Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Welcome to the Monastery

Re: Re: Re: Re: Short routines matter more in OO?

by Anonymous Monk
on Oct 14, 2003 at 00:24 UTC ( #298983=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Re: Re: Short routines matter more in OO?
in thread Short routines matter more in OO?

So thanks to tilly for yet another thought provoking thread, and thanks to yourself for a bit of evidence of the contrary view.
I don't think mine and tilly's views are actually different (just different angles into this interesting topic). He mentioned an OO colleague of his having problems with McConnell's information regarding longer routine sizes, and he noted he found the OO does tend to have reduced routine (method) sizes (perhaps explaining the OO programmers bias). I agree OO tends to have more shorter routines than equivelant procedural code, and I even waxed (hypo)theoretic on one possible reason this might be so (OO allows organized coupling, freeing the programmer from managing it). Not that OO code can't be found (all too easily) that suffers from overly monolithic routines or overly fragmented routines (there is no spoon, I mean, panacea).
Tis a pitty you are anonymous or I would follow the nodes you write on a regular basis
You still can. You just won't know if its one of my better nodes or just some drivel until after you look at it :-)

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: Short routines matter more in OO?

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://298983]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-07-23 03:05 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:

    Results (131 votes), past polls