Shorter is always better how?
in reply to Re: Short routines matter more in OO?
in thread Short routines matter more in OO?
Less error prone? Five studies cited by McConnel found that routine size
was either inversely correlated with error frequency, or not correlated at
Easier to understood? A study of upper level comp. sci. students found
that comprehension of a super-modularized program into routines about
10 lines long was no better than their comprehension of a program with
no routines (but when moderate length routines were used, comprehension
scores rose 65%). 
Less changes required? Another study finds that code needs to be changed
least when routines average 100 - 150 lines. 
So, on the one hand we have several empirical studies which find that
shorter routines do not require less changes, are not easier to understand,
and are not less error prone. All of that relates to software cost in the
real world. On the other hand, we have your unsupported opinion.
 Basili & Perricone (1984) "Software Errors and Complexity: An Empi
Investigation." Communications of the ACM 27, no. 1 (Jan) 42-52.
 Shen et al (1985) "Identifying Error-Prone Software --- An Emprici
Study" IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-11 (Apr) 317-
 Card, Church, & Agresti (1986) "An Empirical Study of Software Des
Practices" IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-12 no 2 (
 Card & Glass (1990) "Measuring Software Design Quality". Englewood
CLiffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall
 Shelby & Basili (1991) "Analyzing Error-Prone System STructure" I
Transactions on Software Engineering SE-17 no 2 (Feb) 141-152
 Conte, Dunsmore, Shen (1986) "Software Engineering Metrics and Mod
Menlo Park, Calif: Benjamin/Cummings
 Lind & Vairavan (1989) "An Experimental Investigation of Software
Metrics and Their Relationship to Software Development Effort" IEE
Transactions on Software Engineering SE-15 no 5 (May) 649-653