Return to Answer

Robert C. Martin in his book "Clean Code" recommends heavily the use of functions with 0, 1 or 2 parameters at maximum, so at least there is one experienced book author who thinks code becomes cleaner by using this style (however, he is surely not the ultimative authority here, and his opinions are debatable).

Where Bob Martin is IMHO correct is that functions with 3 or more parameters might indicate a code smell. In lots of cases, the parameters might be grouped together to form a combined datatype, in other cases, it can be an indicator that the function is simply doing too much.

However, I do not think it would be a good idea to invent a new language for this:

• if you really want to enforce such a rule throughout your code, you just need a code analysis tool for an existing language, no need to invent a completely new language for this (for example, for C# something like 'fxcop' could probably be utilized).

• sometimes, combining parameters to a new type just does not seem worth the hassle, or it would become a pure artificial combination. See, for example, this File.Open method from the .Net framework. It takes four parameters, and I am pretty sure the designers of that API did this intentionally, because they thought that would be the most practical way to provide the diffferent parameters to the function.

• there are sometimes real world scenarios where more than 2 parameters make things simpler for technical reasons (for example, when you need a 1:1 mapping to an existing API where you are bound to the usage of simple datatypes, and can't combine different parameters into one custom object)

Robert C. Martin in his book "Clean Code" recommends heavily the use of functions with 0, 1 or 2 parameters at maximum, so at least there is one experienced book author who thinks code becomes cleaner by using this style (however, he is surely not the ultimative authority here, and his opinions are debatable).

Where Bob Martin is IMHO correct is: functions with 3 or more parameters are often indicators for a code smell. In lots of cases, the parameters might be grouped together to form a combined datatype, in other cases, it can be an indicator for the function simply doing too much.

However, I do not think it would be a good idea to invent a new language for this:

• if you really want to enforce such a rule throughout your code, you just need a code analysis tool for an existing language, no need to invent a completely new language for this (for example, for C# something like 'fxcop' could probably be utilized).

• sometimes, combining parameters to a new type just does not seem worth the hassle, or it would become a pure artificial combination. See, for example, this File.Open method from the .Net framework. It takes four parameters, and I am pretty sure the designers of that API did this intentionally, because they thought that would be the most practical way to provide the diffferent parameters to the function.

• there are sometimes real world scenarios where more than 2 parameters make things simpler for technical reasons (for example, when you need a 1:1 mapping to an existing API where you are bound to the usage of simple datatypes, and can't combine different parameters into one custom object)

Robert C. Martin in his book "Clean Code" recommends heavily the use of functions with 0, 1 or 2 parameters at maximum, so at least there is one experienced book author who thinks code becomes cleaner by using this style (however, he is surely not the ultimative authority here, and his opinions are debatable).

Where Bob Martin is IMHO correct is that functions with 3 or more parameters might indicate a code smell. However, I do not think it would be a good idea to invent a new language for this:

• if you really want to enforce such a rule throughout your code, you just need a style checker for an existing language, no need to invent a completely new language for this (for example, for C# something like 'fxcop' could probably be utilized).

• there are sometimes real world scenarios where more than 2 parameters are needed for technical reasons (for example, when you need a 1:1 mapping to an existing API where you are bound to the usage of simple datatypes, and can't combine different parameters into one custom object)

Robert C. Martin in his book "Clean Code" recommends heavily the use of functions with 0, 1 or 2 parameters at maximum, so at least there is one experienced book author who thinks code becomes cleaner by using this style (however, he is surely not the ultimative authority here, and his opinions are debatable).

Where Bob Martin is IMHO correct is that functions with 3 or more parameters might indicate a code smell. In lots of cases, the parameters might be grouped together to form a combined datatype, in other cases, it can be an indicator that the function is simply doing too much.

However, I do not think it would be a good idea to invent a new language for this:

• if you really want to enforce such a rule throughout your code, you just need a code analysis tool for an existing language, no need to invent a completely new language for this (for example, for C# something like 'fxcop' could probably be utilized).

• sometimes, combining parameters to a new type just does not seem worth the hassle, or it would become a pure artificial combination. See, for example, this File.Open method from the .Net framework. It takes four parameters, and I am pretty sure the designers of that API did this intentionally, because they thought that would be the most practical way to provide the diffferent parameters to the function.

• there are sometimes real world scenarios where more than 2 parameters make things simpler for technical reasons (for example, when you need a 1:1 mapping to an existing API where you are bound to the usage of simple datatypes, and can't combine different parameters into one custom object)

Robert C. Martin in his book "Clean Code" recommends heavily the use of functions with 0, 1 or 2 parameters at maximum, so at least there is one experienced book author who thinks code becomes cleaner by using this style (however, his is surely not the ultimative authority here, and his opinions are debatable).

Where Bob Martin is IMHO correct is that functions with 3 or more parameters might indicate a code smell. However, I do not think it would be a good idea to invent a new language for this:

• if you really want to enforce such a rule throughout your code, you just need a style checker for an existing language, no need to invent a completely new language for this (for example, for C# something like 'fxcop' could probably be utilized).

• there are sometimes real world scenarios where more than 2 parameters are needed for technical reasons (for example, when you need a 1:1 mapping to an existing API where you are bound to the usage of simple datatypes, and can't combine different parameters into one custom object)

Robert C. Martin in his book "Clean Code" recommends heavily the use of functions with 0, 1 or 2 parameters at maximum, so at least there is one experienced book author who thinks code becomes cleaner by using this style (however, he is surely not the ultimative authority here, and his opinions are debatable).

Where Bob Martin is IMHO correct is that functions with 3 or more parameters might indicate a code smell. However, I do not think it would be a good idea to invent a new language for this:

• if you really want to enforce such a rule throughout your code, you just need a style checker for an existing language, no need to invent a completely new language for this (for example, for C# something like 'fxcop' could probably be utilized).

• there are sometimes real world scenarios where more than 2 parameters are needed for technical reasons (for example, when you need a 1:1 mapping to an existing API where you are bound to the usage of simple datatypes, and can't combine different parameters into one custom object)