When to violate YAGNI? [closed]

问题:

The YAGNI "principle" states that you shouldn't focus on providing functionality before you needed as "you ain't gonna need it" anyway.

I usually tend to use common sense above any rule, no matter what but there are some times when I feel it is useful to over design or future proof something if you have good reasons, even if it's possible you'll never use it.

The actual case I have in my hands right now is more or less like this:

I've got an application that has to run over a simple proprietary communication protocol (OSI level 4). This protocol has a desirable set of characteristics (such as following NORM specification) which provide robustness to the application but which are not strictly required (UDP multicast could perform acceptable).

There's also the fact that the application is probably (but not surely) be used by other clients in the future which will not have access to the proprietary solution and, therefore, will need another solution. I know for a fact the probability of another client for the application is high.

So, what's your thinking? Should I just design for the proprietary protocol and leave the refactoring, interface extraction and so on to when I really need it or should I design now thinking for the (not so far) future?

Note: Just to be clear, I'm interested in hearing all kind of opinions to the general question (when to violate YAGNI) but I'd really like some advice or thoughts on my current dilemma :)

回答1:

IMHO

• I'd say go YAGNI first. Get it working without the NORM specification using 'the simplest thing that would work'.
• Next compare if the cost of making the 'design changes' in the future is significantly greater than making the change now. Is your current solution reversible ? If you can easily make the change tomorrow or after a couple of months don't do it now. If you don't need to make an irreversible design decision now.. delay till the last responsible moment (so that you have more information to make a better decision)

To close if you know with a considerable degree of certainity that something is on the horizon and adding it later is going to be a pain, don't be an ostrich.. design for it.
e.g. I know that diagnostic logs would be needed before the product ships. Adding logging code after a month would be much more effort than adding it in today as I write each function... so this would be a case where I'd override YAGNI even though I dont need logs right now.

See-also: T. & M. Poppendieck's Lean books are better at explaining the dilemma of bullet#2 above.

回答2:

The reason YAGNI applies to code is that the cost of change is low. With good, well refactored code adding a feature later is normally cheap. This is different from say construction.

In the case of protocols, adding change later is usually not cheap. Old versions break, it can lead to communication failures, and an N^2 testing matrix as you have to test every version against every other version. Compare this with single codebases where new versions only have to work with themselves.

So in your case, for the protocol design, I wouldn't recommend YAGNI.

回答3:

Structuring your program well (abstraction, etc) isn't something that YAGNI applies to. You always want to structure your code well.

Just to clarify, I think your current predicament is due to over application of YAGNI. Structuring your code in such a way that you have a reusable library for using this protocol is just good programming practice. YAGNI does not apply.

回答4:

I think that YAGNI could be inappropriate when you want to learn something :) YAGNI is good for the professionals, but not for students. When you want to learn you'll always need it.

回答5:

I think it's pretty simple and obvious:

Violate YAGNI when you know that, in full certainty, You Are Going To Need It

回答6:

I wouldn't worry. The fact that you aware of "YAGNI" means you are already thinking pragmatically.

I'd say, regardless of anything posted here, you are statistically more likely to come up with better code than someone who isn't analysing their practices in the same way.

回答7:

I agree with Gishu and Nick.

Designing part of a protocol later often leads to thoughts like "damn, I should have done this that way, now I have to use this ugly workaround"

But it also depends on who will interface with this protocol.
If your control both ends, and that they will change of version at the same time, you can always refactor the protocol later as you would with a normal code interface.

About doing the extra protocol features implementation later, I found that implementing the protocol helps a lot to validate its design, so you may at least want to do a simple out-of-production code sample to test it, if you need the design to be official.

回答8:

There are some cases where it makes sense to go against the YAGNI intuition.

Here are a few:

Following programming conventions. Especially base class and interface contracts. For example, if a base class you inherit provides a GetHashCode and an Equals method, overriding Equals but not GetHashCode breaks platform-documented rules developers are supposed to follow when they override Equals. This convention should be followed even if you find that GetHashCode would not actually be called. Not overriding GetHashCode is a bug even if there is no current way to provoke it (other than a contrived test). A future version of the platform might introduce calls to GetHashCode. Or, another programmer who has looked at documentation (in this example, the platform documentation for the base class you are inheriting) might rightfully expect that your code adheres without examining your code. Another way of thinking about this is that all code and applicable documentation must be consistent, even with documentation written by others such as that provided by the platform vendor.

Supporting customization. Particularly by external developers who will not be modifying your source code. You must figure out and implement suitable extension points in your code so that these developers can implement all kinds of addon functionality that never crossed your mind. Unfortunately, it is par for the course that you will add some extensibility features that few if any external developers ultimately use. (If it is possible to discuss the extensibility requirements with all of the external developers ahead of time or use frequent development/release cycles, great, but this is not feasible for all projects.)

Assertions, debug checks, failsafes, etc. Such code is not actually needed for your application to work correctly, but it will help make sure that your code works properly now and in the future when revisions are made.