Hacker News Reader

Comment by spc476 | Hacker News Reader

No, a function can be long but have a low cyclomatic complexity score [1] (being a list of do_this(), do_that(), do_somethingelse(), etc) while a short function can have a higher cyclomatic complexity score (lots of fiddly logic).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclomatic_complexity

View on HN

You could deliberately do that. But most of the time length and complexity correlate. More importantly, when you're splitting up functions to make them testable, you're very much reducing complexity and length in tandem.

Splitting up functions just to make them testable is like a code smell, in my experience. It has correlated highly with cultish adherence to testing for the sake of testing rather than to achieve an engineering or quality goal.

It might be reducing "cyclomatic complexity" but not necessarily overall complexity. Often the opposite is true: reduced locality imposes its own costs in maintenance and efficiency for example.

I don't think that makes sense, if I had a longish method or a task that could be decomposed into smaller pieces to clearly identify what's happening I would prefer to break it up and test those pieces if it made sense. Obviously this depends on how you do it. DDD talks about this in terms of services and such which might be what your long function really is. In which case you _do_ have to test this large chunk of logic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com