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).

You May Also Like

Inconsistent Dependency Injection to domains with Grails

I've encountered strange behavior with a domain class in my project: services that should be injected were null. I've became suspicious as why is that? Services are injected properly in other domain classes so why this one is different?

Constructors experiment

I've created an experiment. I've created empty LibraryService that should be injected and Book domain class like this:

class Book {
def libraryService

String author
String title
int pageCount

Book() {
println("Finished constructor Book()")
}

Book(String author) {
this()
this.@author = author
println("Finished constructor Book(String author)")
}

Book(String author, String title) {
super()
this.@author = author
this.@title = title
println("Finished constructor Book(String author, String title)")
}

Book(String author, String title, int pageCount) {
this.@author = author
this.@title = title
this.@pageCount = pageCount
println("Finished constructor Book(String author, String title, int pageCount)")
}

void logInjectedService() {
println(" Service libraryService is injected? -> $libraryService")
}
}
class LibraryService {
def serviceMethod() {
}
}

Book has 4 explicit constructors. I want to check which constructor is injecting dependecies. This is my method that constructs Book objects and I called it in controller:

class BookController {
def index() {
constructAndExamineBooks()
}

static constructAndExamineBooks() {
println("Started constructAndExamineBooks")
Book book1 = new Book().logInjectedService()
Book book2 = new Book("foo").logInjectedService()
Book book3 = new Book("foo", 'bar').logInjectedService()
Book book4 = new Book("foo", 'bar', 100).logInjectedService()
Book book5 = new Book(author: "foo", title: 'bar')
println("Finished constructor Book(Map params)")
book5.logInjectedService()
}
}

Analysis

Output looks like this:

Started constructAndExamineBooks
Finished constructor Book()
Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2
Finished constructor Book()
Finished constructor Book(String author)
Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2
Finished constructor Book(String author, String title)
Service libraryService is injected? -> null
Finished constructor Book(String author, String title, int pageCount)
Service libraryService is injected? -> null
Finished constructor Book()
Finished constructor Book(Map params)
Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2

What do we see?

  1. Empty constructor injects dependencies.
  2. Constructor that invokes empty constructor explicitly injects dependencies.
  3. Constructor that invokes parent's constructor explicitly does not inject dependencies.
  4. Constructor without any explicit call declared does not call empty constructor thus it does not inject dependencies.
  5. Constructor provied by Grails with a map as a parameter invokes empty constructor and injects dependencies.

Conclusion

Always explicitily invoke empty constructor in your Grail domain classes to ensure Dependency Injection! I didn't know until today either!

4Developers 2010 Review

I've been to 4Developers in 2009 in Cracow, together with Tomasz Przybysz and we had very nice impressions, no wonder then I wanted to signed up for 2010 edition in Poznań as well. Tomasz was sick, but Jakub Kurlenda decided to come with me. This time...I've been to 4Developers in 2009 in Cracow, together with Tomasz Przybysz and we had very nice impressions, no wonder then I wanted to signed up for 2010 edition in Poznań as well. Tomasz was sick, but Jakub Kurlenda decided to come with me. This time...