"The Clean Code Talks -- Inheritance, Polymorphism, & Testing"

Google TechTalks3 HN recommenders · 2009–2023
438K views · talk · dated · Uploaded 2008-12-05

Misko Hevery's Clean Code Talk shows how to use object-oriented techniques such as polymorphism to remove repeated if and switch statements. The result is code that is easier to test, understand and maintain.

HN commenters recommend it as a thorough treatment of replacing conditionals with polymorphism and why flags and deep ifs can be code smells.

Watch on YouTube

6 comments from Hacker News

@derwiki2009 · in “Using Polymorphism instead of conditionals when programming”

Google posted a tech talk about this a while ago: [VIDEO] which is more comprehensive than the posted article.

RecommendsView on HN
@VBprogrammer2010 · in “Criminal Overengineering”

I completely disagree with the example given in this blog. I don't have time to give a full explaination but I believe the google clean code talks gives a far better arguement than I ever could. On the general principle I agree that overengineering is to be avoided, but I actually think the example shows a clear disregard for Object Orientated principles. [VIDEO]

RecommendsView on HN
@wcoenen2013 · in “How A Pull Request Rocked My World”

This google tech talk is basically about the same thing, eliminating conditionals with polymorphism: [VIDEO]

@efraim2016 · in “Anti-if: The Missing Patterns”

Misko Hevery did a Google Tech Talk about this some years ago, he also use a very similar example with switching on the birds. [VIDEO]

@Mr_P2022 · in “Flags Are a Code Smell (2014)”

It's not so much the existence of the flag, itself, but rather using an if-statement at the deepest-level of the call stack to conditionally modify behavior. This talk gives a great overview of why boolean flags (rather, if-statements) can be a code smell: [VIDEO] OP's blogpost advocates for data-oriented design (e.g. Entity Component Systems) as a mechanism for avoiding this, whereas the talk I've linked advocates for OOP. Both mechanisms are equally valid (imho) and are inline with widely-adopted industry practices for software architecture.

RecommendsView on HN
@tacitusarc2023 · in “Push ifs up and fors down”

I think this is actually a great example of why `if` should be "pushed up." The objective of the code is to perform an particular operation on the walrus, given a condition. The is actually ifs being instead of polymorphism and a type system. Why does the walrus have these two functions, which must be called in different scenarios? Why not have a single function, and two types, and the correct type is passed in? Even given the current structure, we could accomplish this: // There are better ways to accomplish this, depending on the language func frobnicate(walrus) { return walrus.frobnicate(); } func transmogrify(walrus) { return walrus.transmogrify(); } // Somewhere high in the code if condition { processing_function = frobnicate } else { processing_function = transmogrify } // Somewhere else in the code for walrus in walruses { processing_function() } If the decisions are made as early as possible, they do not need to be littered throughout the code. The guts of the code can run without branches, performing the same operations every time, the output only modified through the construction graph. Of course, this is not a new idea: [VIDEO] It was old 15 years ago.