Breaking Up Is Hard To Do: How to Decompose Your Code

Josh Justice

6 min read

Oct 9, 2016

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do: How to Decompose Your Code

Is your code using the right approach to decomposition? Maybe you’re convinced of the value of breaking large chunks of code into smaller pieces, but are you familiar with the different ways it can be done? Each of these decompositions has its own pros and cons, and learning about them will help you choose the best approach for your situation.

To illustrate the different approaches to decomposition,
let’s take a look at this combat calculation for a role-playing game I’m building:

damage = attack_rating * *
         (256.0 - defense_rating) / 256.0 +

That calculation is a little complex:

  • The attacking character has a base attack rating.
  • The damage they do for a given attack varies randomly between 90% and 100% of that value.
  • The defending character has a defense rating.
    A defense rating of 256 nullifies the attack entirely,
    while a rating less than 256 nullifies a proportional amount of the damage.
  • 1 is added to ensure that, even if the attack is nullified, it always does 1 “scratch” damage.
    (Rather than adding it conditionally, for simplicity I just always add 1 to the damage.)

The fact that I had to explain the code is a bad sign:
it means the code doesn’t communicate its intent without additional commentary.
Let’s look at how decomposition can make its meaning clearer.


One way to decompose this expression is to break it up into steps,
storing the result of each step in a variable.
This can be referred to as “reassignment,”
because one variable has different values assigned to it at different times:

damage = attack_rating
damage *=
damage *= (256.0 - defense_rating) / 256.0
damage += 1

Because each step is much shorter than the original calculation,
the whole is easier to take in.
Unfortunately, the unchanging variable name leaves each step’s meaning just as unexplained as it was before.
This weakness is addressed by other decompositions, so it’s almost always better to use a different approach.

Step Variables

Using multiple variables is the simplest way you can improve the reassigment decomposition.
You can assign each step to a separate variable with a descriptive name:

attack_modifier =
defense_modifier = (256.0 - defense_rating) / 256.0

attack_damage = attack_rating * attack_modifier
damage_after_defense = attack_damage * defense_modifier
damage_with_scratch = damage_after_defense + 1

Step variables can be reused within the scope of the function they’re defined in, but not elsewhere.
One downside is that the surrounding function still contains every detail of the calculation,
making it difficult to get a high-level understanding.
Other decompositions provide more levels of abstraction and allow code to be reused more broadly.

Functional Chaining

In a step variable decomposition, each variable names what it’s computing.
Function names do the same thing,
which suggests that we could convert each variable into a function.
These functions can be chained together to build up the calculation, passing return values from one into another:

scratch(defend(randomize_damage(attack_rating), defense_rating))

def randomize_damage(attack_rating, rng =
  attack_rating * rng.rand(0.9..1.0)

def defend(damage, defense_rating)
  damage * damage_modifier(defense_rating)

def damage_modifier(defense_rating)
  (256.0 - defense_rating) / 256.0

def scratch(damage)
  damage + 1

With functional chaining, you can read the high-level sequence of operations without needing to think about how each is implemented.
But there’s a related con: that sequence of functions is called from the inside-out,
making it a bit difficult to follow the flow.
To address this, many functional languages provide a pipe operator to turn the expression inside-out:

attack_rating |> randomize_damage
              |> defend(defense_rating)
              |> scratch

Making chainable functions public allows the rest of your app to recombine them in different ways.
If you instead want to limit how much your app is coupled to the implementation of these functions,
you can make them private and use them to build up simpler public functions:

def damage_for_attack(attack_rating, defense_rating)
  scratch(defend(randomize_damage(attack_rating), defense_rating))

Method Chaining

Method chaining is an object-oriented alternative to function chaining.
A method chain is where a series of methods is called on an object without repeating the name of the object.
This is done by having each chained method change the state of the object it’s called on,
then return that object so it’s available for the next link in the chain:

damage =

class Damage
  def initialize(damage_amount)
    @damage_amount = damage_amount

  def randomize
    @damage_amount *=

  def apply_defense(defense_rating)
    @damage_amount *= (256.0 - defense_rating) / 256.0

  def apply_scratch_damage
    @damage_amount += 1

  def amount

Method chaining provides the same level of re-use as a public function chain,
as well as the same cost in terms of coupling to implementation details.
If you want to hide these details, rather than making a method chain private, there’s another option.

Private Method Tree

A calculation can be split up into a “tree” of private methods that each performs part of the calculation. Each method might use data from instance variables or from other private methods. Ruby makes this decomposition especially readable by allowing you to call methods without parentheses (sometimes referred to as “barewords”):

def damage
  (attack_damage * defense_modifier) + scratch_damage


def attack_damage
  attack_rating * attack_modifier

def attack_modifier

def defense_modifier
  (max_defense_rating - defense_rating) /

def max_defense_rating

def scratch_damage

The “tree” is really a tree of multiple levels of abstraction.
For example, looking at damage,
we can see it is calculated from attack_damage, defense_modifier, and scratch_damage,
but we can’t see what those are calculated from without stepping down a level.
These levels of abstraction can be an advantage or a disadvantage,
depending on how visible that information needs to be.

Which Should I Use?

I never recommend using reassignment,
because readability is almost always improved by using step variables instead.
But the other types of decomposition above all have strengths that make them useful,
depending on the context. Here are a few factors to consider:

  • Complexity: Is your calculation easy to understand in every detail,
    or would breaking it into abstraction layers help readers comprehend it?
    For example, this damage calculation is short,
    but breaking it up makes the meaning of the parts of the calculation much more clear.
  • Reuse: After you’ve decomposed your code into parts,
    do those parts need to be reused within the function?
    Within the class or module? Globally?
    In the RPG, if some weapons have unique damage calculations,
    reusing functions across classes might be important.
  • Maintenance: What does a developer performing enhancements need to keep in their mind to do the change?
    What parts of your code tend to change at the same time, and what parts don’t?
    The RPG’s damage algorithm is likely to be entirely replaced early in development,
    but less so when nearing release.
  • Readability: What do your project team and technology community consider readable?
    All things being equal, familiar idioms are easier to read,
    but introducing a new approach to decomposition might aid readability in the long run.
  • Performance: The more levels of abstraction you introduce,
    the more performance may be impacted.
    But don’t prematurely optimize:
    pick a decomposition based on the other factors,
    then measure performance and refactor bottlenecks.
    How much performance matters for this RPG calculation depends on whether it’s a slow turn-based mobile game or an MMO with hundreds of enemies on-screen at once.

Lately, I’ve mostly been working in Ruby on a team where private method trees are common, so that’s my go-to approach.
But I’m just starting to work on some Objective-C code,
and I’m following the team’s existing pattern of using step variables more than private methods.
As I learn the reasons for this choice, I’ll be able to see if I want to suggest other decompositions.

The next time you’re in your codebase,
keep an eye out for the types of decomposition you find.
Try out a new approach to decomposition,
and see if it improves your code!

Josh Justice

Author Big Nerd Ranch

Josh Justice has worked as a developer since 2004 across backend, frontend, and native mobile platforms. Josh values creating maintainable systems via testing, refactoring, and evolutionary design, and mentoring others to do the same. He currently serves as the Web Platform Lead at Big Nerd Ranch.

Speak with a Nerd

Schedule a call today! Our team of Nerds are ready to help

Let's Talk

Related Posts

We are ready to discuss your needs.

Not applicable? Click here to schedule a call.

Stay in Touch WITH Big Nerd Ranch News