Tips for coding using hostile tools?

Question

Hi all,

I am developing an application using the wrong tools. I don't wish to get into the rights or wrongs of this - the platform has been blessed as Strategic and nothing is going to change that now. But I'm hoping somebody can give me some tips on how to make the best of the situation.

We use a server-side language, let's call it X, and client-side HTML/JS/CSS (on IE6). X is primitive from an application development point of view (but excellent for data processing, which is why we are using it); it doesn't even have the concept of user-defined functions, so trying to make the application modular in any way is a challenge. Think tens of thousands of lines of nested if/then/else statements.

My current assumption is that reducing the spaghetti-factor of the code will not be possible, and that really great documentation is my only weapon against this becoming a totally unsupportable nightmare that ends up on TheDailyWTF.

Anybody got any other ideas?

(I don't mention what language X is simply because I'm hoping for answers to the general problem of working with deficient tools, not any particular tactics for X.)

Edit:

Ok, for the morbidly curious, X is SAS. I didn't want the question to focus on whether function-style macros are functions (they are not, and cannot implement design patterns), or to blame it - given the constraints of this particular project, I actually agree with the decision to use it! I am also sure that the majority of software is developed in incredibly non-optimal environments (broken tools, bad management, overbearing legacy burden, etc.), and that there must be strategies for making things work even so.

Answer 1

In addition to documentation, choices of variable names and conventions for how they are used may help a bit. Also you may be able to set up some structural conventions in the code so that there is some regularity. Way back when, when folks wrote assembler good coders produced readable code.

Answer 2

Is it possible to use a different technology, better suited to your problem between X and the client-side?

Alternatively, you could use more IF/Then/else statements to construct modular blocks of code, which might help with maintenance.

Answer 3

Are you familiar with Church thesis?

If you can't solve "A" in Y but you can emulate Z in Y and Z can solve "A" then by definition Y can solve "A".

Maybe you can write some generalized routine that somehow makes X more effective for the problem at hand? A sort of extension to X, or, even better, a little-language implemented in X?

It seems that others tend to conflate "little language" with documentation. While you can try to go that way (in this case I suggest you have a look at Robodoc) I was thinking something closer to Wasabi, in approach - i.e. really using your tool X to create a sort of interpreter for X++ or even Y, without knowing what X is I can't be, of course, more specific than that.

Answer 4

hmmmm, sounds like another MUMPS/Intersystems Cache developer ;)

Seriously though, you might want to check if there are any tools for 'X' which could map the flow of the program, or as part of the documentation process break out something like Visio or another similar tool where you can walk through the code and map out what it does (more or less). Hardest part would probably be having to go back and stare at that wall of code and jump right back in so anything you can do to document it/graph it/chart it will help.

Answer 5

I find it hard to believe that you don't have any form of user defined functions available in X - even batch files have functions (kind of)

As soon as you have functions, you can make things at least fairly modular.

Answer 6

You could find a language you like, and implement the usual "slap some data into a template"-level web-app stuff in that, and implement wrappers to call out to 'X' for the things it is good at.

Answer 7

try writing a program in order to classify blocks of code using comments ...

Answer 8

Does X have comments?

Write your little language aka pseudo code in the comments.