From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public
X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public
X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-05 09:48:46 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml
Subject: Re: Long names are doom ?
Message-ID: <3c2HtEJfB+32@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <83WP6.3874$yc6.728572@news.xtra.co.nz>
 <3B1411D0.3AAF42E7@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9f2nks$ibd$0@dosa.alt.net>
 <3B177EF7.2A2470F4@facilnet.es> <Xns90B35A5F54A70revbob@207.126.101.100>
 <9f8b7b$h0e$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <ttofhtk7j7ufbtot7l2o0svn71qq0j7420@4ax.com>
 <9f8r0i$lu3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <aqvfhtk583och27tjjaagpt783kn21c6sp@4ax.com>
 <IsNS6.3800$v4.180713@www.newsranger.com> <9fgagu$6ae$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <Bh0r7ajFbl7x@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <I4feerApIMVQ@eisner.encompasserve.org> <q81pht43ib89sjop0Organization: LJK
 Software
Date: 5 Jun 2001 10:56:51 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 991753014 216.44.122.34 (Tue,
 05 Jun 2001 14:56:54 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:56:54 GMT
Organization: Verio
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8176 comp.lang.awk:2779
 comp.lang.clarion:21127 comp.lang.java.programmer:73749 comp.lang.pl1:774
 comp.lang.vrml:3508
Date: 2001-06-05T10:56:51-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <MPG.1586b84f5bc22ee798a6c8@mrmog.peramon.com>, Jon Skeet <skeet@pobox.com> writes:
> Blaikie <david_blaikie@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> rather than making every method less than a screen long (again a rather
>> arbitrary measure of code length, especially seeing as different ppls
>> resolutions effect what a 'screen' of code is), u only need to seperate
>> resused code into seperate methods, if u have one method that is 10 pages
>> long, but there is no reptition and the code is used nowhere else, why make
>> it into seperate methods? yes a few comments, and alot of thought about the
>> elegance of the algorithm should be used, but splitting a method just for
>> the sake of length seems a bit pointless (sometimes, other times if a
>> certain part of the code serves an independant function to the rest of the
>> code, yet is still only used once, it may still be nice to seperate it)
> 
> There *is* a reason to do it - it makes the overall structure easier to 
> read. For instance, in many cases those 10 pages of code can be isolated 
> into easily described blocks that are independent of the other bits. Say 
> you get one of those per page - then the main method can become just 10 
> lines long, giving a very easy overview. It then becomes very easy to 
> pinpoint which piece of the code performs any particular function.

For me, block comments do that just as well as subprograms.