Hacker News Reader

Agree that "splitting for splittings' sake" (only to stay below an arbitrary line count) does indeed not make sense.

On the other hand I often see functions like you describe - something has to be executed step-by-step (and the functionality is only used there) - where I _whish_ it was split up into separate functions, so we could have meaningful tests for each step, not only for the "whole thing".

View on HN

How about "splitting for comprehension's sake"?

If I have a huge function, and I can peel parts off into sensible well-encapsulated sub-functions, and I name them well, then my ability to comprehend the whole goes up.

If I do that, future me will thank me, because I will almost inevitably be back to that function at some point.

But for this to work, the sub-functions have to really do what they say, and not do anything more. I have to be able to trust that I can understand them by just their name and arguments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com