On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:00:34 +1300, you wrote: >Carl Cerecke wrote: >> I let overall clarity be my guide, rather than a number. If it is >> clearer to have an 80-line method, then that's what I'll write, rather >> than splitting it artificially into a dozen tiddly methods. > >Exactly, >this current fad called "Extreme programming" is trying to put >artificial size constraints on methods/functions. >(though I think it might not be extreme programming but the preference >of the person telling us about it) >As far as I can see reducing the size of these *adds* complexity as you >end up trying to keep track of hundreds of tiny methods.
By current I take it that you mean early 70's, when Dijkstra wrote that? Five lines is extreme, yes. But you've obviously not tried this method of programming. If you do a top down design, and then a bottom up implementation, these functions become the building blocks of the higher level code. Not only that, you can rely absolutely on them once you've completed them, which makes the higher level code much easier to debug, and much more reliable when written. I know that your friend and mine BillWithTheGlasses has done his best to eradicate the design and analysis part of any project, but it does make for a far more robust and maintainable product. Steve.
