¿Cómo se crea código modular que sea fácil de integrar y ampliar?

In new applications, no-code approaches also offer "modular" logic on visual design of workflows and logic. Modules might be also used, and therefore makes sense this article! ; ) Use design patterns and follow mentioned principles of cohesion, coupling, abstraction and encapsulation with no-code visual module design. ... and no. I am NOT a bot or IA generated text!

MVC is a particularly useful pattern, regardless of the application domain. Separating code along the model, view, and controller boundaries is easy to do, makes it obvious to new team members where things go, and has a big payoff if you're writing multiple apps that interact with the same data sources, since the model code is often reusable, say between consumer and admin apps. This is because, in the MVC meta-pattern, the model can send notifications to the other actors, but cannot "know" them. Controller logic will inevitably "know" the model in order to work with it, as will the View in order to display it.

As an email developer I work a lot with tables so I make sure to create snippets that are "whole" so I never have snippets that start with <tr> or <td> but are whole <table>.

Keep your code simple, follow naming convention. In .NET use dependency injection and follow SOLID and Don’t Repeat Yourself principles. Enjoy.

An application is collection of pieces that fits like legos to complete it. These individual pieces can be equated to a design pattern. * Singleton pattern, used for login and configuration * Facade pattern, to wrap around external code, such that to hide complicated details and ensure future changes does not impact other application area * Builder pattern, necessary building blocks such as various data structures * Module pattern, basic building blocks of application The advantages of following these patterns is ease of understanding due to common and consistent knowledge base. These patterns should enhance our product development, ease the developer understanding, easily implementable and should not add complexity.

Writing modular code simplifies integration and extension for others. Achieving this requires clear and understandable code, aided by consistent naming. Alongside comments, a uniform naming convention facilitates comprehension. Proper naming enables quick insight into a module's, variable's, or constant's purpose. However, you cannot always give lengthy names to everything (e.g. getCountriesInAsiaWhereRiceIsProducedSortedByLandArea) as this will only lead to cognitive overload. For instance, a rule of thumb for naming in Go bases names on variable lifespan. Constants may have descriptive names, while loop variables like i, j, or x can be concise.

In modular programming or otherwise, naming convention is * to provide ease of understanding the code * to ensure the name is valid for the language you are using * to ensure its space is reasonably acceptable compared to program length The standards and convention has to work around above limitations. There are several other ways to define consistency. * Is it camelCase, TitleCase, dash-separated, or within a specified length * define standard way of shorting the name for longer real names * team should be familiar with the convention defined and new members can be made aware of the standards * how names are defined, many a times tells what the variable represent, and thus is very important for understanding the code

Documentation helps * maintain standards * understanding the code * future enhancements * ease of maintenance * onboarding team members * code uniformity * ease to understand when revisiting the code Using documentation can help create user documentation when used with standards and tools can pick appropriate comments helping this need.

In my experience manual testing is needed with extensive test code during development and first pass. Automated testing is as good as the test data. This test data can be refined for different modules to make automated tests more robust. As automated tests becomes more robust, it helps and validated CI/CD process quicker, easier and ensures less and less regression issues over time. I saw a quick and improved QA cycle on subsequent releases simply by automating login process testing, where login required to test on various users with different roles and categories. The improvement I saw in one of the cases was from 2 days to 20 minutes with automated testing. For a repeated release, several times a month, this is a huge improvement.

Interfaces and dependency injection is key. Also, remember it's almost impossible to make generic solutions to a problem, but a specialized solution to your specific situation might be quite easy. Take this into consideration before trying to go reusable, modular and apply design patterns instead of just keeping things simple!