need to be a bit brave, because if you're being pressured to reduce LOC where you think it's unnecessary or inappropriate then it's only natural that you'd make the change anyway for the sake of a quiet life. Good code has almost no literals. Une offre de bienvenue de 30 tirages gratuits est accorde aux premiers clients. En ce moment, PhotoWeb baisse ses prix jusqu' moins 39 sur tous ses services. Best practice is written in a book, not carved in stone, and when it conflicts (short code versus readable code) then it's up to the programmer to apply their judgement as to which best practice to follow. I believe you're smart enough to realise this, in fact that's pretty much the thrust of your original question. Sadly, it's fairly common for people to latch onto things that are good advice when used in the proper context and applied pragmatically, take them out of that context and apply them dogmatically while failing to appreciate the issues the advice exists to mitigate. That's not what this question is about. What it's about is how to deal with management that insists on a naive dogmatic adherence to a particular coding rule of thumb. Caveman - The State of Mind.
When such refactoring comes at the expense of some other facet of good software design (such as readability) then you have reached a point where you can justify not doing. Again, you have to be prepared to justify yourself in a calm, rational way and be able to "own" the arguments you're making. La qualit de ses prestations est trs apprcie de la presse spcialise et lui a mme valu le prix du meilleur labo en ligne, dcern par Micro Hebdo. There's a lot of answers here that address the technical pros and cons of keeping LOC down and whether or not it's a meaningful quality software metric. The intent of advice regarding keeping LOC down is to avoid the creation of methods that try to do too much in one go, and to discourage the creation of "god classes which know too much about aspects of a design that aren't their direct.