The Open-Closed Principle, described in SOLID, ensures project flexibility, but does it always lead to optimal, future-ready code? It sounds promising

The Dark Sides of the Open-Closed Principle | Programming Chi - Tomasz Fijałkowski’s blog

submited by

Style Pass

2024-04-25 20:30:33

The Open-Closed Principle, described in SOLID, ensures project flexibility, but does it always lead to optimal, future-ready code? It sounds promising - open for extension, closed for modification. Let’s take a closer look.

The Open-Closed Principle seems like a reasonable approach. By designing our code to easily add new features without modifying existing code, we become prepared for unexpected changes and project expansions. However, is this always necessary? This is where the problem of overengineering arises.

Overengineering is when our code is more complicated than necessary to prepare for changes and scenarios that may never occur. It’s like building a bridge in the desert, hoping it might someday be useful as a trade corridor.

Anticipating potential, but unknown, changes can lead to excessive code abstraction. Additional layers, interfaces, and structures intended to provide flexibility introduce unnecessary complexity. Additional complexity is introduced to avoid touching individual pieces of code in the future. It is the fear of future change that drives overengineering. Fear stemming from poor-quality code.

Instead of focusing on creating code that is ready for every eventuality, it is worth concentrating on proper engineering. Rather than avoiding changes, let’s focus on creating code that is easy to change. High-quality code, clean code, automated testing, modularization, high cohesion, etc. - these are the foundations that make our code flexible without unnecessary abstractions.