Making the move...
gcanyon at inspiredlogic.com
Mon Mar 20 04:23:37 EST 2006
Out of curiosity, do you have an example handy of a long handler that
you think makes more sense to keep together than to break up? Or one
that you think can't be broken up without significant effort to do it?
When you think of a long handler, do you generally think of it as
having a single identifiable task, or do you think of it as being
several tasks performed in sequence in one handler?
Obviously it's possible that you simply think in bigger chunks ;-)
On Mar 19, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Chipp Walters wrote:
> Yep, I've heard that before, but frankly, for me, I'd rather keep
> it all in one, unless there's a really good reason to separate into
> multiple handlers (as in creating more reusability). I find it much
> easier to debug code I've written this way than hunting through the
> message path for the 15 or so functions/handlers I've written
> trying to make things 'more simple.' Just a difference in coding
> In fact, typically I'll write code procedurally in a longer
> handler, then only break it up if/when I know I need to do part of
> the same thing again. Like most of us, I'd rather not code twice.
> Even though, I've got libraries with over 50 handlers/functions.
> Mark Wieder wrote:
>> Saturday, March 18, 2006, 1:24:50 PM, you wrote:
>>> I've never seen a hundred-line routine that wouldn't be better as
>>> five twenty-line routines, each of which could be documented with a
>>> line of code. Perhaps even ten ten-line routines.
More information about the Use-livecode