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: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-05 10:25:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!freenix!skynet.be!bnewspeer01.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewspeer00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!lnewspost00.lnd.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 18:03:11 +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> <+FWVg+noA0yk@eisner.encompasserve.org> Organization: Peramon Technology Ltd. X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.30 NNTP-Posting-Host: fw.peramon.com X-Trace: 991760592 reading.news.pipex.net 15025 193.132.195.125 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8179 comp.lang.awk:2782 comp.lang.clarion:21131 comp.lang.java.programmer:73755 comp.lang.pl1:777 comp.lang.vrml:3511 Date: 2001-06-05T18:03:11+01:00 List-Id: Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > I'd suggest that *very* few methods which are ten pages of code which > > *can't* be broken down further are well-designed. > > How about a case statement for 137 possible cases ? > > Even if it only calls a separate subprogram for each, that is longer > than most people's screenful. Yup - and how often does that happen (in a way which isn't better coped with by more object-oriented design)? Very occasionally - hence my allowance that it's possible. I suspect there are far more programs with methods of 10 "normal" screenfuls that are just badly written than there are programs with a genuine justification for it. (Note - I'm discounting auto-generated code in the above; that will often naturally create huge methods.) -- Jon Skeet - skeet@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~skeet If replying to the group, please don't mail me at the same time