Laws, Theories, Principles and Patterns that developers will find useful.
There are lots of laws which people discuss when talking about development. This repository is a reference and overview of some of the most common ones. Please share and submit PRs!
❗: This repo contains an explanation of some laws, principles and patterns, but does not advocate for any of them. Whether they should be applied will always be a matter of debate, and greatly dependent on what you are working on.
And here we go!
Amdahl's Law is a formula which shows the potential speedup of a computational task which can be achieved by increasing the resources of a system. Normally used in parallel computing, it can predict the actual benefit of increasing the number of processors, which is limited by the parallelisability of the program.
Best illustrated with an example. If a program is made up of two parts, part A, which must be executed by a single processor, and part B, which can be parallelised, then we see that adding multiple processors to the system executing the program can only have a limited benefit. It can potentially greatly improve the speed of part B - but the speed of part A will remain unchanged.
The diagram below shows some examples of potential improvements in speed:
(Image Reference: By Daniels220 at English Wikipedia, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AmdahlsLaw.svg)
As can be seen, even a program which is 50% parallelisable will benefit very little beyond 10 processing units, where as a program which is 95% parallelisable can still achieve significant speed improvements with over a thousand processing units.
As Moore's Law slows, and the acceleration of individual processor speed slows, parallelisation is key to improving performance. Graphics programming is an excellent example - with modern Shader based computing, individual pixels or fragments can be rendered in parallel - this is why modern graphics cards often have many thousands of processing cores (GPUs or Shader Units).
See also:
Adding human resources to a late software development project makes it later.
This law suggests that in many cases, attempting to accelerate the delivery of a project which is already late, by adding more people, will make the delivery even later. Brooks is clear that this is an over-simplification, however the general reasoning is that given the ramp up time of new resources and the communication overheads, in the immediate short-term velocity decreases. Also, many tasks may not be divisible, i.e. easily distributed between more resources, meaning the potential velocity increase is also lower.
The common phrase in delivery "Nine women can't make a baby in one month" relates to Brooks's Law, in particular the fact that some kinds of work are not divisible or parallelisable.
See also:
This law suggests that the technical boundaries of a system will reflect the structure of the organisation. It is commonly referred to when looking at organisation improvements, Conway's Law suggests that if an organisation is structured into many small, disconnected units, the software it produces will be. If an organisation is built more around 'verticals' which are orientated around features or services, the software systems will also reflect this.
See also: 'The Spotify Model'.
We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.
(Roy Amara)
The Hype Cycle is a visual representation of the excitement and development of technology over time, originally produced by Gartner. It is best shown with a visual:
(Image Reference: By Jeremykemp at English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10547051)
In short, this cycle suggests that there is typically a burst of excitement around new technology and its potential impact. Teams often jump into these technologies quickly, and sometimes fund themselves disappointed with the results. This might be because the technology is not yet mature enough, or real-world applications are not yet fully realised. After a certain amount of time, the capabilities of the technology increase and practical opportunities to use it increase, and teams can finally become productive. Roy Amara's quote sums this up most succinctly - "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate in the long run".
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
You might hear this law referred to when looking at estimates for how long something will take. It seems a truism in software development that we tend to not be very good at accurately estimating how long something will take to deliver.
The number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.
Often used to illustrate the sheer speed at which semiconductor and chip technology has improved, Moore's prediction has proven to be highly accurate over from the 1970s to the late 2000s. In more recent years, the trend has changed slightly, partly due to physical limitations on the degree to which components can be miniaturised. However, advancements in parallelisation, and potentially revolutionary changes in semi-conductor technology and quantum computing may mean that Moore's Law could continue to hold true for decades to come.
Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.
In it's original context, this Law was based on studies of bureaucracies. It may be pessimistically applied to software development initiatives, the theory being that teams will be inefficient until deadlines near, then rush to complete work by the deadline, thus making the actual deadline somewhat arbitrary.
If this law were combined with Hofstadter's Law, an even more pessimistic viewpoint is reached - work will expand to fill the time available for it's completion and still take longer than expected.
See also:
The Law of Conservation of Complexity on Wikipedia
This law states that there is a certain amount of complexity in a system which cannot be reduced.
Some complexity in a system is 'inadvertent'. It is a consequence of poor structure, mistakes, or just bad modeling of a problem to solve. Inadvertent complexity can be reduced (or eliminated). However, some complexity is 'intrinsic' as a consequence of the complexity inherent in the problem being solved. This complexity can be moved, but not eliminated.
One interesting element to this law is the suggestion that even by simplifying the entire system, the intrinsic complexity is not reduced, it is moved to the user, who must behave in a more complex way.
The Law of Triviality on Wikipedia
This law suggests that groups will give far more time and attention to trivial or cosmetic issues rather than serious and substantial ones.
The common fictional example used is that of a committee approving plans for nuclear power plant, who spend the majority of their time discussing the structure of the bike shed, rather than the far more important design for the power plant itself. It can be difficult to give valuable input on discussions about very large, complex topics without a high degree of subject matter expertise or preparation. However, people want to be seen to be contributing valuable input. Hence a tendency to focus too much time on small details, which can be reasoned about easily, but are not necessarily of particular importance.
The fictional example above led to the usage of the term 'Bike Shedding' as an expression for wasting time on trivial details.
The Unix Philosophy on Wikipedia
The Unix Philosophy is that software components should be small, and focused on doing one specific thing well. This can make it easier to build systems by composing together small, simple, well defined units, rather than using large, complex, multi-purpose programs.
Modern practices like 'Microservice Architecture' can be thought of as an application of this law, where services are small, focused and do one specific thing, allowing complex behaviour to be composed from simple building blocks.
The Spotify Model on Spotify Labs
The Spotify Model is an approach to team and organisation structure which has been popularised by 'Spotify'. In this model, teams are organised around features, rather than technologies.
The Spotify Model also popularises the concepts of Tribes, Guilds, Chapters, which are other components of their organisation structure.
Wadler's Law on wiki.haskell.org
In any language design, the total time spent discussing a feature in this list is proportional to two raised to the power of its position.
- Semantics
- Syntax
- Lexical syntax
- Lexical syntax of comments
(In short, for every hour spent on semantics, 8 hours will be spent on the syntax of comments).
Similar to The Law of Triviality, Wadler's Law states what when designing a language, the amount of time spent on language structures is disproportionately high in comparison to the importance of those features.
See also:
Principles are generally more likely to be guidelines relating to design.
The Robustness Principle on Wikipedia
Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.
Often applied in server application development, this principle states that what you send to others should be as minimal and conformant as possible, but you should be aim to allow non-conformant input if it can be processed.
The goal of this principle is to build systems which are robust, as they can handle poorly formed input if the intent can still be understood. However, there are potentially security implications of accepting malformed input, particularly if the processing of such input is not well tested.
This is an acronym, which refers to:
- S: The Single Responsibility Principle
- O: The Open/Closed Principle
- L: The Liskov Substitution Principle
- I: The Interface Segregation Principle
- D: The Dependency Inversion Principle
These are key principles in Object-Oriented Programming. Design principles such as these should be able to aid developers build more maintainable systems.
The Single Responsibility Principle on Wikipedia
Every module or class should have a single responsibility only.
The first of the 'SOLID' principles. This principle suggests that modules or classes should do one thing and one thing only. In more practical terms, this means that a single, small change to a feature of a program should require a change in one component only. For example, changing how a password is validated for complexity should require a change in only one part of the program.
Theoretically this should make code more robust, and easier to change. Knowing that a component which is being changed has a single responsibility only means that testing that change should be easier. Using the earlier example, changing the password complexity component should only be able to affect the features which relate to password complexity. It can be much more difficult to reason about the impact of a change to a component which has many responsibilities.
See also:
The Open/Closed Principle on Wikipedia
Entities should be open for extension and closed for modification.
The second of the 'SOLID' principles. This principle states that entities (which could be classes, modules, functions and so on) should be able to have their behaviour extended, but that their existing behaviour should not be able to be modified.
As a hypothetical example, imagine a module which is able to turn a Markdown document into HTML. If the module could be extended to handle a newly proposed markdown feature, without modifying the module internals, then it would be open for extension. If the module could not be modified by a consumer so that how existing Markdown features are handled, then it would be closed for modification.
This principle has particular relevance for object-oriented programming, where we may design objects to be easily extended, but would avoid designing objects which can have their existing behaviour changed in unexpected ways.
See also:
The Liskov Substitution Principle on Wikipedia
It should be possible to replace a type with a subtype, without breaking the system.
The third of the 'SOLID' principles. This principle states that if a component relies on a type, then it should be able to use subtypes of that type, without the system failing or having to know the details of what that subtype is.
As an example, imagine we have a method which reads an XML document from a structure which represents a file. If the method uses a base type 'file', then anything which derives from 'file' should be able to be used in the function. If 'file' supports seeking in reverse, and the xml parser uses that function, but the derived type 'network file' fails when reverse seeking is attempted, then the 'network file' would be violating the principle.
This principle has particular relevance for object-orientated programming, where type hierarchies must be modelled carefully to avoid confusing users of a system.
See also:
The Interface Segregation Principle on Wikipedia
No client should be forced to depend on methods it does not use.
The fourth of the 'SOLID' principles. This principle states that consumers of a component should not depend on functions of that component which it doesn't actually use.
As an example, imagine we have a method which reads an XML document from structure which represents a file. It only needs to read bytes, move forwards or move backwards in the file. If this method needs to be updated because an unrelated feature of the file structure changes (such as an update to the permissions model used to represent file security), then the principle has been invalidated. It would be better for the file to implement a 'seekable-stream' interface, and for the XML reader to use that.
This principle has particular relevance for object-orientated programming, where interfaces, hierarchies and abstract types are used to minimise the coupling between different components. Duck typing is a methodology which enforces this principle by eliminating explicit interfaces.
See also:
The Dependency Inversion Principle
High level modules should not be dependent on low-level implementations.
The fifth of the 'SOLID' principles. This principle states that higher level orchestrating components should not have to know the details of their dependencies.
As an example, imagine we have a program which read metadata from a website. We would assume that the main component would have to know about a component to download the webpage content, then a component which can read the metadata. If we were to take dependency inversion into account, the main component would depend only on an abstract component which can fetch byte data, and then an abstract component which would be able to read metadata from a byte stream. The main component would not know about TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, etc.
This principle is complex, as it can seem to 'invert' the expected dependencies of a system (hence the name). In practice, it also means that a separate orchestrating component must ensure the correct implementations of abstract types are used (e.g. in the previous example, something must still provide the metadata reader component a HTTP file downloader and HTML meta tag reader). This then touches on patterns such as Inversion of Control and Dependency Injection.
See also:
Hi! If you land here, you've clicked on a link to a topic I've not written up yet. Feel free to Raise an Issue requesting more details, or Open a Pull Request to submit your proposed definition of the topic.