Comment by MillenialMan
4 years ago
I don't think we're going to agree on this, so I'll just say that I do grok the approach you're advocating, I used to think like you, and I've deliberately migrated away from it. I used to chunk everything into 5ish-line functions that were very clean and very carefully named, being careful to encapsulate with clean objects with clearly-defined boundaries, etc. I moved away from that consciously.
I don't work in low-level or embedded (although I descend when necessary). My current project is a desktop accessibility application.
Like, I can boil a lot of our disagreement down to this:
> 100 interacting units is usually way too much.
I don't think this is true. It's dogma.
First, they aren't all interacting. Lines in a function don't interact with every other line (although you do want to bear in mind the potential combinatorial complexity for the reader). But more specifically: 100-line functions are absolutely readable most of the time, provided they were written by someone talented. The idea that they aren't is... Wrong, in my opinion. And they give you way more implementation flexibility because they don't force you into a structure defined by clean barriers. They allow you to instead write the most natural operation given the underlying datastructure.
Granted, you often won't be able to unit-test that function as easily, but unit tests are not the panacea everyone makes out, in my opinion. Functional/integration tests are usually significantly more informative and they target relevant bugs a lot more effectively - partly because the surface you need to cover is much smaller with larger units, so you can focus your attacks.
> 100-line functions are absolutely readable most of the time, provided they were written by someone talented.
Readable, sure. Easily inspected for correctness, not in most cases. The 100 lines won't all interact, but you don't know this until you look. So much mental effort is spent navigating the 100 lines to match braces, find where variables are defined, where they are in scope, and whether they are mutated elsewhere within the function, comprehend how state changes as the lines progress, find where errors can occur and ensure they are handled within the right block and that control flow continues or exits appropriately, and so on. So little of this is actually about understanding the code's function, its about comprehending the incidental complexity due to its linear representation. This is bad. All of this incidental complexity makes it harder to reason about the code's correctness. Most of these incidental concerns can be eliminated through the proper use of abstractions.
The fact is, code is not written linearly nor is it executed linearly. Why should it be read linearly? There is a strong conceptual mismatch between how code is represented as linear files and its intrinsic structure as a DAG. Well structured abstractions help us move the needle of representation towards the intrinsic DAG structure. This is a win for comprehension.
>Functional/integration tests are usually significantly more informative and they target relevant bugs a lot more effectively - partly because the surface you need to cover is much smaller with larger units, so you can focus your attacks.
We do agree on something!
Honestly, this characterisation doesn't ring true to me at all. I find long functions much easier to read, inspect and think about than dutifully decomposed lasagne that forces me to jump around the codebase. But also, like... Scanning for matching braces? Who is writing your code? Indentation makes that extremely clear. And your IDE should have a number of tools for quickly establishing uses of a name, and scope.
The older I get, the more I think the vast majority of issues along the lines of "long code is hard to reason about" are just incompetent programmers being let loose on the codebase. Comment rot is another one - who on earth edits code without checking and modifying the surrounding comments? That's not an inherent feature of programming to me, it's crazy. However, I absolutely see comment rot in lasagne code - because the comments aren't proximate to the algorithm.
With regards to the idea that abstractions inherently misrepresent, I'll defer to Joel Spolsky for another point:
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-a...