DDevelopment & Design

The hidden benefit of writing short methods

A method should do only one thingQuoting Uncle Bob:The first rule of functions is that they should be small. The second rule of functions is that they should be smaller than that. Functions should not be 100 lines long. Functions should hardly ever be …

A method should do only one thing

Quoting Uncle Bob:

The first rule of functions is that they should be small. The second rule of functions is that they should be smaller than that. Functions should not be 100 lines long. Functions should hardly ever be 20 lines long.

From one of Martin Thompson’s presentations I have learned another – more easily available and intuitive – method of judging wether a method is small enough. What you are supposed to do is to physically cover the part of your screen on which the method is displayed with your hand. If you can’t do that, then it means that your method probably is not small enough and you should consider refactoring it.

The obvious advantages that you gain by following these rules are improved readability and maintainability of your code.

But there is one – less obvious – benefit of writing short methods

And that is that Java HotSpot VM’s JIT compiler uses a compilation technique which is called inlining. 
What the compiler does is it substitutes the body of a method into places where this method is invoked thus saving the cost of calling the method. 
Current default for HotSpot is set at 35 bytes, which means that the compiler will inline a method if it contains less than 35 bytes of bytecode.

How do I know the bytecode size of a given method?

The easiest way is to dump the class file containing your method with:
javap -c mypackage.MyClass

which returns bytecode of decompiled class and the size of each method (well actually the size is equal to the byte offset of the last instruction – you can read more about javap HERE).

— Previous article

Groovy, Callable and ExecutorService

Next article —

Typeclasses in Swift, Haskell and Scala

You May Also Like
DDevelopment & Design

Devoxx 2012 review


I'm sitting in a train to Charleroi, looking through a window at the Denmark landscape, street lights flashing by, people comming home from work, getting out for a Friday night party, or having a family dinner. To my left, guys from SoftwareMill are playing cards.
I don't really see them. My mind is busy elsewhere, sorting out and processing last two days in Antwerp, where 3400 developers, from 41 different countries, listened to 200 different sessions at the Devoxx, AFAIK the biggest Java conference this year.
DDevelopment & Design

Private fields and methods are not private in groovy

I used to code in Java before I met groovy. Like most of you, groovy attracted me with many enhancements. This was to my surprise to discover that method visibility in groovy is handled different than Java!

Consider this example:

class Person {
private String name
public  String surname

private Person() {}

private String signature() { "${name?.substring(0, 1)}. $surname" }

public String toString() { "I am $name $surname" }
}

How is this class interpreted with Java?

  1. Person has private constructor that cannot be accessed
  2. Field "name" is private and cannot be accessed
  3. Method signature() is private and cannot be accessed

Let's see how groovy interpretes Person:

public static void main(String[] args) {
def person = new Person()   // constructor is private - compilation error in Java
println(person.toString())

    person.@name = 'Mike'       // access name field directly - compilation error in Java
println(person.toString())

    person.name = 'John'        // there is a setter generated by groovy
println(person.toString())

    person.@surname = 'Foo'     // access surname field directly
println(person.toString())

    person.surname = 'Bar'      // access auto-generated setter
println(person.toString())

println(person.signature()) // call private method - compilation error in Java
}

I was really astonished by its output:

I am null null
I am Mike null
I am John null
I am John Foo
I am John Bar
J. Bar

As you can see, groovy does not follow visibility directives at all! It treats them as non-existing. Code compiles and executes fine. It's contrary to Java. In Java this code has several errors, pointed out in comments.

I've searched a bit on this topic and it seems that this behaviour is known since version 1.1 and there is a bug report on that: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GROOVY-1875. It is not resolved even with groovy 2 release. As Tim Yates mentioned in this Stackoverflow question: "It's not clear if it is a bug or by design". Groovy treats visibility keywords as a hint for a programmer.

I need to keep that lesson in mind next time I want to make some field or method private!