4 ms·
Specifically, in that place, there was no need. And prematurely splitting it would have caused us to overthink and over generalize. Having a long, linear and te
by laserbeam 3y ago
Specifically, in that place, there was no need. And prematurely splitting it would have caused us to overthink and over generalize. Having a long, linear and tested function was a better choice.
- auggierose 3y agoI understand your point, but perhaps that would have simply been an opportunity to refine your approach to code design. If such a situation leads to excessive deliberation and overgeneralisation, your code base must be riddled with unnecessary overthinking and overgeneralisation.
- goatlover 3y agoOr maybe it was just a long, sequential algorithm where breaking it up wouldn't have been an improvement.
- auggierose 3y agoI have been programming for more than 30 years. Except for code generated explicitly to be only consumed by machine, I've never come across a function consisting of 2000 lines of code that should not have been broken up. Something is wrong there, and if you show me the code, I'll tell you what's wrong with it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wiseowise 3y agoGlad you can see that without even looking at the code.
- auggierose 3y agoSome things you don't have to see to know whats going on. Function with 2000 lines of code? Have fun rationalising this.