A Clean Function

Let’s talk about cleaning. The most valuable element of a software piece is the function (a.k.a. procedure, method, event, operation…). A function looks like this:

functionX (datatype: input): output

A function is an operation that receives input values and might return some other value. The IPO model is the perfect description for this crucial element. Thousands of lines and discussions might be collected about this simple concept. The clean function seems to evade a conventional definition that let all programmers and theorist happy.

So, this is a proposal. This is a definition proposal based on the pure and concrete analysis of the function structure and hundreds of trial and error efforts.

Take time to evaluate this function (C# or Java code):

IResponse OperationName(IRequest req)

Let’s explain each one:

  • IResponse

IResponse might be any interface defined as a response model (data structure) your function returns from the operation. A response model is a simple data structure, a DTO[1] a model (MVC jargon)[2] or a POCO (POJO in Java). [3] It responds to the OCP[4] based on the implementation capabilities of the interfaces. If I want to include some new property to the old IResponse implementation, I only must implement a new interface with those properties. The old clients will behave the same; the new clients will obtain the benefit of the new attributes.

  • Operation

An operation is a capability a system has in response of a message of the similar name. The operation Save is the response, the operation, the system executes in response of the message Save from a client or caller. Any system is known by its public interface, encapsulating and hiding all its data or state and its implementation of the operations to strangers.

  • IRequest

As the IResponse defines the outputs of the operation, the IRequest defines the data structure of the inputs the client provides. The description of the IResponse and its implications applies to the input data structures.

Treated as the example the function conveys several principles and patterns under the good old philosophy of Unix.[5]

Programming to an interface, not an implementation

Why the input/output pair are defined as abstractions or interfaces? The response is related to a basic principle of object-oriented solutions:

Programming to an interface, not an implementation[6]

But what this principle really means? The principle means that all client request must be issued to an abstraction not a concrete module. See this:

Programming to an interface applied
Programming to an interface applied

In the above diagram the relative client module calls a service provider via its type and interface, not as a class or implementation. There is no new ServerX() call after declaring a server variable but a call to a Factory that return a concrete type of IService. All that means that the call of a function is always a call to the interface of its type, not a direct call to a concrete class.

Therefore, the three elements that conform the IPO function structure are based on abstractions, interface and not concrete implementations, while the initialization problem is fulfilled with factories or abstract parameters. This basic communication structure is also the foundation of many design patterns (state, strategy, abstract factories, prototypes, e.g.) and the clean architecture paradigm.

CQSP (command-query separation principle)

This principle advocates for the separation of these two types of operations. There are operations that execute some changes in the current state of the system. Those operations are commands to do this or that that alter the system internal data. On the other side there are request for data, query operations that return some data structure. Mixing the two operations is a classical violation of this principle.

The principle also constraints the operation by treating the input value as an immutable, while the operations constructs the output structure.

The principle indicates then the following possible operations:


  • IResponse QueryXByParameter(IRequest req)
  • IResponse QueryX()


  • void ExecuteXByParameter(IRequest req)
  • void ExecuteX()

Design by Contract

The Design-by-contract principle was named by Bertrand Meyer[7] to conform a construction principle convenient to functions. The purpose is to evaluate the correctness of a software piece by establishing the constraints of the inputs and outputs. This «software correctness methodology» principle defines the corpus of software module with this structure: preconditions, invariant and post-conditions.

  • Preconditions

Preconditions are the input state that should be true before the execution of the operation. If the preconditions aren’t met by the input data, the operation must end immediately with an exception notice to the client or caller of the service.

  • Invariant

The invariant defines the goal the operation promise. If we follow the CQSP the operation is a command or a query. The invariant changes the state of a system in a command or construct an output result in a query. During this part, the input data is treated as immutable.

  • Post-conditions

Post-conditions determines what must be true as the result of the operation. This points to the output of the operation or the change in the state of the system inducted by the invariant. In the first case the post-condition evaluates the good condition of the result. On the other hand, it evaluates the correction of the new state of the system.

The following code simulation use the above principles to show the concept:


Cleansing and Refactoring

There are several refactoring measures you might take to clean your functions. The classical extract method refactoring procedure and its variants allows us to detach a piece of cohesive code to another method or procedure. There is a family of other related mechanisms to cleaning code like this (extracting conditional blocks, switch and for loops, e.g.) and trim the function.

But those defragment measures come with a dependency problem: the old method now depends on the new methods. While we want high-cohesive functions, extracting parts of a bloated procedure will increase the dependencies of the operation to multiple private methods. Is it desirable?

The most common solution is to create a master function or procedure that defines the algorithm to call all the minor private and derived functions. The master function knows about the other procedures. It’s the façade to the clients who will call the operation. The minor procedures then are independent and reusable. This master function is something like the pseudo-code below:



The previous functions share an important quality: testability. Both functions might be tested by injecting or factoring the concrete objects based on the abstractions. This independence is a core value of all functions that pervades to our modules or classes, and then to our packages or components.

Final words, share your views

The definitions and models described above are only a view of a software implementation problem under any SDLC process. Finding the perfect functions is not a matter of lucky but an effort achieved by adopting the better practices and principles in Computer Science engineering discipline. In the lines above I discuss only several of them, but obviously there are many others you should consider.

A practice based on principles and empirical data that supports them is a professional path that increase your intellectual assets.

What do you think? What is your perfect function? What principles you follow to write this basic founding block in your software pieces?

[1] Data transfer object.

[2] See Model-View-Controller at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model%E2%80%93view%E2%80%93controller.

[3] Plain-old C# object or Plain-old Java object.

[4] Open-Close Principle (R.C. Martin). The open-close principle that that a software piece should be ready to be extended without any critical modification. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open%E2%80%93closed_principle.

[5] About Unix philosophy, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy.

[6] See GoF, Design Patterns, Introduction which is the original source. Instructive is: https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/702246/Program-to-Interface-not-Implementation-Beginners

[7] See http://wiki.c2.com/?DesignByContract.


Por favor, inicia sesión con uno de estos métodos para publicar tu comentario:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Google photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Conectando a %s