How do you simplify your code for better readability?

Variable, method, class names, etc. should explain what they do. Moreover, this way we write fewer comments to explain what we do.

Naming convention de facto is crucial for any programmer/developer/engineer to follow that simplifies code readability. Use XML Document generators. In addition, Let's do DDD to make it more convenient . why? 1. Ubiquitous language 2. Bounded Context 3. Context Map

Use meaningful names: Choose descriptive and concise names for classes, methods, variables, and parameters. This helps to make the code more self-explanatory and reduces the need for additional comments. Break down complex code: If you have a long and complex method or class, consider splitting it into smaller, more manageable parts. Each part can handle a specific responsibility or functionality, making it easier to understand and maintain. Follow the Single Responsibility Principle (SRP): Each class and method should have a single responsibility or task. This makes it easier to understand the purpose and behavior of each component, and provides a clear structure to the codebase.

Typically following from domain driven design the objects and methods should flow from the larger domain and match to the objects defined within that domain. For example in a banking application we would have objects such as person and location. If you take that a step further within account we would have methods such as deposit, checkBqlqnce and withdraw instead of put, info, and extract. The second approach to utilize is focusing on functions being responsible for one thing. As the number of activities grow within a function it’s best to split them out and name the functions according to their activity.

Define/identify a standard of writing code which are going to followed for classes, variables, method, project structures, Comments, file names & other coding items. Add Pre Commit hooks like husky that will check all code that is being committed for the standard selected. No method is longer which covers more than a screen Avoid hard-coded keys, tokens, urls and static data elements, create constant file or class Create a environment specific config variable file Create models for DTO, UI and Business Models and it's mapping logic. Also group them as per module or entity group Keep track for all 3rd party items being used, try to use them only when required to avoid unmanageable code & vulnerability inside it. Use SOLID principles.

Whenever I explain this to someone junior in their career the best advice I give is this… Imagine everything you build will be attacked by a militia of highly talented hackers, if they were to break in we would want them to have the least amount of access possible to limit the blast radius of a breach.

Also (if language supports) add additional inner scopes to further limit life of local variables and avoid accidental use of them

Not only this principle, but all of them (SOLID principles) are valuable to us. Whenever we use these principles our code gains flexibility. When we use this feature wisely, we acquire more readable and extensible code.

Not only this principle but use the whole set :) the SOLID principle. Single Responsibility Open-closed principle Leskov principle Interface segregation And dependency inversion.

One implication of the single responsibility principle is that a class must be either abstract or final, because being a good parent and being a good object are two different responsibilities.

Small nit? Appreciate the single responsibility principal, yes. And I whole heartedly advocate for *reducing* class and function responsibilities. But, I'm also bothered, yes bothered (in an admittedly somewhat light hearted way), by saying "follow" it! I mean, let's please cut down on dogmatism and promote more pragmatism and in this regard. Saying "follow", is just... well, too dogmatic for my preference.

In the context of considering "inheritance", I love what the Rust programming language did: drop support for inheritance in favor of "traits". From the rust-lang.org book: "Traits are similar to a feature often called interfaces in other languages, although with some differences". Another way to see this is as advice to distinguish between implementation inheritance and interface inheritance, and to be especially wary of implementation inheritance. In C++, *public* inheritance introduces additional concerns beyond rigidity. Like: data *slicing*, and reference semantics. Fortunately, all these concerns can be addressed in C++ code using polymorphic *value* types, analogous to Rust traits, instead of polymorphic types.

Be careful with Inheritance, it introduces rigidity in a codebase. Agree with the stated view. However, Polymorphism activated via interfaces allow programs to be architecturally pluggable. For example, do you want a new way of sending customer notification messages? Replace the CustomerEmailer plugged into the ICustomerNotifier interface with the CustomerSmsTxtSender!

In a web app project, the user authentication code was tangled and hard to manage. I opted for refactoring to boost maintainability and readability. Issues like duplicated input validation code and unclear method names were addressed. To start, I divided the large, messy class into smaller, focused ones - UserManager, SessionManager, and Validator. Then, I used 'Extract Method' to break long methods into clear, smaller ones, like validateUsername and validatePassword. Naming was key. Cryptic names were replaced with clear ones like authenticateUser. Throughout, I ran tests to ensure no functionality broke. Afterward, the code was vastly cleaner, easier to understand, and less error-prone.

I agree to an extent, refactoring code should happen as often as the requirements drive the change. Often times the additional knowledge and business process we have learned informs us of better ways to implement a set of code. Or for example when a function initially scoped for a single use reaches a point that it would violate the DRY principle then it’s time to refactor for other use case. Refactoring for the sake of refactoring is not always a good process unless there is a robust test suite to prevent the code rom introducing additional bugs

Enhancing Code Readability Through Test-Driven Development and Peer Review. To enhance code readability, I follow a two-fold approach. First, I prioritize writing comprehensive unit tests for my code. I firmly believe that if writing tests becomes a challenge, it indicates complexity in the code that needs simplification. This rule of thumb prompts me to refactor the code until writing tests becomes straightforward. Secondly, I embrace code reviews as a crucial step in the development process. Peer reviews provide valuable insights on code quality, helping to identify areas for improvement and enforcing adherence to coding standards. By combining these two practices, I aim to ensure that my code is not only readable but also maintainable.

Consider if one can discover the code with ease. For instance, make error messages unique across the codebase (don't throw "invariant failed" from 5 different places, add a few more words so that each place has a unique message and is searchable back). When working with query builders, reflection, etc, one may need to pass method names / variable names / etc around. Even if those strings have common parts (say, prefix), keep repetition in the string literals. This way another developer will be able to discover the code by searching for the method name (for instance)

Keep functions small using 'Extract Until You Drop' Functions should be small. Actually, they should be even smaller. A function should be so small it only does one thing. It helps to extract everything that does not contribute to the function's singular purpose; I.e. extract until we drop. Such intense refactoring activity inexorably leads to tiny, easily understood functions. Tiny, understandable functions are the humble beginnings of large maintainable systems.

Writing unit tests is a natural way of simplifying methods. Because if you can't write unit tests for your code, it's not because you don't know how to write unit tests, but because your code isn't simple enough. Additionally, writing unit tests pushes you to refactor your code. Thus you will notice how much it simplifies your code and you will naturally implement SOLID principles.

Make sure the code is open to modifications. For example, when using design patterns make sure there is a true benefit to the code.