[ale] Making the argument for many scripts vs one big one.

[Charles Shapiro]

Less chance of bugs due to scoping errors
Easier to optimize (although you're going to pay a performance price for
loading more scripts)
Easier to document ( scripts should carry their own documentation )
Easier to move to new systems ( you can test and modify smaller scripts
individually)

My general rule of thumb is that once a bash script moves beyond about 500
lines, it's un-maintainable and should be rewritten in a more suitable
language.

-- CHS



On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:29 AM, leam hall <leamhall at gmail.com> wrote:

> Any supporting ideas for pushing the argument of "Use lots of small
> scripts for a big task, instead of one large one"?
>
> So far my thoughts are:
>
>
> Isolation of new, untested functionality
> Ease of use when only one part of the task is required
> Easier to introduce new programmers
> Ease of maintenance since you don't have to look past one screen
>
> Anything else?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Leam
>
> --
> Mind on a Mission <http://leamhall.blogspot.com/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20130724/b1caa765/attachment-0001.html>