> > > > The technical ideas are fine, but I do not agree that they are the > solution. And actually, in this case, pulling everything into one > large global function will result in a one big function. > > Doing that just transfers the ball of mud from being global to being > namespaced. No benefit is gained.
I don't think anyone here is advocating just sticking everything in a closure and being done with it. Scott was saying "After I verify that I'm calling it correctly, I start putting tests around the namespaced functions and refactoring them as necessary." The point is - get rid of the globals first, then start refactoring and making it more modular. -- Nick Morgan http://skilldrick.co.uk @skilldrick <http://twitter.com/skilldrick> -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
