The Curse of Procedural Design
After reverse engineering procedural code in C, VB or even Python, I'm finding that procedural programming inevitably leads to bad, bad code-rot. Consider some of the common design patterns.
Strategy. Confronted with alternative strategy choices, a purely procedural code solution is either
- If-statements everywhere the strategy is involved.
- Block comments. (Pre-processor #if statements are the logical equivalent of block comments plus a tool to move them around just prior to compilation.)
These lack flexibility and seem to devolve into a quagmire of mystery. The if-statements often become tangled and complex. More importantly, some strategy choices — which are unused — may not be maintained at all. Of course, the block comments are never maintained.
Command. Often a command design requires a "code" or "label" and a big-old sequential switch (BOSS™) statement to select among the procedures which implement the various commands. Once "composite" commands are introduced, this devolves into nonsense. Ideally, it's a simple recursion, where a composite command simply invokes the sub-commands. However, folks get nervous about recursion and try to write weird loops.
State. A state design always seems to involve labels or codes for the state names and a slightly different big-old-state-switch (BOSS™, no accident that this is the same acronym) to sort out the variant behaviors in the distinct states. This shouldn't become too confusing. After all, Turing machines and other mathematical abstractions give us a strong hint on how we should proceed.
The problem with stateful procedural programming is that the state changes can be hidden everywhere. In the Really Bad Languages, variables can change values without an assignment statement! In the Not Bad Languages, we can track down the various assignment statements and try to reason out the state changes. Procedural code—without a lot of adult supervision—never seems to encapsulate state change with the the same in-your-face clarity that OO programs do.
I Could Go On
The point is this. While procedural programming could be done well, there appear to be a lot of obstacles inherent in the paradigm.
The best procedural programming I've seen has always been very object-oriented. Each procedure or function had a distinct data structure it worked with; they were all closely related by virtue of naming or file structure; much like a class definition.
I'm starting to wonder if my Building Skills books are taking the right approach. I start with the procedural aspects of Python. I'm beginning to feel that this may be a disservice to the n00bz.
Perhaps it's better to swap the order of the sections and start with the various Pythonic data structures and introduce the various statements sort of "casually" as part of demonstrating how a data structure is supposed to be used.
(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)