Objective Understanding of Code Quality

When it comes to the quality of code, there is no uniform standard agreed upon by all. Some consider maintainability to be critical, while others may find it less significant. However, certain dimensions of quality are often highlighted in discussions about code quality. Through my experiences, particular dimensions have stood out as crucial to the success of a project. This article aims to delve into these dimensions while underscoring the objective and subjective nature of what makes code quality.

Dimensions of Code Quality

Quality, like many abstract concepts, can be subjective and multidimensional. Various sources have listed different dimensions, with some including four, five, or even eight. Here are some dimensions that I have found particularly significant:

Correctness: This dimension assesses how well every well-formed input is converted into a correct output. It is a straightforward measure of accuracy. Robustness: This evaluates how well the software responds to unexpected events and maintains service continuity. Maintainability: The ease with which changes and re-releases can be made without significant disruption. Not all companies prioritize this dimension. Fitness for Use: This measures how well the software meets user needs, often challenging to quantify. Efficiency: This is particularly relevant when the computational environment is constrained.

Objective Definition of High-Quality Code

High-quality code is generally characterized by its ease of use. While this is an objective measure, it is often difficult to predict or measure uniformly. Objective does not mean easy to measure; it means that the quality can be assessed based on observable and consistent criteria.

Navigability

A well-organized codebase allows a person with minimal experience to quickly understand its structure and locate specific parts. I value navigable code more than detailed readability. Understanding a block of code at a glance is often more beneficial than carefully analyzing it. However, both should be in harmony.

Understanding

Code should be self-explanatory, allowing someone with minimal experience to understand its function, implementation, and integration into the broader codebase. Misleading code can be worse than confusing code, as it can lead to incorrect assumptions.

Maintainability

Maintainability ensures that a new person can step in and maintain the codebase, undertaking tasks from bug fixes to major refactoring. A living codebase needs to adapt and evolve to remain relevant.

Performance

Code should be efficient and easy to improve. Someone with expertise in performance can quickly work on optimizing it.

Correctness

High-quality code must be correct and verifiable for correctness, ensuring it meets its functional specifications.

The Importance of Minimal Experience

The key aspect of code quality lies in its accessibility to someone with minimal experience inthe specific codebase. While they may need experience with the language and domain, they should not need deep knowledge of the code itself. This is crucial for both new programmers and maintainers.

A codebase that is easy for an author but challenging for others not only leads to higher maintenance costs but can also cause the author to overlook potential flaws, especially if they become too deeply invested in the project.

It is often easier to write code that is subjective and hard for others to work with than code that seems intuitive but might be challenging to implement. The human aspect of code quality—such as aesthetics—plays a role, with ugly code being a strong indicator of poor quality.

Conclusion

High-quality code is code that makes it easy for us to achieve whatever we need. Whether it’s navigating, understanding, maintaining, performing efficiently, or ensuring correctness, these dimensions play a crucial role in determining code quality. While the concept is objective, its measurement can be complex, often requiring a combination of quantitative metrics and subjective insights.