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,FREEMAIL_FROM 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: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-05 02:19:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!usenet.net.nz!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!news.tig.com.au!not-for-mail From: "Blaikie" 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 ? Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:20:43 +1000 Organization: The Internet Group (Sydney) Message-ID: <9fi87m$9du$1@bugstomper.ihug.com.au> References: <83WP6.3874$yc6.728572@news.xtra.co.nz> <3B1411D0.3AAF42E7@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9f2nks$ibd$0@dosa.alt.net> <3B177EF7.2A2470F4@facilnet.es> <9f8b7b$h0e$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9f8r0i$lu3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fgagu$6ae$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: p243-tnt3.syd.ihug.com.au X-Trace: bugstomper.ihug.com.au 991732790 9662 203.173.132.243 (5 Jun 2001 09:19:50 GMT) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8131 comp.lang.awk:2752 comp.lang.clarion:21080 comp.lang.java.programmer:73595 comp.lang.pl1:745 comp.lang.vrml:3475 Date: 2001-06-05T19:20:43+10:00 List-Id: 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) db