The Law of Demeter is often stated as, “only talk to your immediate friends.” In Object Oriented languages that use a dot as the field identifier this is often simplified to, “only use one dot.” While this is an interesting heuristic of sorts, it’s a very poor rule to follow because it’s almost never that simple. This is often hard to describe to new programmers, who tend to seek a set of rules to help them advance their skills. The reality is that there exists no simple rule you can follow, it’s really more of a sense. The best way I’ve been able to come up with to summarize the Law of Demeter is, “don’t operate on objects that you might not understand.”

To illustrate this, let’s consider things from the perspective of the calling object, self in Ruby. Say we have an expression self.x.y. Then we should be less likely to tell the receiver, x, to do y, as it becomes harder to understand x or as it becomes more likely for x to change.

In the simplest case the receiver is the caller. This case is equivalent to the original and stricter Law of Demeter. So in the expression self.x, self is the caller and the receiver. And since we have a high level of confidence in our own methods, we can call x.

In the more general case, given self.x.y.z, if our level of confidence in x is low, we should not be telling x to do y. And this carries forward - if, from the perspective of self, we do not have high confidence in y, then we should not be telling it to do z.

A Ruby Example

[1,2,3,4].map{ |k| k*2 }.join(',')

Using the original definition this code violates the law since the call to Array#join is a case of talking to a non-immediate friend. [1,2,3,4] is the immediate friend of self in this case. The call to Array#map is fine, but the result of that operation is not an immediate friend, so we can’t tell it to do anything.

Fixing this code leads us down a rat-hole and is highly non-productive. It most likely results in greatly increasing the complexity of an otherwise pretty simple piece of code. In fact this simple example demonstrates that under a strict version of the Law of Demeter we can’t chain methods at all.

To solve this chaining problem, most people tend to introduce this caveat: ‘your friend’s friend is also your friend if she is of the same type as your your friend’. In our previous example Array#map returns an array and we started with an array, so we can act on the result of that operation. But we can’t act on the string that Array#join returns because we didn’t start with a string.

This caveat is not enough though. In some cases it’s too restrictive and in others it simply is not restrictive enough.

An Example of Complex Code

  .where(active: true)
  .map{ |id| Group.where(owner_id: id) }

This is only slightly a violation of the Law of Demeter, but it is definitely a violation of the fuzzier version I introduced earlier. The issue here is really the complexity of the code. There is a good chance that the code related to either User or Group will change and it’s not feasible to expect that we will know when that happens. Additionally, this code assumes that we have confidence in each operation in the chain, and that’s not something I feel comfortable with. Not because any one call in the chain is complex, but because by the time we get to the call that deals with grepping for ‘Rails’, we have already lost track of what we were doing. Take a look at a simplified version of this code that addresses these issues.

users =


That’s the beauty of the Law of Demeter. It advocates writing code like this over the first example. It’s not really about how many dots you are using, it’s about the responsibility of the objects in your code. How many objects is the caller responsible for understanding and keeping track of? How much logic is the caller encompassing? And is the logical path of the chain easy to follow?

An Example of Unknown Output

If you find yourself writing code like this, then you’re in violation of the Law of Demeter. Both versions. And this code should be simplified.


Let’s take a look at a slight variation to the first example.

In this code there’s a good chance that you’re in the clear. In fact this code is quite easy to understand, and if we actually do have confidence that group exists and that we’ll understand the output, it’s perfectly fine to use this expression.


The Law of Demeter is not a law, and it’s not as simple as counting the number of dots in your statements. It’s really about developing a sense for constructing your code so that each object is confident in what it is telling other objects to do, and what it is responsible for understanding. Hopefully this post clarified the Law of Demeter for you.