I've done both on a "Clean Code", lots-of-tiny-functions C++ codebase. Due to various reasons[0], I spent a year using Emacs with no IDE features to work on that codebase, after which I managed to get a language server to work in our specific context, and continued to use Emacs with all the bells and whistles LSP provides.
My conclusion? Small functions are still annoying. Sure, with IDE features in a highly-productive environment like Emacs is, I can jump around the codebase at the speed of thought. But it doesn't solve the critical problem: to understand a piece of code that does something useful, I have to keep all these tiny functions in my working memory. And it ain't big enough for that.
I've long been dreaming about IDE/editor feature that would let you inline code for viewing, without actually changing it. That is, I could mark a block of code, and my editor would replace all function calls[1] with their bodies, with names of their parameters replaced by the names of arguments passed[2].
This way, I could reap benefits of both approaches - small functions that compose and have meaningful ways, and long sequential blocks of code that don't tax my working memory.
--
[0] - C++ is notoriously hard to get reliable code intelligence (autocomplete, xref) to work. Even commercial IDEs get confused if the codebase is large enough, or built in an atypical fashion. Visual Studio in particular would happily crash for me every other day...
[1] - With some sane default filters, like "don't inline functions from the standard library and third-party libraries".
[2] - Or autogenerated ones when the argument is an expression. Think Lisp gensym. E.g. when I have `auto foo(F f);` and call it like `foo(2+2);`, the inlined code would start with `F f_1 = 2+2;`. Like with expanding Lisp macros, the goal of this exercise is that I should be able to replace my original code with generated expansion, and it should work.
You wrote: "I've long been dreaming about IDE/editor feature that would let you inline code for viewing, without actually changing it." That sounds like a great idea! That might be useful for both the writer and reader. It might be possible to build something like using the libraries that Clang provides, but it would be a huge feat -- like a master's or part of a PhD.
You also wrote: "Visual Studio in particular would happily crash for me every other day..." Have you tried CLion by JetBrains? (Usually, they have a free 30-day trial.) I have not used it for enterprise-large projects, but I have used it for a few personal projects. It is excellent. The pace of progress (new features in "code sensing") is impressive. If you find bugs, you can report them and they usually fix them. (They have fixed about 50% of the bugs I have raised about their products over the last 5 years. An impressive clearance rate!)
> It might be possible to build something like using the libraries that Clang provides, but it would be a huge feat -- like a master's or part of a PhD.
Yeah, that's how I feel about it too. A useful MVP would probably be shorter, though, even if it sometimes couldn't do the inlining, or misidentified the called function. I mean, this is C++, I haven't seen any product with a completely reliable type hints & autocompletion, and yet even buggy ones are still very useful.
> Have you tried CLion by JetBrains?
Not yet. Going by the experience with IntelliJ, I expect to be a very good product. But right now, I'm sticking to Emacs.
In my experience, professional IDEs (particularly the JetBrains ones) are the best for working with a particular programming language, but they aren't so good for polyglot work and all the secondary tasks surrounding programming - version control, file management, log inspection, and even generalized text editing. My Emacs setup, on the other hand, delivers superior ergonomics for all these secondary tasks, and - as long as I can find appropriate language server - is within order of magnitude on programming itself. So it feels like a better deal overall.
I agree about the "professional IDEs" point. Are you aware that IntelliJ has language plug-ins that lets you mix HTML/JavaScript/CSS/Java/Python in the same project? I guess CLion can at least mix C/C++/HTML/JavaScript/CSS/Python. This is great when you work with research scientists who like to use different languages in the same project due to external dependencies. I can vouch for /certain/ polyglot projects, it works fine in IntelliJ. (That said, you might have a very unusual polyglot project.)
As for tooling, I might read/write/compile/debug code in the IDE, but do all the secondary tasks in a Linux/Bash/Cygwin terminal. Don't feel guilty/ashamed of this style! "Use the right tool for the job." I am forced to work in Windows, but Cygwin helps me "Get that Linux feeling - on Windows". I cringe when I watch people using Git from a GUI (for the most part) instead of using the command line, which is normally superior. However, I also cringe when I watch people hunt and peck (badly!) in vim to resolve a merge conflict. (Have you seen the latest merge tool in IntelliJ? For 90% of users, it is a superior user experience.) To be fair, I have also watched real pros resolve merge conflicts in vim/emacs equally fast.
One thing you will find "disappointing" is the CPU & memory footprint of any modern IDE requires 1990s supercomputer resources. It is normal to see (multiple) enterprise-large projects take 1-10GB of RAM and 8-16 cores (for a few mins) to get fired up. (I am not resource constrained on my dev box, so I am willing to pay this tax.) However, after init, you can navigate the code quickly, and get good real-time static analysis feedback ("code sensing").
My conclusion? Small functions are still annoying. Sure, with IDE features in a highly-productive environment like Emacs is, I can jump around the codebase at the speed of thought. But it doesn't solve the critical problem: to understand a piece of code that does something useful, I have to keep all these tiny functions in my working memory. And it ain't big enough for that.
I've long been dreaming about IDE/editor feature that would let you inline code for viewing, without actually changing it. That is, I could mark a block of code, and my editor would replace all function calls[1] with their bodies, with names of their parameters replaced by the names of arguments passed[2].
This way, I could reap benefits of both approaches - small functions that compose and have meaningful ways, and long sequential blocks of code that don't tax my working memory.
--
[0] - C++ is notoriously hard to get reliable code intelligence (autocomplete, xref) to work. Even commercial IDEs get confused if the codebase is large enough, or built in an atypical fashion. Visual Studio in particular would happily crash for me every other day...
[1] - With some sane default filters, like "don't inline functions from the standard library and third-party libraries".
[2] - Or autogenerated ones when the argument is an expression. Think Lisp gensym. E.g. when I have `auto foo(F f);` and call it like `foo(2+2);`, the inlined code would start with `F f_1 = 2+2;`. Like with expanding Lisp macros, the goal of this exercise is that I should be able to replace my original code with generated expansion, and it should work.