I agree. But I think you've missed it. My point was about human behavior, not the innards of program structure. To rephrase: would imposing arbitrary code leng

I agree. But I think you've missed it. My point was about human behavior, not the innards of program structure. To rephrase: would imposing arbitrary code length restrictions along with DSL-type training automatically drive programmers to write better quality code? I believe the answer is yes. You are correct in that the technical issue is more complicated than that, but my point was asking if making an arbitrary rule would drive teams into making those kinds of design choices, instead of just being happy with the way things were and continuing to expand the code base ad infinitum. I was trying to draw in several lines of thought I gleaned from the essay and synthesize something new. I also think there's a big difference in creating an arbitrary limit on function size and doing the same for an overall project. I wouldn't like the idea of limiting function size at all. You can do a lot in 10K lines of code. There's a lot more freedom there. Once again, my thrust is human behavior. Telling somebody that each little piece of code they write is subject to somewhat arbitrary restrictions is a lot more onerous to me than simply making a "budget" for the entire project.