Is Clean Architecture always the solution?
Sometimes, we become overly fixated on the idea of following patterns or complex architectures, such as Clean Architecture, for instance. We forget about unnoticed areas for improvement. As I mentioned earlier, adhering to Clean Architecture doesn’t merely involve copying and pasting the predefined folder structure. Clean Architecture encompasses much more than that; it’s about the concept of maintaining clean and well-written code.
However, it’s important to note that we often associate code written within the Clean Architecture framework as clean code itself. But what exactly is this frequently mentioned ‘clean code’? It can be defined in various ways, such as improving variable naming, avoiding code repetition, and breaking down complex logic into smaller parts to enhance future comprehension. Consider clean code as something you can explain to a friend or family member with no tech knowledge, and yet they can grasp what you’re doing in a particular section. Sometimes, simplicity is more effective than complexity, and you can understand what’s happening with just a quick glance.
I’m not attempting to criticize Clean Architecture or anything of the sort. We must remember that as developers, we are responsible for defining the project’s architecture, considering our understanding of its needs, rather than simply adhering to a pre-determined folder ‘template.’ Our role is to grasp the approach and solution required for each problem. We don’t need an elaborate solution to address a simple problem.
When selecting the ‘ideal’ architecture for a project, we depend on various factors:
- Does our development team possess the necessary knowledge to implement it?
- Does our company have the resources to hire professionals capable of adhering to and improving established standards?
- Could we delay project delivery due to the team’s learning curve?
- Is it genuinely necessary to use a complex architecture like Clean Architecture and integration testing to create a to-do list?
- Is it genuinely necessary to use a complex architecture like Clean Architecture and integration testing to create a to-do list?
We should always seek a balance between these two worlds to determine the best course of action. And what are these ‘two worlds’? They refer to the current context of your team and the long-term expectations for the project.
Additionally, it’s essential to remember that in many cases, simpler architectures can be highly effective. Approaches like the Model-View-Controller (MVC) architecture or even the use of design patterns like Singleton and Factory can be perfectly suitable for straightforward and direct projects. Therefore, when making architectural decisions, it’s crucial to carefully assess the specific needs of your project and consider whether a simpler approach might be the best choice. Simplicity often provides valuable clarity and can expedite development, especially when complexity is not required.
In this increasingly interconnected and ever-evolving technological world, it’s crucial that development teams stay updated and are willing to explore new approaches and technologies. The ability to learn and adapt is as valuable as the initial choice of architecture.
Furthermore, collaboration and effective communication within the team play a fundamental role in a project’s success. As we discuss architectural decisions, it’s important to maintain open dialogue and promote a shared understanding of goals and challenges.
In summary, choosing the architecture for a software project is a strategic decision that should be made based on a careful assessment of needs and available resources. However, this choice isn’t a one-time decision; it’s an ongoing process that requires continuous adaptation and learning. With a balanced approach and a growth mindset, we can tackle challenges and achieve success in our software development endeavors.
