Take a look at this Java code:

public class Person { public String name ; public int age ; }

Does it make you cringe a little bit? If so, I’m guessing it’s because those fields aren’t wrapped in nice getters and setters.

But why do that? What if we want them to be mutable and don’t have any validation or logic to perform when they change? Isn’t simpler better? The answer, of course, is that just because we don’t need that now, that doesn’t mean we won’t need them later.

I think of this kind of speculative defensive coding as future-proofing, and it drives me crazy that I have to do it. Eventually, this post will get around to being about Magpie, but I hope that there is food for thought here even if you never take an interest in that little language.

Some More Examples

Before we really get going, let me show you a couple of other common future- proofing practices I see.

Hide constructors behind factories

Java loves this one:

class PersonFactory { public Person create () { return new Person (); } } void doSomething ( PersonFactory factory ) { Person person = factory . create (); // ... }

Assuming you can dodge the infinite regress of FactoryFactoryFactoryFactories , this helps abstract out the places where you call a constructor directly. Wrapping that behind a factory lets you swap out the concrete class being constructed.

Hide classes behind interfaces

This pattern looks like this (here in C#, where its most applicable):

interface IPerson { string Name { get ; set ; } int Age { get ; set ; } } class Person : IPerson { public string Name { get ; set ; } public int Age { get ; set ; } } void DoSomethingWithPerson ( IPerson person ) { // ... }

All of your concrete classes get squirrelled away and you only ever visibly deal with the interface types. I’ve seen entire codebases designed around this.

This lets us swap out our use of Person with some other concrete class that implements the same interface. This can be really helpful for replacing concrete classes with mocks for unit testing, which can otherwise be tricky in C# and C++ where methods default to non-virtual.

Why Do We Do This?

If all of this seems like a pain in the ass with little benefit, congratulations, you’ve just earned your “Feel Superior to Enterprise OOP Programmers” merit badge. Your complimentary Ruby T-shirt should be arriving in the mail shortly. It is a pain. Actually, it’s worse than a pain, it’s boring. Boring work should be a cardinal sin in programming: it indicates something that the computer should be doing but isn’t.

So why do we end up writing this kind of code all the time? There are plenty of other speculative things we could do now that we manage to shrug off by claiming YAGNI. What’s special about the examples I listed?

Let’s say we don’t futureproof. Say we use public fields everywhere. Then later we realize we do need to validate the field. What will we have to do to make that change?

Depth Not Volume

What’s easier: changing a hundred lines of code in one file, or changing one line of code in a hundred files? The former you can do before lunch. The latter means you might need to call a meeting, coordinate with teams, slap some deprecated annotations on things, plan a release, aww hell just give up.

Making non-local changes hurts. It hurts badly enough that a lot of our core ideas about good software engineering, things like coupling and cohesion, exist in part to localize stuff to minimize that hurt.

We futureproof not to minimize the amount of change we’ll need to do in the future but to minimize the width of change we’ll have to do. Ask yourself this: how often do you apply defensive practices inside the bodies of methods compared to in the public signature of a type?

The Uniform Access Principle

Now we get to the heart of the problem. What’s special about these examples that causes them to lead to wide changes? The key issue is that making any of the changes described touches every callsite. If you change a field to a getter in Java, you’ll have to touch every place that field is mentioned. If you hide a constructor behind a factory, you’ll be grepping for every new in your codebase. In C#, if you decide to replace every mention of a class with an interface, you’ll at the very least have to change the name.

The problem here is that these examples violate what Bertrand Meyer calls the uniform access principle. In Java, accessing a field is fundamentally syntactically different from calling a getter. If you go from one to the other, each callsite has to change. According to Meyer, that’s because access to fields and calculated values isn’t uniform.

Properties

Most other languages in wide use today have addressed that problem. Python, Ruby, C#, and Javascript support “properties”: things that look like fields but behave like functions. This means you can transparently switch between the two without affecting every callsite. You no longer need to futureproof them. Java, as always, is like Chunk in The Goonies, struggling to keep up with the rest of the gang.

(Caveat: fields and properties are source compatible in C#, but not binary compatible, which is why you’ll see many C# programmers always wrapping fields in properties.)

Constructors and Factories

One of the things that got me thinking about this idea was this recent post. The author painted himself into a corner by not futureproofing: he was calling a constructor directly but now needed it to construct a different class. Worse, the callsite was outside of code he had control over.

Meyer’s idea of uniform access to fields is really a small piece of a larger idea: Can users define their own abstractions that are syntactically identical to built-in behavior? Can we swap out default language-provided behavior with our own logic without having to change the calling convention?

Unfortunately, this is a case where the answer is “no.” In all of the dominant static OOP languages, calling new will always return an instance of a fixed class. There’s no way to replace it with our own logic. We’re stuck with factories.

Interfaces and Classes

The other example is a messier problem. What does it mean to later replace references to a class with references to an interface? In C#, at the least you’ll be adding I to the name everywhere, but there are likely other changes involved too: calls to static methods on the class will need to be refactored, and any place where you’re calling a constructor will need to be changed somehow. This is a sticky problem to get tangled up in after the fact.

Again, C# and simliar languages don’t give you much help here. Of course, dynamic languages like Ruby and Python do have you covered. If there’s no type annotations to begin with, duck typing lets you swap things out all you want. Go to town!

How Magpie Approaches This (Or How it Will Once it’s All Implemented)

I look at the dynamic solution as throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I really like type-checking. It sucks to have to discard it completely just to avoid having to do some boring future-proofing. Can we keep the type-checking and still solve the above two problems? I think so.

Constructors and Factories

Constructors are the easy one. Magpie has no special syntax for constructors. new is just a method you call on a class object:

var bob = Person new ( "Bob" )

If you later decide you need that to construct a different type, you can always swap out the method:

Person defineMethod ( "rawNew" , Person getMethod ( "new" )) def Person new ( name ) // don't want to create a person... Dude new ( name ) end

To be honest, though, that’s kinda gross. Try not to do that. A better solution really is to use a factory here: some object that you can swap out that will create people. Fortunately, Magpie makes this a bit easier too: a class is a factory:

var makeSomeone ( name , factory ) factory new ( name ) end makeSomeone ( "Bob" , Person ) // makes a person makeSomeone ( "Bob" , Hero ) // makes a hero

Since classes are first, uh, class, you can just pass them around and use them like factories as-is. Because they’re also instances of a class (their metaclass), they can even implement interfaces:

interface NamedFactory new ( name String ) end

Now any class that has a constructor that takes a string will implicitly implement that interface. You get type-safe factories without having to actually create separate special factory classes.

Classes and Mocks

The other example problem is a little trickier. You have a concrete class that you’re using everywhere and you realize later that you actually need to swap it out. One solution is to subclass the concrete class but that always feels dirty to me in Java. If I’m creating a mock class, I don’t actually want to reuse any of the code from the base class, so why am I inheriting it?

Instead, Magpie has (will have) a relatively simple feature called masquerades. Say we have a concrete class like:

class Person this ( name ) this name = name end greet () print ( "Hi, I'm " + name ) end

We’re using it like this:

var greetEachOther ( a Person , b Person ) a greet b greet end

In most static languages, since greetEachOther is typed to expect instances of the concrete Person , the only other option you have is passing in a subclass. Magpie gives you another alternative. Here’s the class we want to use in place of a person:

class Robot name = "Robot" greet () print ( "Greetings, fleshy human." ) end

This class has no relation to Person in the class hierarchy. But it does happen to have all of the methods that Person has. If there was some hypothetical IPerson interface that Person implemented, Robot would implement it too. Masquerades let us approximate that. You can ask an object of one type to masquerade as another. As long as they have compatible methods, it will succeed, even though both types are concrete and unrelated:

var main ( -> ) var robot = Robot new // robot's type is Robot var imposter = robot masqueradeAs [ Person ] // imposter's type is Person but is still a reference to robot // and this is now type-safe: greetEachOther ( Person new ( "Bob" ), imposter ) end

As far as I know, this is a novel feature in programming languages, but I think it’s a useful one. I would definitely appreciate any feedback on it either way, though.

Wrap it Up

One of the idea I’ve been following with the design of Magpie without realizing it is to try to maximize this uniform access principle. As much as possible, you should be able to write the code today for the problems you have today. You shouldn’t need to waste time futureproofing. It’s the language’s job to be flexible enough to handle that. Making sure that the built-in language constructs are syntactically compatible with user-defined abstractions is one important piece for doing that.

As a nice side-effect, it makes the language more consistent and gives more power to users. There’s less “well the built-in stuff can do that, but you can’t.” That, to me, is a sign of a good language.