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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-14 08:19:47 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!news-x2.support.nl!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Future with Ada
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:55:47 -0500
Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc
Message-ID: <a6o3r7$p3c$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
References: <mailman.1005328653.20306.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3C7FB9D2.D9C6E055@boeing.com> <3C81DF1F.9000503@mail.com>
 <a5tmpv$aek$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <3C83A112.6080302@mail.com>
 <3C84223C.A356F466@adaworks.com> <3C853A04.34826F39@despammed.com>
 <a63fda$er$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <a65gj5$n73$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <a65jhi$112$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <a6831k$3ls$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <a68599$8na$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3C8D0D70.BB09F3DA@despammed.com>
 <a6jg6p$iec$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <dcfe911f.0203130716.50981806@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk
X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1016042151 25708 136.170.200.133 (13 Mar 2002 17:55:51
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Mar 2002 17:55:51 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21236
Date: 2002-03-13T17:55:51+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I don't know about that. Back when I was in college they kept telling us we
should write subprograms that high functional independence and low coupling.
Arbitrarily dividing up a routine just to get it into some line limit was
considered one of the better ways of intercoursing that up. :-)

But then they seem to have quit teaching that "Y = M*X + B" in favor of "Y =
A + B*X" or some such, so maybe functional independence and coupling have
fallen out of favor too. :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Kevin Cline" <kcline@optelnow.net> wrote in message
news:dcfe911f.0203130716.50981806@posting.google.com...
>
> Well, that would be better, although even 100 lines is rather long.
> Why?  Because understanding or testing a 400-line subroutine is
> considerably
> more than four times as difficult as understanding or testing four
> 100-line subroutines.
>
> Presumably you don't have 400 uncommented lines,
> so your 400-line subroutine is going to be sprinkled with
> comments like
>
> -- do something
> ... code to do something ...
> -- do something else
> ... code to do something else ...
> -- do another thing
> ...
>
> Extract each block of code to a separate function
> named by the comment preceding the block:
>
> do_something()
> do_something_else()
> do_another_thing()
>
> If the argument lists to the subroutines are long,
> then consider introducing a new type to hold the
> data passed between the subroutines.