I feel like this is only a problem if the small functions share a lot of global state. If each one acts upon its arguments and returns values without side effects, ordering is much less of an issue IMO.
Clean code recommends turning that function into a class and promoting the shared state from local variables into fields. After such a "refactoring" you get a nice puzzle trying to understand what exactly happens.
I've found the single greatest contributor to more readable and maintainable code is to limit state as much as possible.
Which was really hard for me to learn because it can be somewhat less efficient, and my game programmer upbringing hates it.
I find this approach a decent balance between having lots of small functions and having one big function. The result is self contained (like a function). It has the API of a function, and it can be read top to bottom. But you still get many of the readability benefits of small functions - like each of the internal methods can be named, and they’re simple and each one captures a specific thought / action.
func foo() {
// do A.1
// do A.2
// do B.1
// do B.2
// etc...
}
func foo() {
// do A
// do B
// etc...
// func A()...
// func B()...
}
For example, in this case I needed to do two recursive tree walks inside this function, so each walk was expressed as an inner function which recursively called itself, and each is called once from the top level method:
https://github.com/ottypes/json1/blob/05ef789cc697888802e786...
I don't do it like this often though. The code in this file is easily the most complex code I've written in nearly 3 decades of programming. Here my ability to read and edit the code is easily the most important factor. I think this form makes the core algorithm more clear than any other way I could factor this code. I considered smearing this internal logic out over several top level methods, but I doubt that would be any easier to read.
and this is exactly why you refactor to pull out the shared state into parameters, so that each of the "subfunctions" have zero side effects.
I have read the book (not very recently) and I do not recall this but perhaps I am just immune to such advice.
I like his book about refactoring more than Clean Code but it introduced me to some good principles like SOLID (a good mnemonic), so I found it somewhat useful.
What I find is that function boundaries have a bunch of hidden assumptions we don't think about.
Especially things like exceptions.
For all these utility functions are you going to check input variables, which means doing it over, over and over again. Catching exceptions everywhere etc?
A function can be used for a 'narrow use case' - but - when it's actually made available to other parts of the system, it needs to be kind of more generalized.
This is the problem.
Is it possible that 'nested functions' could provide a solution? As in, you only call the function once, in the context of some other function, so why not physically put it there?
I can have it's own stack, be tested separately if needed, but it remains exclusive to the context that it is in from a readability perspective - and you don't risk having it used for 'other things'.
You could even have an editor 'collapse' the function into a single line of code, to make the longer algorithm more readable.
Even something as simple as Substring which is a method we use all the time and is far more clear than most helper functions I've seen in code bases.
Is it Substring(string, index, length) or Substring(string, indexStart, indexEnd)
What happens when you pass in "abc".Substring(0,4) do you get an exception or "abc"?
What does Substring(0,-1) do? or Substring (-2,-3).
What happens when you call it on null? Sometimes this matters, sometimes it doesn't.
- Does it destructively modify the argument, or return a substring? Or both?
- If it returns a substring, is it a view over the original string, or a fresh substring that doesn't share memory with the original?
- If it returns a fresh substring, how does it do it? Is it smart or dumb about allocations? This almost never matters, except when it does.
- How does it handle multibyte characters? Do locales impact it in any way?
With the languages we have today, a big part of the function contract cannot be explicitly expressed in function signatures. And it only gets worse with more complicated tools of abstraction.
(reads: var_1, var_2; mutates: var_3) {
var_3 = var_1 + var_2
int result_value = var_1 * var_2
} (exports: result_value)
return result_value * 5
In the latest IntelliJ, the IDE will visually hint about mutable, primitive-typed local variables (including method parameters). A good example is a for loop variable (i/j/k). The IDE makes it stand-out. When I write Java, I try to use final everywhere for primitive-typed local variables. (I borrowed this idea from functional programming styles.) The IDE gives me a hint if I accidentally forget to mark something as final.
this is basically a lambda you call instantly.
[&x, y, z] () {
x = y + z;
}();