begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:28:53AM -0800: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > > >Such long structures are, IMO almost always indicators of code that can > >be made easier to understand and maintain by pulling out functions. > > You know ... I'm unconvinced. > > There is a balance between pulling functions out and having everything > in front of you.
Everywhere, there's a tradeoff. I think you're correct -- there's a sweet spot. Probably involving more than just length, but also complexity, and levels of abstraction. > Of course, I tend to like to see a dead tree version of all the code at > least once. Maybe it's just my own personal failing. It's not a failing, it's a quirk. > I *hate* navigating heavily refactored code. When I react viscerally to > something, that's a good sign that *something* is wrong, but I just > can't quite figure it out. Heh. Trust Your Gut. I get a lot of visceral reactions, and it takes a lot of this tedious, back-and-forth hashing to help me crystalize some of the reason why. It's been pointed out that we often quickly reach the stage where nobody is going to convince anyone else of their position. But maybe that's not the benefit of these sorts of "discussions". They're the grindstone we use to polish the mirror of introspection. -- Who is the grindstone, who the blade, and who the nose? And who can we get to tie it all up and cover it with bows? Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
