The Single Responsibility Principle (and what’s wrong with it)

LMAX Exchange

Marco Cecconi - I don’t love the single responsibility principle:

The principle is arbitrary in itself. What makes one and only Reason To Changeâ„¢ always, unequivocally better than two Reasons To Changeâ„¢? The number one sounds great, but I’m a strong advocate of simple things and sometimes a class with more reasons to change is the simplest thing.
I agree that we mustn’t do mega-classes that try to do too many different things, but why should a class have one single Reason To Changeâ„¢? I flatly disagree with the statement. It’s not supported by any fact. I could say “three” reasons and be just as arbitrary.

Interesting critique of the single responsibility pattern. The quote above is perhaps one of the weaker arguments against the single responsibility pattern but it struck a nerve with me because all too often we assume that because a rule sounds good it has some validity. In reality, picking one responsibility for a class is quite arbitrary and, as the article argues, deciding what a responsibility is is even more arbitrary.

So, whilst I agree completely on the premise of not make ginormous classes, I think this principle is not at all helpful in either illustrating the concept or even identifying unequivocally problematic cases so they can be corrected. In the same way, anemic micro-classes that do little are a very complicated way of organizing a code base.

Given I’ve spent time today fixing a bug that was almost entirely caused by having too many classes with too focused responsibilities which caused the combined structure to be difficult to reason about and have unintended consequences this resonates strongly as well. Making responsibilities too fine grained is just as detrimental to the maintainability of code and somewhat counterintuitively also to it’s reusability. Reusing a single class is far simpler than having to work out how to piece together ten separate classes in the right way (hence the existence of builders which create a facade that everything is really a single unit again).
I can see a lot of value in discussing things in terms of coupling and cohesion rather than responsibilities and using those concepts to find the right balance.

Adrian Sutton LMAX Exchange Staff Blogs   LMAX Exchange  

Any opinions, news, research, analyses, prices or other information ("information") contained on this Blog, constitutes marketing communication and it has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research. Further, the information contained within this Blog does not contain (and should not be construed as containing) investment advice or an investment recommendation, or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instrument. LMAX Group has not verified the accuracy or basis-in-fact of any claim or statement made by any third parties as comments for every Blog entry.

LMAX Group will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to, any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. No representation or warranty is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the above information. While the produced information was obtained from sources deemed to be reliable, LMAX Group does not provide any guarantees about the reliability of such sources. Consequently any person acting on it does so entirely at his or her own risk. It is not a place to slander, use unacceptable language or to promote LMAX Group or any other FX and CFD provider and any such postings, excessive or unjust comments and attacks will not be allowed and will be removed from the site immediately.