View source for Column info : Getting Empirical about Refactoring

=URL=
http://www.stickyminds.com/sitewide.asp?Function=edetail&ObjectType=COL&ObjectId=16679&tth=DYN&tt=siteemail&iDyn=2

=Description=
Refactoring has been around for ages, and most programmers at least pay lip service to it. In my experience, people approach refactoring in one of two ways. They either build it into their day-to-day work as an integral practice, or they talk about it as an avalanche task—something that they do in very large chunks every other sprint or so.

If you've studied up on refactoring, you know that making it part of your daily practice is the way to go. You look at a piece of code you are trying to understand or are about to change, and if it is not in a good state, you refactor. Over time, your code base gets better, except for the parts that don't.

Wait. Why wouldn't your code get uniformly better over time when you refactor what you touch? The fact is that we don't touch code in our code bases with uniform frequency. Some classes get touched about once every month or so, and some—well, you wrote them a long time ago and there's a good chance that you'll never modify them again. The net ef
[[Category:software]]

[[Category:bookmark]]

[[Category:complexity]]

[[Category:metrics]]

[[Category:refactoring]]

[[Category:software]]