Probably the most infamous architectural antipattern in frontend development is the Big Ball of Mud. The term Big Ball of Mud is applied to systems that have no discernible structure or modular organization. The codebase has grown organically and chaotically, becoming a maintenance nightmare. Big Ball of Mud It's a situation many developers find themselves in, particularly when pressed hard to meet deadlines and develop a high volume of features. That's what the current article is about: the Big Ball of Mud antipattern with an example taken from frontend development, why it's so common, when it becomes a problem, and how to address this problem. What is the Big Ball of Mud? The Big Ball of Mud is a system with poorly defined architectural boundaries. Within such systems, code becomes entangled and highly coupled; hence, maintaining or extending the project becomes problematic. Over time, as more features are added without attention to the overall design, it becomes harder and harder to work with the code. Without structure, making changes in one part of the system too easily breaks other parts, inadvertently introducing bugs that further raise the bar on the complexity of development. Big Ball of Mud In a Big Ball of Mud, you will often see the following characteristics: NOAA clear separation of concerns: business logic, UI, and fetching of data are interwoven. NOAA loose coupling: the components are intertwined, and therefore, changes are difficult to put in isolation. NOAA modularity: every portion of the system depends on every other portion. NOAA global variables or shared states with unpredictable side effects. Big Ball of Mud The Big Ball of Mud is a common result of high pressure to deliver fast without due attention to architecture. At the beginning of a project, developers are often in a rush to build functionality as fast as they can, with little time given to adequate planning. This leads to the growth of the codebase in every direction, with new logic being inserted wherever it could fit. Over time, refactoring is delayed or ignored in favor of shipping more features, and the architecture deteriorates. Other contributing factors to this antipattern include: Lack of coordination: Developers are not coordinating with each other. Inconsistent coding and scattered functionality ensue.
No established standards or architectural principles laid down to guide the development.
Technical debt: New features are added on top of what is already messy code without cleaning up the mess. Lack of coordination: Developers are not coordinating with each other. Inconsistent coding and scattered functionality ensue. Lack of coordination No established standards or architectural principles laid down to guide the development. No established standards Technical debt: New features are added on top of what is already messy code without cleaning up the mess. Technical debt Let's take a closer look at what the Big Ball of Mud might look like on an average frontend project. Example of Big Ball of Mud in Frontend Here's an abstract example of the Big Ball of Mud antipattern in front-end architecture. Consider a small React project that has grown into chaos over time. File Structure: /src
 /components
   /Header.js
   /Footer.js
/Sidebar.js
   /MainContent.js
   /UserProfile.js
 /utils
   /api.js
   /constants.js
 /styles
   /globalStyles.css
 /App.js
 /index.js /src
 /components
   /Header.js
   /Footer.js
/Sidebar.js
   /MainContent.js
   /UserProfile.js
 /utils
   /api.js
   /constants.js
 /styles
   /globalStyles.css
 /App.js
 /index.js Issues With This Architecture: Lack of module boundaries: The components, say, Header, Footer, and UserProfile, all reside in one folder without any consideration for the role each of them plays.
Mixing of concerns: Components are responsible for fetching data, i.e., API calls, and rendering UI elements. Thus, the tight coupling between logic and presentation layers persists.
Global styles: The project depends on a single global CSS file. As your application grows, this might lead to conflicts in styles and will be even harder to maintain. Direct use of APIs in components: The method for fetching and updating data is imported directly into components like UserProfile.js, thus mixing data-fetching logic with UI code. Lack of module boundaries: The components, say, Header, Footer, and UserProfile, all reside in one folder without any consideration for the role each of them plays. Lack of module boundaries: Header Footer UserProfile Mixing of concerns: Components are responsible for fetching data, i.e., API calls, and rendering UI elements. Thus, the tight coupling between logic and presentation layers persists. Mixing of concerns: Global styles: The project depends on a single global CSS file. As your application grows, this might lead to conflicts in styles and will be even harder to maintain. Direct use of APIs in components: The method for fetching and updating data is imported directly into components like UserProfile.js, thus mixing data-fetching logic with UI code. Global styles: UserProfile.js Sample Code from UserProfile.js: UserProfile.js import React, { useState, useEffect } from 'react';
import { fetchUserData, updateUserProfile } from './utils/api';
import './styles/globalStyles.css'; 

const UserProfile = () => {
  const [user, setUser] = useState(null);
  const [loading, setLoading] = useState(true);

  useEffect(() => {
    fetchUserData()
    .then((data) => {
        setUser(data);
        setLoading(false);
      })
      .catch((error) => console.error('Error fetching user data:', error));
  }, []);

  const handleUpdate = () => {
    updateUserProfile(user)
      .then(() => alert('Profile updated!'))
      .catch((error) => console.error('Error updating profile:', error));
  };

  if (loading) return <div>Loading.</div>;

  return (
    <div className="user-profile">
      <h1>{user.name}</h1>
      <button onClick={handleUpdate}>Update Profile</button>
    </div>
  );
};

export default UserProfile; import React, { useState, useEffect } from 'react';
import { fetchUserData, updateUserProfile } from './utils/api';
import './styles/globalStyles.css'; 

const UserProfile = () => {
  const [user, setUser] = useState(null);
  const [loading, setLoading] = useState(true);

  useEffect(() => {
    fetchUserData()
    .then((data) => {
        setUser(data);
        setLoading(false);
      })
      .catch((error) => console.error('Error fetching user data:', error));
  }, []);

  const handleUpdate = () => {
    updateUserProfile(user)
      .then(() => alert('Profile updated!'))
      .catch((error) => console.error('Error updating profile:', error));
  };

  if (loading) return <div>Loading.</div>;

  return (
    <div className="user-profile">
      <h1>{user.name}</h1>
      <button onClick={handleUpdate}>Update Profile</button>
    </div>
  );
};

export default UserProfile; Issues in the Code: Issues in the Code: No SoC: Data fetching, state management, and UI rendering are all performed in one place within the component.
Tight Coupling: The update of the API will force multiple components to be updated, because there is no abstraction layer between the API and the Components.
No Logic Reuse: Another component desiring access to user data will either reimplement the API call or tightly couple itself to this logic. No SoC: Data fetching, state management, and UI rendering are all performed in one place within the component. No SoC: Tight Coupling: The update of the API will force multiple components to be updated, because there is no abstraction layer between the API and the Components. Tight Coupling: No Logic Reuse: Another component desiring access to user data will either reimplement the API call or tightly couple itself to this logic. No Logic Reuse: This tangled, interdependent code is hard to scale and maintain, which is what a Big Ball of Mud is. When Do the Problems Start? A project featuring this type of architecture may not immediately have apparent signs of trouble. But as the project grows, so do the problems, compounding on top of one another: Slowed development: Changes become riskier because bugs in parts of the system unrelated to where the change was made can show up.
Greater technical debt: Additional features set without refactoring involve architectural improvements that become more difficult to realize.
Low productivity: Developers will start taking more time just to navigate and make something sensible out of such messy code, thus slowing down the development of features. Slowed development: Changes become riskier because bugs in parts of the system unrelated to where the change was made can show up. Slowed development: Greater technical debt: Additional features set without refactoring involve architectural improvements that become more difficult to realize. Greater technical debt: Low productivity: Developers will start taking more time just to navigate and make something sensible out of such messy code, thus slowing down the development of features. Low productivity: The more knotted it becomes, the harder it is to untangle. Of course, this is just about the vicious spiral of growing technical debt and shrinking productivity. How to Avoid the Big Ball of Mud To avoid the Big Ball of Mud, good architectural habits have to be inculcated early and rigorously enforced during the development process. Some strategies follow. Modular Architecture: Clear division of your code into logical modules with responsibility boundaries. For example, concerns can be separated by data fetching, business logic, and UI rendering.
Abstractions: Abstract API calls and data management via services or hooks, such that these concerns are abstracted away from your components. This will help decouple the code and make it easier to handle changes in your API.
Module boundaries: There should be a well-defined boundary between components. Instead of having all the components located under one folder, create separate folders for a feature or domain.
Global state management: Use libraries like Redux, MobX, or React's Context API for shared state management between components. This greatly reduces the urge for a component to manage the state itself.
Refactoring: Refactor regularly. Don't allow the project to reach a stage where it becomes absolutely impossible to handle anymore; address these concerns while keeping the codebase clean. Modular Architecture: Clear division of your code into logical modules with responsibility boundaries. For example, concerns can be separated by data fetching, business logic, and UI rendering. Modular Architecture: Abstractions: Abstract API calls and data management via services or hooks, such that these concerns are abstracted away from your components. This will help decouple the code and make it easier to handle changes in your API. Abstractions Module boundaries: There should be a well-defined boundary between components. Instead of having all the components located under one folder, create separate folders for a feature or domain. Module boundaries Global state management: Use libraries like Redux, MobX, or React's Context API for shared state management between components. This greatly reduces the urge for a component to manage the state itself. Global state management: Refactoring: Refactor regularly. Don't allow the project to reach a stage where it becomes absolutely impossible to handle anymore; address these concerns while keeping the codebase clean. Refactoring: What to Do If You're Already Stuck in a Big Ball of Mud If your project has already devolved into a Big Ball of Mud, there is hope. The remedy is to refactor the codebase piecemeal, baking architectural principles in where possible. Start by: refactor the codebase Identifying pain points: Focus on those parts of the code that are most painful to work with or extend.
Modularizing components: Incrementally refactor components to separate out concerns and limit dependencies. Now, introduce testing: Add unit and integration tests to make sure that your refactoring doesn't break existing functionality. Identifying pain points: Focus on those parts of the code that are most painful to work with or extend. Identifying pain points: Modularizing components: Incrementally refactor components to separate out concerns and limit dependencies. Now, introduce testing: Add unit and integration tests to make sure that your refactoring doesn't break existing functionality. Modularizing components: In summary, Big Ball of Mud is a very common antipattern causing much trouble in frontend projects. Introduction of modular architecture, separation of concerns, and regular refactoring are definitely steps that would keep the chaos introduced by this pattern from your codebase, making it cleaner and more manageable.

Big Ball of Mud: What You Need to Know About the Antipattern, How to Avoid It, and More

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

12 Interview Questions to Teach You How Git Works

10x Rockstar Ninja Wizard Vampires

Avoid these 4 Kubernetes Anti-Patterns

DevOops, some common anti-patterns

Find out Whether Model Observers in Laravel are a Bad Practice

Is a Shared Database in Microservices Actually an Anti-pattern?

12 Interview Questions to Teach You How Git Works

10x Rockstar Ninja Wizard Vampires

Avoid these 4 Kubernetes Anti-Patterns

DevOops, some common anti-patterns

Find out Whether Model Observers in Laravel are a Bad Practice

Is a Shared Database in Microservices Actually an Anti-pattern?

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps