>Well I contend that you do yourself a HUGE (in case you didn't get that... HUGE) < s > disservice when you

Unfortunately, the modules I work on are constantly in flux regarding functionality.
Our 'Suite' consists of several applications (getting on for 200Mb of exes) These
output messages to third party networks and services which then send responses back.
All responses come back through my task server program (only about 3Mb - amazing
how small you can get a program when you don't use a framework!)
Anyway, I'm rambling. The point is, every time one of the other modules gets changed,
invariably I have to make changes...


>But the most danger arises from inadequate testing of refactored code. It's easy to see the code you're

I think the most danger arises from inadequate testing. Period :)


>I remain of the opinion that "refactoring" has been used as license by people who love to program, and who are in love with their own style (or, more correctly, hate any other style) of coding, to change code willy-nilly

I suspect I am guilty of this when I look at or use other code, particularly samples acquired of the 'net.
I immediately run beautify, and if the program or class has large tracts of unbroken code, I slice and dice it into smaller methods or procedures. Similarly, I will do batch renames on meaningless abbreviations used as variable or procedure names. Code should be almost self documenting!


>Anyway, good luck with your refactoring.

Thanks.