> They're written in the style that Carmack describes, and I have methods that span more than 1k lines of code.
I don't think that's the kind of "inlining" being discussed -- to me that's the sign of a program that was transferred from BASIC or COBOL into a more modern language, but without any refactoring or even a grasp if its operation.
I think the similarity between inlining for speed, and inlining to avoid thinking very hard, is more a qualititive than a quantitative distinction.
Sure, before I knew how to write maintainable code. Before I cared to understand my own code months later.
My first best-seller was Apple Writer (1979) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Writer), written in assembly language. Even then I tried to create structure and namespaces where none existed, with modest success.
I don't think that's the kind of "inlining" being discussed -- to me that's the sign of a program that was transferred from BASIC or COBOL into a more modern language, but without any refactoring or even a grasp if its operation.
I think the similarity between inlining for speed, and inlining to avoid thinking very hard, is more a qualititive than a quantitative distinction.