|
...but in French it translates to Cat, I have farted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Google translate voice synthesizer sounds agreeable.
|
|
|
|
|
20 Newly Discovered Terry Pratchett Stories Will Be Published This Year | Tor.com[^]
tl;dr version: Quote: It turns out that early on in Pratchett’s career, he had at least twenty stories published under a pseudonym...The collection sold to Transworld, the publisher of Pratchett’s other works, and will be released in the U.K. on October 5, 2023 under the title, A Stroke of the Pen: The Lost Stories
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I can't wait to buy them here on the left side of the pond. 
ed
|
|
|
|
|
I started to dive in a new (for me) very large code base. One of the files is 9500 lines. Got me wondering: what's the largest single source file you ever met? I'm not talking about automatically generated source files, but those written by humans.
On the same note, when do you think it's time to break a file in smaller pieces? For me, it is somewhere around 1000 lines.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Line count is not a default metric for me.
If all the code is concise and organized well and has purpose, who cares about line count...I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: If all the code is concise and organized well and has purpose
Which is almost never the case in a 9k lines file 
|
|
|
|
|
Probably has five recursive functions buried in the middle of the file, which calls all of the other functions. Each recursion is controlled by a different combination of global variables defined and controlled in other units.
|
|
|
|
|
A frightening large fraction of modern programmers believe that putting each method/function into its own individual file, headed by a 90 line open-source license statement, magically solves those problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Those guys are posers.
I put every word in a separate file.
I use a build script that concats all necessary files so it becomes a compilable script again.
That way, I never write a single word twice, so it's completely DRY!
Let the build server handle the complexities.
Also, when a function is compiled it becomes its own service, because a service should do one thing only.
Naturally, I'm using Kubernetes to deploy all my services.
It's completely SOLID I tell you
|
|
|
|
|
Well, one of the worst I ever saw had a single method that had over 25K lines. It was so convoluted, it blew up the Cyclomatic Complexity calculations.
|
|
|
|
|
Oil and gas FORTRAN programs would typically run that long. No comments. 8 letter names. Engineers.
My source gets split when it's description gets too cumbersome (indicating code smell): e.g. "the charge, pursuit, retreat adapter".
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of weeks ago, I told the story about the Fortran compiler that had to be extended (actually, replaced by a completely new one) to handle one customer's Fortran function, having more than the old compiler's limit of 99 arguments.
I have no information about the number of lines in the function. Even partial classes won't allow a single function / method to be spread over several files.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect that author was afraid of arrays. Any layman thinking of arrays would probably think solar panels.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
What language?
C# should never have been released to the wild without partial classes. 
For me, it's not directly about the size. I wouldn't break up a file simply because it's larger than X units.
The point is that being "too big" can make things hard to find, and "too hard to find" is what matters more than simply "size".
Similarly, having two pieces of code in separate files makes it easier to have them open in two windows beside each other for whatever reason you may need to do that.
Splitting the code for an application into several files makes version control easier and reduces change conflicts when multiple developers are working on the same code base.
And code sharing between unrelated applications is easier when the applications share a minimum of code and don't share code they don't actually rely on.
The lower and more common the code is, the more granular it should be.
My library code is in single-method (possibly a family of overloaded methods) files, and each application can include only the parts it requires.
Higher level -- application-specific -- code should probably be separated more by functional area; frontend, backend, configuration, administration, etc.
Multi-file projects just make everything better for a team of developers.
Size itself doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
|
I *wish* C++14 and above had partial classes
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
You can't split a class into multiple files in C++ to be compiled together into one executable? I'm pretty sure you can, but I only ever dabbled in C++ back in the day.
Or are you saying that you want to have different parts of a class compiled into separate executables (DLLs)?
|
|
|
|
|
No, it would be nice to be able to declare a class twice in two different files and have it compiled into the same binary.
C++ does not let you do that, at least not to my knowledge, unless they added it after C++17.
For example, I have a draw class that handles all the drawing operations in my graphics library.
It would be nice to segregate the different drawing primitives into different files, but the only way to do that is to delegate and forward or to use multiple C++ implementation files for a single class, but you still wind up with all the method definitions for all the drawing primitives in the same header.
You can hack around it using the preprocessor, by #includeing class fragments, but that's techy.
Edit: You can use inheritance to approximate it, but that still runs you into visibility issues.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, odd, I was sure I had done that back in the 80s or 90s. I must be mistaken.
PIEBALD goes spelunking and finds some old C++ code...
Ah, you are correct (of course), I was mistaken for the most part.
I see by my code that the class has to be defined in one place, but that the implementations of the members can be separated out into other files -- and I'm using #include to combine the code together.
When C# 1 was first released, a class had to be fully defined and implemented in one file -- which was horrible -- but C# 2 added partial classes (and interfaces), with which a class definition and implementation can be spread across multiple files.
I do see that something similar could probably be accomplished with C++ (and maybe C# 1) by using the C-preprocessor, but that wouldn't be as clean.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you can. Class definition has to stay in one file but implementation can go in any number of files.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
But with C# (2 and newer), the definition can also be spread across files; not just the implementation.
C# combines the definition and implementation together (other than abstract members).
|
|
|
|
|
I know, but my monster is C/C++
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
If it ain't broke, don't break it.
|
|
|
|
|
You certainly can declare a class in a single .h file and have the implementation spread over multiple .cpp files. That has been possible since ARM C++.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
