| I would say the file thing is unnecessary. That's just an OCD thing. You can break stuff up and keep it within the same file, it literally has the same effect. I understand why you think that type of modularity is bad, but it is actually good. It only appears bad because most of the "modularized" code is only used once. No one can predict the future so the way to minimize rewrites is to make composable units of code that are small and highly modular. It's not about breaking up your code. It's about writing small logical component then building up the larger component by composing the smaller components. This results in a large number of modules that are only used one time, but it prepares your code for the inevitable point of the future where you find out the design was wrong and you have to rearrange the logic. When such a time comes you most likely just trivially rearrange some of your logic and add additional pure functions into your pipe line for any actual new logic. The majority of your modules remain untouched and this only seems bad, but it prevented a rewrite of the entire framework. The timeline where the definitively worse outcome occured didn't happen because your code was too modular. So you have no point of comparison and you assume the modular code that is hard to read is bad only because it's hard to read. You failed to see how it prevented a massive refactor. Usually if code is so unmodular, people just live with it and keep accumulating massive tech debt on top of everything. If all your seeing is tiny functions everywhere then this is definitively better than the alternative. From a design perspective highly modular code is always better. From readability perspective though, you are right, modular code is harder to read. But there are ways to mitigate this. |