4 ms·
> where each line is extracted into its own method Never heard of "that style of programming" before, and I certainly know that Uncle Bob never adviced people
by embedding-shape 10mo ago
> where each line is extracted into its own method
Never heard of "that style of programming" before, and I certainly know that Uncle Bob never adviced people to break down their programs so each line has it's own method/function. Are you perhaps mixing this with someone else?
- troupo 10mo ago> I certainly know that Uncle Bob never adviced people to break down their programs so each line has it's own method/function There's a literal link to a literal Uncle Bob post by the literal Uncle Bob from which the code has been taken verbatim.
- eterm 10mo agoThis is from page 37 of Clean Code: > Even a switch statement with only two cases is larger than I'd like a single block or function to be. His advice that follows, to leverage polymorphism to avoid switch statements isn't bad per-se, but his reasoning, that 6 lines is too long, was a reflection of his desire to get every function as short as possible. In his own words, ( page 34 ): > [functions] should be small. They should be smaller than that. That is not an assertion I can justify. He then advocates for functions to be 2-3 lines each.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago> to leverage polymorphism to avoid switch statements [...] was a reflection of his desire to get every function as short as possible. That's both true, but long way away from "every line should have it's own method", but I guess parent exaggerated for effect and I misunderstood them, I took it literally when I shouldn't.
- eterm 10mo agoI've edited my comment to add more context to that quote. He absolutely advocated for the most minimal of function lengths, beyond what is reasonable.
- zephen 10mo agoHe has expressed admiration for lisp, and he comes from a time before IDEs. These may color his desired level of complexity.