On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:14:29PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Jonathan Dowland <j...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 02:48:55PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:02:08 +0100 Martin Read <zen75...@zen.co.uk> wrote: > >> > On 12/10/14 18:13, John Hasler wrote: > >> > > You have no problem with an 1800 line function? > > ... > >> > I have a problem with 1800 line functions in general; > > ... > >> I have no problem with an 1800 line function. > > ... > > > > *What* 1800 line function? The commit URI that was shared was an 1894-line > > *file* with a large function definition starting at line 638 and ending at > > 1890. That's a 1252-line function. > > mmm? 1800 vs. 1252 ? > > 30 years ago, when we still read printouts, 60 lines was considered > the ideal max because that's what would fit on a page. > > Nowadays, we use a screen, but 60 lines is hard on the eyes (9 pt or > so), so 40 lines is a good screen-full. But it turns out, with being > about to scroll quickly, that 60 lines is still not hard to reach. > Moreover, 60 lines seems to be a pretty good average for what an > experienced coder can keep in his head.
LOC is a silly way to measure anyway. You could put all the code on one line --- PITA to read, but hey! it's only one line of code! :) -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141013134448.GB2362@tal
