3 ms·
>>complex call graphs are even worse than complex code inside a function Hear hear. I have a problem specific to that, here. Some programmers follow the "no d
by berntb 15y ago
>>complex call graphs are even worse than complex code inside a function
Hear hear.
I have a problem specific to that, here. Some programmers follow the "no documentation should be needed, the code is obvious" dogma in a non-typed scripting language -- and you have to look many levels up in the call graph before you even find out about the damn function parameter's types... :-(
- dman 15y agoIdeally you have tests which let you know how every function can be (ab)used.
- berntb 15y agoIf I wrote 2-20 line functions, then I wouldn't document/test every one, either.
- ZeroGravitas 15y agoI think the idea is that the short functions call other (short) functions at a lower conceptual level to create a large amount of functionality. By testing that function, you're testing how they work together. This is different from short functions being short because they don't do much.