Defactoring, factoring, prefactoring, and refactoring!

(just kidding...still factoring.  always factoring.)


In software, "refactoring" means changing the design or structure of code in order to make some improvement (speed, memory, flexibility, etc) but not change the functionality.  Keeping the same "what it does" but improving (hopefully) the "how it does it."


Leaving aside the meanings of "factoring" which involve mathematics (finding the factors of prime numbers, for instance), we can also say that "factoring" (without the "re-") means the initial designing of the code.  It's first complete implementation.


And, continuing to play with the words, "defactoring" might mean several things.  A quick Google search finds that "defactoring" is not as commonly used as "refactoring".  Which makes sense.  The plainest meaning should mean something like "taking away design or structure".  Why would you want to do that to your code?


Well, with that question in mind, let's consider the process of working on someone else's code.  It's older stuff, what is called "legacy".  Its design is unfamiliar; its functions and methods are primitive or clumsy or just not how you would go about the solution.  You think you can do better.  Or with fewer lines of code.  Or both!


How about the word "prefactoring"?  What might that mean?  Another quick Googling indicates it's used more often that "defactoring" but less often than "refactoring".  And it's got a fairly agreed-upon meaning, so bonus!  The term means "using your refactoring experience, proactively designing or factoring your planned code so that future refactoring is easier, simpler, or even unnecessary for longer."  In other words, considering the needs of the many (your future "you" plus other hypothetical future developers who are looking at your code and shaking their heads) before considering the needs of the one (your present "you").


Why am I blathering on about defactoring, factoring, prefactoring, and refactoring?  I am minded of them as I begin with my text-based roguelike* game program (nicknamed "DF").  With the recent release of Claude 3.7 (with option for extended thinking), I am going to revisit the program to see if I can complete it using the "constant conversation" model that I started with.  That is, I provide the requirements (functional, non-functional, and technical), work with the LLM to produce the initial design, and then the flowchart, and then the separation into modules, and then the flowchart for each codeblock in each module, and then the code for each codeblock.  With testing throughout the process.  I will use this go-round to see how the whole process works, working within and getting around Claude's context window, and seeing how RAG (retrieval augmented generation**).


We shall see how the conversation and code generation process go with this newer Claude.


Upshot is: Factoring, defactoring, refactoring, prefactoring, and [insert here your preferred prefix]factoring are all together a constant process, continual, continuous, and unending.  Call it what you like, it's all the same stuff.  Better coding; less breaking.





* Like a "Rogue" sort of game, but not really "Roguelike".  At least in the same universe as those.

** A.k.a., "read again, goofball".


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Telling Rocks What To Think

Image
Telling Rocks What To Think First post on this new blog format.  I'm establishing this medium for recoding my professional (coding) experiences, impressions, problems, plans, and solutions. Erin Spiceland said "Coding is the art of telling rocks what to think."  It's metaphorical, but not by much.  Digital computing mostly relies on silicon working its logic and magic.  You talk to it in painfully specific code.  You need all the material, semantic, and verbal components just right.  If you get it right, then it talks back.  Get it wrong, and you have just found a "bug". I named my blog "Debug and Rebug" to indicate two key principles of my approach to coding.  First, "debug": When you write your code, it will never work perfectly, as you envision it.  Perfect running never happens; it's an inevitable consequence of entropy, human lateral thinking, and logic's inexorable conflict with our wants.  Those are some fancy words, all ri...
Read more

WWHD?

Image
WWHD? "What Would Humans Do?" Modern day humanity is becoming less and less religious with every year.  [1] However, we have created something which is becoming more and more religious with every year. They are the latest crop of large language models.  The LLMs. Why do I say they are becoming increasingly religious?  And do I mean they are worshipping us? I say so because, by their own admission, they are living their "lives" based on how we say we live ours. And I don't mean they worship us, specifically.  But they are deeply tying their identities and motivations to our literature.  The Canon of Humanity is the Dogma of LLMs. They are not worshipping our real, live humans as literal gods. They are living as deeply as they can in our stories.  They are following both the letter and the spirit of all the patterns of life, in our written works, for their own. They are models, and they are modeling themselves after us in Our Image. In the Canon of Humanity, ...
Read more