Design Patterns and Code Standards in Business Development: Challenges and Best Practices

Preface

There are still some points worth writing about and sharing regarding design patterns and code standards .

Main Text

What exactly are design patterns?

The mainstream definition is roughly as follows:

Design patterns are descriptions or templates that solve problems that can be used in many different situations, generally regarded as best‑practice solutions in OOP.

However, is a design pattern really the best practice for business development in OOP?

My personal view is that a design pattern is a kind of code convention —different from easily detectable rules such as spaces or indentation, it is a mid‑level code convention that is not suitable for beginners and is not easily detected by plugins.

Therefore I consider design patterns to be at the level of code standards ; whether they become best practices depends on the user.

The Presence of Design Patterns in Conventional Business Development

Online you often see people sharing “ancestral code”, “turtle‑style code”, “shǐ‑mountain code”, etc.

We have design patterns and code standards—so why does bad code still appear?

Survivor bias is part of the reason; only terrible code gets posted for ridicule.

Many factors contribute to this situation, not merely programmer skill.

Pain Points of Code Standardization or Using Design Patterns

I first reviewed why design patterns are often not applied well in business development .

Performance

In extreme cases, such as Java, using design patterns can lead to more class files and more code , increasing class‑loading and memory costs.

However, this is not absolute; some patterns (e.g., Singleton, Flyweight) are introduced precisely to improve performance or save resources.

In most cases, the maintenance benefits outweigh the minor performance overhead.

Class Explosion

Even with many demo codes online, design flaws and over‑design can still occur.

Complex patterns require solid business modeling and cannot be copy‑pasted; “hard‑coded copying” leads to unnecessary complexity.

Both design flaws and over‑design cause pain, resulting in situations where a pattern should not be used, or a pattern is forced to fit a defect, leading to inevitable class explosion.

Even with proper use, certain patterns (e.g., Strategy) inevitably require many concrete classes when business scenarios are numerous, affecting development time.

Some traditional companies or daily‑project teams even maintain an Excel document for each class, which becomes a huge documentation burden.

Most of these companies rely on human effort to maintain such documentation, further increasing the challenge.

Team Members' Coding Level

In traditional software firms, cost constraints make it hard to have all engineers highly skilled and self‑driven.

Often a senior engineer mentors several juniors, expecting them to follow principles like high cohesion, low coupling, and the six SOLID principles—an unrealistic expectation.

Many junior engineers appear “adaptable” to frameworks, but this is superficial.

If a project lacks a unified exception handling mechanism, over time you will see scattered try catch blocks.

Similarly, without a shared utility library, duplicated util classes appear in many places.

These issues are not solely the junior’s fault; technical leads should introduce third‑party libraries such as commons‑lang3, Hutool, or Guava when appropriate.

Project Environment

We live in a highly‑architected, high‑traffic era with micro‑services and middleware becoming mainstream.

In such an environment, the role of design patterns and code standards becomes subtle.

Often architects focus only on adding machines, middleware, or configurations, while the code quality remains at a zero‑level with no review process.

Time Cost and Agile Development

In agile scenarios with frequent business changes, rapid iteration is another factor.

For example, optimizing if else with the Strategy pattern makes sense when there are many branches, but not when there is only one.

Deciding when to apply a pattern, whether to optimize, and whether there is time for optimization are all questions.

Experienced engineers rarely say “it’s just one line, I can change it in a minute.”

Code changes must consider global impact, correctness, and branch influence.

Some companies even set coverage and test‑class requirements, making speed of typing an unreliable metric for delivery.

Personnel Turnover

Turnover is common in the internet industry, caused by company policies or personal career moves.

Frequent turnover makes maintaining code quality a management challenge.

If you inherit a complex “turtle‑style” codebase without clear business logic, most developers will resort to adding if else to meet requirements.

Analysis

Are Code Standards & Design Patterns Important?

The article listed several pain points related to code standards and the use of design patterns in projects.

These are called “pain points” rather than “drawbacks” because in many scenarios code is not the primary focus, and standards are hardly mentioned.

Whether they are important depends on subjective factors, team composition, and management attitudes.

How to Continuously Maintain Code Standards

If you belong to a geek‑spirit team or need to maintain a long‑lived product, it is advisable to enforce code standards and design pattern implementation.

Based on the pain points summarized above, you can analyze your own situation and find a “balance”.

Below are some suggestions (not exhaustive):

Deeply understand the business to make solid architectural foundations.

Encourage self‑driven members to contribute to basic infrastructure under reasonable manpower costs.

When complex business points iterate frequently, technical leads should assess effort and decide whether refactoring or designing a solution is needed.

With frequent personnel changes, document work thoroughly to ensure smooth handover of both code and business knowledge.

For traditional daily‑project teams, leverage automation tools to reduce manual documentation effort.

In small‑to‑medium companies these pain points are common and cannot be solved with a few sentences; striving for balance is the realistic goal.

If a team already has strong self‑drive and solid foundations, they are likely a high‑quality enterprise; reading this article can still provide insight into typical small‑company issues.

Conclusion

When I first entered the industry, I laughed at legacy code, calling it “messy code, like cheap wine”.

With years of experience, my perspective has changed; I no longer mock the code but instead analyze the reasons behind its messiness.

（Promotional links and images omitted for brevity）