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: 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 02:35:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!lnewspeer00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewspeer00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewspost00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!not-for-mail From: Jon Skeet 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 10:35:55 +0100 Message-ID: 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> <9fi87m$9du$1@bugstomper.ihug.com.au> Organization: Peramon Technology Ltd. X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.30 NNTP-Posting-Host: fw.peramon.com X-Trace: 991733758 reading.news.pipex.net 15027 193.132.195.125 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8132 comp.lang.awk:2753 comp.lang.clarion:21082 comp.lang.java.programmer:73598 comp.lang.pl1:746 comp.lang.vrml:3476 Date: 2001-06-05T10:35:55+01:00 List-Id: Blaikie 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. It doesn't always work like that, but it can. Code repetition isn't the only reason for refactoring. -- Jon Skeet - skeet@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~skeet If replying to the group, please don't mail me at the same time