Timeline for Are long methods always bad?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2012 at 7:34 | comment | added | Tulains Córdova | Long methods are bad. | |
| Oct 17, 2012 at 21:33 | history | edited | Deiwin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo
|
| Oct 16, 2012 at 20:54 | history | edited | JW01 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Altered formatting to show that, for those who don't know, code complete is actually the title of a book.
|
| Oct 16, 2012 at 19:06 | comment | added | Songo | 200 lines?!! I consider 20 lines too long! | |
| Oct 16, 2012 at 16:14 | comment | added | deadalnix | @ConradFrix 200 lines is already a long routine according to most standards. | |
| Oct 16, 2012 at 15:02 | comment | added | wonea | Nice answer, and particularly like the point of 'most methods tend to lack separation of concern'. I agree with this as there is only so much you can do with ternary and null coalescing operators. | |
| Oct 16, 2012 at 14:37 | comment | added | Conrad Frix | Oh, well you might want to re-read section 7.4 How long can a routine be, because it doesn't say what you assert it does. In fact it cautions against routines beyond 200 lines, and the OP is asking about a 350 line routine | |
| Oct 16, 2012 at 11:41 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Aniket Inge | ||
| Oct 16, 2012 at 10:07 | comment | added | deadalnix | @ConradFrix yes. | |
| Oct 15, 2012 at 22:21 | comment | added | Conrad Frix | In code complete, it is measured that long methods are sometimes faster and easier to write, and don't lead to maintenance problems Do you mean the book Code Complete by Steve McConnell? | |
| S Oct 15, 2012 at 22:00 | history | suggested | Lee Quarella | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Grammatical fixes.
|
| Oct 15, 2012 at 21:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 15, 2012 at 22:00 | |||||
| Oct 15, 2012 at 13:12 | comment | added | deadalnix | @da_b0uncer That is also a policy I follow. It is harder to read code than to write it, so extra effort when writing to make code more readable does pay back. | |
| Oct 15, 2012 at 13:10 | history | edited | deadalnix | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
add relevant details from comments.
|
| Oct 15, 2012 at 13:09 | comment | added | K.. | I use method names to minimize comments. Which sometimes leads to stuff like "getSelectedNodeWithChildren", but my colleague keep telling me, that my code is nicely readable. I also try to avoid abbreviations, they are nice to write, but not so nice to read. | |
| Oct 15, 2012 at 12:14 | vote | accept | wobbily_col | ||
| Oct 15, 2012 at 12:12 | comment | added | Daniel B | +1, but I'd still recommend checking the cyclomatic complexity of the long method. High values indicate methods which are effectively impossible to unit test (and long methods are very rarely devoid of control flow logic). | |
| Oct 15, 2012 at 11:46 | comment | added | Joachim Sauer | Long method bodies are a classical code smell: it's not in itself a problem, but it's an indication that there's probably a problem there. | |
| Oct 15, 2012 at 11:41 | comment | added | Binary Worrier | +1: "No, long methods are not alway bad" but they're nearly always bad | |
| Oct 15, 2012 at 11:37 | history | answered | deadalnix | CC BY-SA 3.0 |