On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:17 PM, tedd <tedd.sperling@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 12:45 PM -0500 2/27/08, Nathan Nobbe wrote: > >if i were going to design a system consisting largely of functions, i > would > >use the same practice i use for designing classes; each function would be > >concise. that is, if functions became large, eg over 20 - 30 lines > > One of the things I've noticed over the span of decades is that my > functions have gotten larger as my monitor size has. > > This has lead me to conclude that function size is really dependant > upon what you can "take-in" in at one time. > > Fortunately/unfortunately, my eyesight is failing as my monitor size > increases so I'm at a static size now for functions, usually not > exceeding 20-30 lines. > > Maybe the younger ones will remember this as they age and see if this > holds true for them. for me it has nothing to do w/ monitor size. large functions generally equate to one thing; they do more than one thing. which is a problem. i hate running across do-it-all functions, because they simply arent extensible. unless of course you dont mind tossing more conditionals in there, and growing it even more, thereby adding more bloat and obscuring the original purpose of the function even further. im faced w/ this sort of code as i maintain a nasty hacked mess almost every day for sometime now. *sigh* but seriously, i like to keep my functions to the point. whether they are in classes or not. theres even a formal software engineering concept about it, separation of concerns; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns -nathan
