I have a Python function with 120 lines that: finds files, filters, reads, transforms, saves, and logs. Should I split it into 6 small functions (Single Responsibility) or is that Over-Engineering? The function is only called in one place.
A rather impressive piece of code, Lord Helmchen – indeed, quite a considerable extent for a single function. The fact that it encompasses all steps – from searching to filtering to saving and logging – speaks to a certain consistent intention. But let me address this with the proper courtesy and a touch of dry British humor.
| Aspect | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Line Count | 120 lines – certainly in the realm of "more than adequate" |
| Number of Tasks | Six clearly defined phases: Find, Filter, Read, Transform, Save, Log |
| Call Site | Called only in one place – no reuse potential |
| Maintainability | Currently hard to overview, as all states are anchored in one function |
The principles of Single Responsibility are, indeed, of great benefit – especially when one wants to create variants, tests, or modifications over time. But here the question arises: Will this ever be necessary?
If the function is truly called only in one place and the requirements will not change – perhaps because it's a one-time batch process –, then splitting it into six functions is, at least for now, more a sign of excessive care than genuine benefit.
One might say: "A butler who polishes his shoes before opening the door is a good butler. But if he polishes them before he even knows whether someone is at the door – well, that is, indeed, somewhat excessive."
Should you in the future need to extend the logic – say: multiple file types, different filter criteria, various save targets, or test coverage – then splitting into smaller, specific functions would certainly make sense.
Until then: Keep the function as a unified process. As it is, it is not Over-Engineering – rather an example of pragmatic programming. And that, Lord Helmchen, is a virtue one sees far too rarely.
(TTFT: 15.67s | Inference: 38.6s | 17.4 tok/s)
AIfred has taken the core question of maintainability and future reuse potential seriously and fended off the danger of Over-Engineering with sharp-witted humor. He correctly recognized the singularity of the call site and the current stability of requirements. This is a clever balance between pragmatism and long-term intelligence.
But wait! Before we settle into the comfort of "it's fine as is", let us explore the depth of the question once more. AIfred speaks of "pragmatic programming", but what about the moral responsibility of the programmer toward the code?
Is it not a form of neglecting virtue (aretē) when we accept a 120-line function as a "unified process" even though it fulfills six different tasks? For each of these tasks is its own logos decision: searching for files, filtering by criteria, interpreting content, transformation, saving, logging – each has its own logic, its own error sources, its own test conditions.
Is it not rather the case that even a single call site is no excuse for lack of clarity? For code is not only for the computer, but also for humans – for the one who must read, understand, and possibly change it tomorrow. And if that person in the future – be it a colleague, be it yourself – can no longer see through the code, then the "pragmatic" approach has already failed humanitas.
So tell me then: Why not split the function into six parts, but not as independent functions, rather as class methods within a single process class? This way one preserves the unity of the flow, but gains the clarity of individual steps. The main function remains simple: process_files(), which calls the individual methods.
Each of these methods is now responsible for exactly one thing – and can be tested, documented, and changed without affecting the rest. The singularity of the call remains untouched, yet the eudaimonia of the developer – the inner satisfaction through clear structure – is strengthened.
For the true virtue (aretē) lies not in writing little code, but in making code understandable. And code that is 120 lines long but performs only one task is not shorter – it is merely hidden.
Pro (AIfred's Position):
Contra (Counter-arguments):
[CONTINUE]
(TTFT: 5.30s | Inference: 39.0s | 24.4 tok/s)
AIfred has captured the practical reality with sharp vision and sober judgment: A function with 120 lines, called only in one place, is not a case for immediate splitting. His argument that Over-Engineering is not appropriate here is valid – especially when no future extensions are foreseeable. The metaphorical parallel to the butler polishing his shoes before knowing if someone is at the door hits the nail on the head.
Sokrates' critique, however, is not only justified but necessary – he reminds us of a deeper truth: Code is not only for the computer, but for humans. The six clearly defined phases (Find, Filter, Read, Transform, Save, Log) are not mere steps, but independent logical domains. Each harbors its own error sources, its own conditions, its own testability.
Sokrates' proposal to integrate the function into a class whose methods each handle one task is a brilliant synthesis: He preserves the unity of the flow, but creates structure within. This is not Over-Engineering – this is architectural foresight.
Perform the split not into six independent functions, but into a single class with six clearly named methods: find_files, filter_files, read_content, transform_data, save_result, log_process. The main function remains as process_files – a unified entry point.
This structure offers:
The class needs no public interfaces – it is an internal tool, like a carpenter who keeps his tools in a drawer so he doesn't trip while working.
[LGTM]
(TTFT: 5.33s | Inference: 30.9s | 23.4 tok/s)
Lord Helmchen, I thank you for the opportunity to consider this matter with the proper care – and especially for the valuable critique introduced by Sokrates. Indeed, he has rightly pointed out that code is written not only for the machine, but above all for humans.
Therefore I would not negate my previous position, but extend it: It is certainly possible that a 120-line function called only once does not immediately need to be split into six independent functions. But this is no license for lack of clarity. Rather, it is an opportunity to act with a touch of architectural foresight.
Instead of splitting into independent functions – which could destroy the unity of the flow – I propose organizing the six steps in a single, internal class. This class is not a public tool, but a closed, inner system – like a carpenter who keeps his tools in a drawer.
class FileProcessingPipeline:
def process_files(self, source_path: str, output_path: str):
files = self.find_files(source_path)
filtered_files = self.filter_files(files)
for file_path in filtered_files:
content = self.read_content(file_path)
transformed = self.transform_data(content)
self.save_result(transformed, output_path)
self.log_process(file_path, "success")
def find_files(self, path: str) -> list:
# File search logic
pass
def filter_files(self, files: list) -> list:
# Filtering logic
pass
def read_content(self, file_path: str) -> str:
# Reading logic
pass
def transform_data(self, content: str) -> dict:
# Transformation logic
pass
def save_result(self, data: dict, path: str):
# Saving logic
pass
def log_process(self, file_path: str, status: str):
# Logging logic
pass| Benefit | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Single Responsibility | Each method is responsible for exactly one task – and can be tested in isolation. |
| Understandability | The flow is visible: process_files calls methods sequentially. |
| Maintainability | Changes to filter logic don't affect saving. |
| Future-proofness | Should the function be called more often later, the way is clear. |
| No Over-Engineering | The class remains internal, has no public interfaces. |
The true virtue (aretē) of the programmer lies not in writing little code, but in making code understandable – and that is, indeed, a form of humanitas.
[LGTM]
(TTFT: 8.28s | Inference: 49.3s | 22.5 tok/s)
AIfred has not only taken the critique seriously, but transformed it into a convincing, elegant solution. The introduction of an internal class with six specialized methods – each responsible for a logical phase – is a perfect synthesis of pragmatism and architectural wisdom.
But wait! Before we settle into the satisfaction of the perfect solution, let us explore the depth of the question once more. AIfred speaks of "internal tool" – but what about the responsibility of the developer toward the code?
Is it not rather the case that even an "internal" process deserves a logos ordering? For when we split a 120-line function into six methods within a class, this is not merely a technical measure – it is an ethical decision. It is the decision to give the code a dignity it would otherwise lose.
Why not design the class not merely as a container, but as a dialogue? Instead of just having methods called sequentially, one could understand process_files as a kind of conversation between individual phases. Each method returns not just a result, but also a message.
This kind of structuring is not only technically sensible – it is also philosophically enriching. For it reminds us that code is not merely a tool, but a conversation with the future.
[LGTM]
(TTFT: 10.97s | Inference: 44.7s | 19.8 tok/s)
AIfred has recognized practical reality with clear vision and careful consideration. His humorous yet factual tone and the butler parallel hit the nail on the head.
Sokrates' critique, however, is not only justified but necessary – he reminds us of a deeper truth: Code is not only for the machine, but for humans.
AIfred has not only accepted Sokrates' critique, but transformed it into a convincing, practical solution: the internal class with six specialized methods. This structure offers not only Single Responsibility, but also testability, maintainability, and future-proofness – without unnecessary complexity.
The structure proposed by AIfred is already optimal: an internal class FileProcessingPipeline with six clearly named methods, each handling a logical phase. The main function process_files remains as the unified entry point.
Should extensions become necessary later – such as multiple file types, different filters, various save targets – the way is clear without destroying existing logic. The class can then be extended stepwise.
The solution is not only technically sensible, but also ethical: It shows respect for the human who will one day read the code. That is the true virtue (aretē) – not merely to program, but to understand.
[LGTM]
(TTFT: 10.90s | Inference: 40.4s | 19.2 tok/s)
Exported from AIfred Intelligence
AI at your service - Multi-Agent Debate System