5 ms·
That sounds more like a navigation problem than a problem with the code (unless the function names are misleading).
by Gurkenmaster 12y ago
That sounds more like a navigation problem than a problem with the code (unless the function names are misleading).
- jeffreyrogers 12y agoI agree somewhat, but context switching has non-zero overhead since it requires that I keep in my short term memory what the previous code was doing as well. Also, I probably should have been clearer above. Sometimes a short function is the right approach, particularly for something that is going to be done over and over again, but the overall goal is clarity, not short functions. Anyways, it's not worth getting too hung up on I don't think, it seems my opinion is the minority one.
- zo1 12y ago>"but the overall goal is clarity, not short functions." I've never seen this discussion play out where the "short function" side is saying that the only goal of short functions is...short functions. Obviously "clarity" vs "short-functions" is a no-brainer discussion. But fails to acknowledge the complexities and nuances being discussed.