Question

Explain why some people might say that "generalisation" in software design (i.e. designing software so that it can anticipate future evolution) is a "bad smell" (i.e. something that needs to be refactored away)? In your explanation consider arguments for and against generalisation being a “bad smell”.

Answer 1

Solution for the problem is provided below, please comment if any doubts:

Arguments against the comment “generalisation being a “bad smell””:

• The generalization make the software robust so that it can withstand the possible threats or changes that happening in the future.
• The generalization can reduce the maintenance activities that has to be performed in future, thus it can’t be considered as a wastage.
• The capabilities of the software can be increased in future without addition of extra features but the execution of generalized features.

Arguments for the comment “generalisation being a “bad smell””:

• The generalization requires additional space and cost, thus if it is not used in future, the generalization will be a big wastage of resources.
• These features can be added by maintenance in future time, it is better than an anticipated inclusion of features.
• It can affect the software performance.
• It will remain dead in the software in the most of the time, thus it is not atall recommended to include the generalized features.