maintainability, coherence, and overall project success. In this article, I will share insights on navigating the complexities of codebase organization, especially when working with a team of diverse perspectives.

These insights are drawn from my professional experience and lessons learned from collaborating with many talented software architects, enabling me to think like an architect rather than solely a software engineer.

#The Pitfalls of Poor Codebase Organization

In the rush to implement business or application logic, it's tempting to place methods or code snippets wherever seems most convenient at the moment. This reactive approach often results in cluttered models filled with unrelated methods, making the codebase unwieldy and difficult to maintain.

This issue is compounded in diverse teams where architectural decisions can become contentious, turning into a battlefield of opinions. Achieving a coherent and organized project after a year of collaboration requires strategic decision-making and problem-solving.

How can one maintain project coherence while working in a team where each member's preferences and experiences lead them in different directions?

#Valuing Diverse Perspectives in Codebase Organization

Navigating diverse perspectives requires acknowledging that each team member brings a unique viewpoint shaped by their experiences. Programming is not just about writing code; it's about solving problems. Embracing the diversity of thought within your team can lead to innovative solutions.

Even if an idea doesn't seem relevant immediately, it can be stored in your mental repository for future use.

#Temporarily Set Aside Personal Preferences

When deciding where to place code, it's essential to temporarily set aside personal preferences. Understand that you might not have the complete picture. Collaboration is key.

By postponing personal biases until the team has thoroughly discussed the project, you can minimize unnecessary debates and create a more cohesive working environment. Personal preferences are often shaped by experience, suggesting what is "best."

However, it's crucial to remember that this perspective might only be partially true if not considered from other viewpoints.

#The Power of Asking "Why"

While discussions frequently focus on the "What" and "How" of a problem, the most crucial yet often overlooked question is "Why." This question forces a team to explore the underlying reasons and rationales behind their choices.

Understanding the "Why" aligns the team, clarifies the situation, and lays the groundwork for agreeing on solutions.

The question "Why?" demands a deep understanding of the problem or situation. It encourages the team to revisit the reasoning behind every aspect. If there is disagreement on the "Why," reaching a consensus on solutions becomes highly unlikely.

The power of "Why" lies in its ability to align everyone and bring clarity to the entire situation. It facilitates recognizing solutions and the steps needed to implement them.

Consider a scenario where you have specific logic to place, and either you or another team member suggests putting it in the "Services" directory. While this suggestion might be valid, the crucial questions are:

  • Why in the Services directory?
  • What does the term "Service" mean in this context?
  • How can we clarify the purpose of this directory for new team members, ensuring they understand its intended use and avoid placing unrelated logic there?

This becomes especially important in larger teams with five or more members.

#The Right Order of Questions

Having discussed various challenges and common scenarios encountered in team-based software development, let's explore what I believe to be the correct order of questions when tackling problems, debates, and misunderstandings:

#1. What?

Define what you are trying to achieve, solve, or agree upon.

#2. Why?

Ensure everyone is on the same page by clarifying the "Why." This question should be the common ground that no one disagrees on; it acts as our GPS, guiding us toward our goal. Without a proper starting point, the team may diverge into different paths. While such divergence may be acceptable for exploration, it can prevent the team from reaching a shared destination.

#3. How?

This is the most exploratory question because it's actionable. People naturally want to take action quickly, searching for the most efficient way to proceed. However, the "How" should only be addressed after clarifying the "What" and "Why." Once we know where we need to go, figuring out how to get there is the next logical step.

#4. Where?

Only after addressing the previous three questions does the question of "Where" make sense. It's about context, and at this point, there should be no confusion about "what we're facing," "why it's happening," "how to fix it," and "where to place it."

This approach is evident in other contexts as well. Take Test-Driven Development (TDD), for example, which follows a similar sequence of steps, reinforcing the importance of a systematic approach to problem-solving:

  • Write the test ("What"): What are we trying to do?
  • Run the test ("Why"): Why is it failing?
  • Implementation ("How"): How will we make the test pass?
  • Refactor ("Where"): Where should this implementation reside in the codebase?

#Establishing Common Ground with Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)

To achieve consensus efficiently, documenting decisions transparently is crucial. One effective tool for this is Architecture Decision Records (ADRs). ADRs capture the context, decisions, and consequences of architectural choices, serving as a valuable reference for team members. A typical ADR template includes:

- Title:

Clearly state the decision in question.

- Status:

Indicate the current status (e.g., proposed, accepted, rejected).

- Context:

Describe the issue motivating the decision.

- Decision:

Clearly articulate the proposed change.

- Consequences:

Outline the impact of the decision, including pros and cons.

Embracing ADRs helps teams make informed decisions by maintaining objectivity and avoiding reliance on irrelevant information. Consider the ADR template by Michael Nygard as a starting point:

# Title

Status: [Proposed | Accepted | Rejected | Deprecated | Superseded]

## Context

## Decision

## Consequences

### Pros/Cons

Meta:
  - Proposed Date: YYYY-MM-DD
  - Closed Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Authors:
  - [Your Name]
Decision makers:
  - [List of Decision Makers]

For more information on ADRs, refer to relevant resources like the GitHub ADR repository and the C4 Model website.

#Conclusion

The success of a software project hinges not only on technical expertise but also on the ability to navigate diverse perspectives, ask the right questions, and document decisions effectively.

By adopting structured approaches such as ADRs, teams can ensure coherence, maintainability, and a more enjoyable development experience over the long term.

#Acknowledgements

I want to express my gratitude to Michael Estrin, a brilliant software architect with whom I had the privilege of working for a brief but impactful period. Despite the limited time we worked together, his mentorship and insights left a lasting impression, making him one of the most knowledgeable professionals I've had the pleasure of collaborating with.