3 ms·
It really isn't. As another user said below, following long function call chains is counter-productive and if you don't have an ultra strict function naming pol
by LunaSea 11y ago
It really isn't. As another user said below, following long function call chains is counter-productive and if you don't have an ultra strict function naming policy you will have functions with duplicate functionalities very quickly.
- rdtsc 11y ago> following long function call chains is counter-productive Well, be productive then! It is a heuristic. I don't think I am in the minority saying that "breaking things down in small manageable chunks is a good thing". That's is not just Erlang that's common sense. That's the point. That doesn't mean having to count lines if you go over 7 start making functions like next1 next2 and so on. That's called being pedantic.
- LunaSea 11y agoNo being pedantic is giving a fixed number. Just say: "try to keep functions small" and be done with it without needing to debate semantics.