[wefarrell]

Personally I think the most important thing to minimizing code complexity is ensuring that it understandably maps to the business logic. The business logic is the essential complexity and everything else can be seen as waste.

The first step is getting the lexicon right. Frequently the business lexicon is ambiguous in such a pervasive way that the people immersed in the business aren't aware of the discrepancies. For example I remember from working in healthcare the words "claim" and "member" often have very different meanings in different contexts and I would see developers hacking code together to get the data model of one context conform to the data model of another when they should have been treated as different entities.

[kristov]

I agree. As a dev in a pretty large organization, I have seen the knowledge of business logic dissapate as the org grew, with some churn. To the point now where very few people actually know how the current system works, let alone how it is supposed to work. This means the only concrete definition of "this is what the system is supposed to do" is only in the code. The organization is disorganized, and the code is only as good as the level of organization outside the code - so very poor. All this gotme thinking about what does it mean exactly to be organized? We call companies "organizations" because they are groups of people getting together and organizing. If the organization is not organized the code (or any other artifact it produces) will also be poorly organized. Organizing is sorting, classifying, grouping, communicating etc.

[wefarrell]

Oh god you just brought back a memory from when I was brought in to manage a team at a dysfunctional organization and I was trying to figure out how a complex service was supposed to work. I asked: "Do you have any documentation or requirements", I was told "The code is the requirements", to which I responded "Wonderful that means there can't ever be bugs because there will never be a discrepancy between the code and requirements".

Getting requirements in writing was an uphill battle and the lack of requirements always wound up screwing over the developers because there was no contract to prevent scope creep and the developers were the ones that were held accountable for misunderstood features and missed deadlines. As a result everything was constantly rushed and not well thought out. It took me a long time to convince my boss that the issue stemmed from unwritten requirements and a lack of planning.

[spikej]

I'm going to steal your quote. I love it!

To add, how could they do any QA when testing needs to map to those unwritten requirements

[btreesOfSpring]

This is a great point. Often I find situations when working with the subject matter experts where the code unveils edge cases in the business reasoning that the SMEs haven't considered. In many of those situations, the issue can be pedantic and the code can point to a catchall. Even so, it is funny how common these kinds of knowledge gaps appear when you are tasked with transforming assumptions into a functional working entity.

[martinflack]

This is huge. Often the coder automating some manual process is the first person to sensibly create an unambiguous, correct taxonomy just to discuss it precisely.

[arwhatever]

It’s almost as though business and software development within a company should agree on a ubiquitous language to describe concepts, and when it becomes too difficult to build a single unified model to define individual concepts, then perhaps the core domain should be split into bounded contexts … (and so on)