rmathews at gmail.com
Fri Dec 3 07:30:30 CET 2010
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:35, Anand Balachandran Pillai
<abpillai at gmail.com> wrote:
> However "refactoring" as discussed
> here is a more of a standardized process using tools and approaches
> designed for it, with some little buzz added to the mix.
"Refactoring" might have devolved into that now, but I don't think
that's what Fowler was pushing.
> Refactoring assumes that the implementation of the code is not
> closely tied with its interfaces. In other words, it assumes some amount
> of separation of concerns which will allow to modify the inner guts
> without changing the external behavior of the code.
To be pedantic, refactoring doesn't assume that, that's how it is
defined. If you're changing the external behaviour then it isn't
refactoring that you're doing. It's nice that Fowler named the
process, and showed some of the different refactorings possible, but
it'd be nice to be careful of what we use that word to describe.
More information about the BangPypers