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

If this is but one viewpoint, then it is a viewpoint that I like hearing from. :-)

I will have to think about that. I've found that code where I setting up a lot of handlers (often with closures) that my function length goes back up because one function creates several closely related small ones. Thinking about that in terms of managing coupling could explaing why I'm naturally inclined to group things the way that I do.

I also had a vaguely related thought at Pass by reference vs globals.

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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Short routines matter more in OO?
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 13, 2003 at 18:43 UTC
    If this is but one viewpoint, then it is a viewpoint that I like hearing from. :-)
    I still have much thinking to do with regards to this notion. But I do think one of OO's non-explicitly recognized advantages is that of managing coupling. The object is an interface to a set of coupled code, relieving both the object writer and the object user from having to manage that aspect of code complexity themselves.

    And, one of OO's disadvantages is not recognizing this explicitly, because we then we could have much more meaningful discussions about such controversies as: Are getter/setter methods evil when used from outside the object? from inside the object? Should objects be divorced from their UI via a controller? encapsulate their UI? or provide proxy UI objects? How do we reconcile full encapsulation with inheritance?

[reply]

In Section Meditations