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

[Jim Kinney]

The only advantage the one big script has is it saves a pile of file open
calls. But every file needs to be a function in the one big script.

I've written and maintained both forms. Some people's heads explode when I
talk about bash scripts that are over 800 lines. Those have dozens of
functions. Other bash apps have a called script that's 30-50 lines that
calls 15-30 other scripts.
The difference between these two forms is how they start. The many small
scripts version usually begins as each script is written to solve a
problem. Eventually, it makes to glue the many automation scripts into a
single app.
The one big script usually begins as a new design process.
On Jul 24, 2013 8:31 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/20130724/048a05f4/attachment.html>