&quot;More significantly in this particular case, various studies over the years have not supported the claim that short functions have better error rates, nor that longer but otherwise reasonable functions have higher error rates; if anything, the overall body of evidence seems to suggest the opposite conclusion.&quot;<p>That&#x27;s an oversimplification of the research, and misleading. After citing five studies in Code Complete (including the one that shows an inverse correlation between errors and function size), McConnell summarizes as follows:<p>&quot;That said, if you want to write routines longer than about 200 lines, be careful. None of the studies that reported decreased cost, decreased error rates, or both with larger
routines distinguished among sizes larger than 200 lines, and you’re bound to run into an upper limit of understandability as you pass 200 lines of code.&quot;<p>I wouldn&#x27;t advocate for a strictly short functions either, but the overall body of evidence definitely does _not_ suggest the opposite conclusion: the opposite conclusion would be that we should endeavour to write long functions!<p>Anyhow, nitpicking aside, thanks for providing a quick review of this book. I&#x27;m going to skip it based on your comments.