A Domain-Specific Language (DSL) can provide some intellectual leverage. We can always write long and convoluted programs in a general-purpose programming language (like Python, Java or C).
Sometimes it can make more sense to invent a new domain-specific language and implement the solution in that language.
Sometimes, even well-written, highly portable programming becomes a legacy. I once converted a large, well-written program from C to Java. The organization had no skills in C and didn't want to build these skills.
They wanted their legacy C program rewritten into Java and then extended to cover some additional features.
The timeframe for this exercise is the sometime after 2010. This is important because automated unit test and test driven development are common knowledge. We're not fighting an uphill battle just to figure out how to compare legacy with new.
In essence, we're going to be doing "Test Driven Reverse Engineering." Creating test cases, seeing what the legacy software does and then creating new software that does the same thing.
We're preserving exactly those features which we can encode as unit test cases.
The Code Base
In this case, there was an interesting wrinkle in the code base. The application included a small Domain-Specific Language (DSL) that was used to define processing rules.
There were only a dozen or so rules. The idea was the various combinations of features could be included or excluded via this little DSL. The application included a simple parser that validated the DSL and configured the rest of the application to do the actual work.
The DSL itself is of no value. No one in the user organization knew it was there. The file hadn't been touched in years. It was just a configuration that could have been meaningfully built as source code in C.
The dozen or so rules are extremely important. But the syntax of the DSL was disposable.
It was relatively simple to create class definitions that -- in a limited way -- mirrored the DSL. The configuration could then be translated into first-class Java.
package com.whatever.app.config;
import com.whatever.app.defs;
class Configuration {
List theRules= new LinkedList();
Configuration() {
theRules.add(
new Simple_Rule( this_condition, SomeOption, AnotherOption );
theRules.add(
new Simple_Rule( that_condition, SomeOption );
theRules.add(
new Exception_Rule( some_condition, some_exception );
}
}
Things that had been keywords in the old DSL became objects or classes full of static declarations that could be used like objects.
By making the configuration a separate module, and using a property file to name that module, alternate configurations could be created. As Java code in Java Syntax, validated by the Java compiler.
The Unit Tests
The bulk of the code was reasonably clear C programming. Reasonably. Not completely.
However, I still insisted on a pair of examples of each of the different transactions this program performed. These mostly paralleled the DSL configuration.
Having this suite of test cases made it easy to confirm that the essential features really had been preserved.
The user acceptance testing, however, revealed some failures that were not part of the unit test suite. Since TDD was new to this customer, there was some fumbling while they created new examples that I could turn into proper unit test cases.
The next round of acceptance testing revealed another few cases not covered by the examples they had supplied. By now, the users were in on the joke, and immediately supplied examples. And they also revised a existing examples to correct an error in their test cases.
What Was Preserved
Of the original C software, very little actually remained. The broad outline of processing was all.
The tiny details were defined by the DSL. This was entirely rewritten to be proper Java classes.
The C data structures where entirely replaced by Java classes. All of the original SQL database access was replaced with an ORM layer.
Further, all of the testing was done with an entirely fresh set of unit tests.
The project was -- actually -- new development. There was no "conversion" going on. The customer felt good about doing a conversion and "preserving" an "asset". However, nothing much was actually preserved.