Skip to main content

Lehman’s Laws of Software Evolution

In the world of software engineering, the Lehman's Laws of Software Evolution are widely recognized as a fundamental framework for understanding how software systems evolve over time. These laws were introduced by British computer scientist, Meir Lehman, in the 1980s(!) in his paper “Programs, Life Cycles, and Laws of Software Evolution”, and they remain relevant to this day.

Lehman's Laws describe how software systems evolve and how they can be managed over their lifespan. In this blog post, we will explore these laws in detail and their significance in software development.

From the paper:

The first law of software evolution states that software systems must evolve or they will become progressively less useful. This law recognizes that software is not static and unchanging, but instead must adapt and grow to meet changing user needs and technological advancements. Failure to evolve software systems can result in decreased usefulness or even obsolescence. This means that software systems are never “DONE”, they only become obsolete.

The second law of software evolution states that the complexity of software systems will increase over time unless they are actively reduced. As software systems grow and evolve, they become more complex, which can make them more difficult to maintain, debug, and enhance. This complexity can also lead to an increase in defects and errors. To combat this, it is essential to take active steps to reduce complexity and streamline software systems. Yes, we are talking about technical debt.

Side note: Check out this interesting talk about technical debt:

The third law of software evolution states that software evolution is a continuous process. This law recognizes that software systems are not static and unchanging, but rather they are continuously evolving. As such, software development is an ongoing process that requires continual improvement and adaptation.

The fourth law of software evolution states that software systems are subject to feedback loops. As software systems evolve, they receive feedback from users, stakeholders, and other sources. This feedback can help guide the evolution of the software, ensuring that it continues to meet user needs and remains relevant in the face of changing technologies.

The fifth law of software evolution states that software systems are subject to both incremental and radical change. As software systems evolve, they can undergo incremental changes that build on existing functionality and improve the system gradually. Alternatively, software systems can undergo radical changes that fundamentally alter the system's architecture or functionality.

The sixth law of software evolution states that software evolution is constrained by organizational stability and the ability of developers to understand the system. This law recognizes that software development is an inherently human activity, and as such, the people involved in the process play a crucial role in shaping the evolution of the software.

The seventh law of software evolution states that the evolution of a software system is limited by its architecture. This law recognizes that the architecture of a software system plays a critical role in determining its evolution. A well-designed architecture can facilitate the evolution of the system, while a poorly designed architecture can limit its potential.

In conclusion, the Lehman's Laws of Software Evolution provide a valuable framework for understanding how software systems evolve over time. By recognizing the continuous nature of software development and the role of people, architecture, and feedback in shaping software evolution, developers can create more robust and adaptable software systems.

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...
Read more

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...
Read more

A complex system designed from scratch never works

A few years ago, I worked as an architect on a big mainframe rewrite. I still count it as one of my failures. Not because the technology was wrong, but because I couldn't convince the management team to simplify the approach. Years later, the organization is still struggling to get the new system up and running. I left the project at the time, because I couldn't put my name behind an approach that would take very long and cost a lot of money without a working system to show for it along the way. Gall’s Law That memory keeps coming back to me, because it's a textbook case of Gall's Law playing out in real life. Gall's Law , from John Gall's Systemantics , states it plainly: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and it cannot be patched to make it work. You have to start over with a simple system that works. What does that mean in practice,...
Read more