The P.G. Wodehouse Method of Refactoring
covertbadger notes a developer's blog entry on a novel way of judging progress in refactoring code. "Software quality tools can never completely replace the gut instinct of a developer — you might have massive test coverage, but that won't help with subjective measures such as code smells. With Wodehouse-style refactoring, we can now easily keep track of which code we are happy with, and which code we remain deeply suspicious of."
I prefer the Raymond Chandler method - if you're having a problem with a section of code, have a man come through the door holding a gun in his hand.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
I say Jeeves, cancel my engagements for the morning, Aunt Agatha has decided that I must refactor my code so the Drones Club annual 'ship without testing' party will have to wait.
Adversity strikes when one least welcomes it Sir.
She claims my code 'smells'. I'll have her know my code smells as spiffly as a, as a, well, as a whatnot Jeeves.
Indeed sir.
Yes, a whatnot. I check my code against the very latest coding practices, and sometimes I even run it through unit tests!
Admirable qualities in a coder, if I may say, Sir.
Yes you may Jeeves. Now. to work! beastly testing.
Sir, perhaps one could use some automated tool or other method of achieving the requisite level of quality desired.
You know Jeeves, you've hit it right on the head there. I'll get Bernie Smetherington-Smythe to do it, he's such a ghastly bore but, well, when it comes to code review testing, there's no-one that can cut the mustard quite like him. Zip the source up Jeeves, we're to go pay Bernie a visit.
Certainly Sir, but what if Aunt Agatha finds out?
Pish Jeeves, pish! The auditors won't be around for months, no-one'll be any the wiser, and I can go to the ship-without-testing party after all. Life just falls into place sometimes doesn't it Jeeves? After all, What could go wrong?
Yes Sir.