3 ms·
> They're written in the style that Carmack describes, and I have methods that span more than 1k lines of code. I don't think that's the kind of "inlining" bei
by lutusp 12y ago
> They're written in the style that Carmack describes, and I have methods that span more than 1k lines of code.
I don't think that's the kind of "inlining" being discussed -- to me that's the sign of a program that was transferred from BASIC or COBOL into a more modern language, but without any refactoring or even a grasp if its operation.
I think the similarity between inlining for speed, and inlining to avoid thinking very hard, is more a qualititive than a quantitative distinction.
- dllthomas 12y ago"I think the similarity between inlining for speed, and inlining to avoid thinking very hard, is more a qualititive than a quantitative distinction." I think what's being discussed here is quite either of those - this seems to be "inlining for visibility" and possibly "inlining for simplicity".
- dllthomas 12y agoIs not quite either of those.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y agoHave you seriously never written a 1000 line routine in C from scratch?
- lutusp 12y agoSure, before I knew how to write maintainable code. Before I cared to understand my own code months later. My first best-seller was Apple Writer (1979) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer), written in assembly language. Even then I tried to create structure and namespaces where none existed, with modest success.
- mdda 12y agoAnother great comeback for the annals of HN (like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35083)
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]