Making Sense of Subroutines

Editor’s Note: This article has a followup in Advanced Subroutine Techniques.

A subroutine (or routine, function, procedure, macro, etc.) is, at its heart, a named chunk of work. It’s shorthand that allows you to think about your problem in bigger chunks. Bigger chunks means two things:

  • You can break the problem up into smaller problems that you can solve independently.
  • You can use these solutions to solve your overall problem with greater confidence.

Well-written subroutines will make your programs smaller (in lines and memory), faster (both in writing and executing), less buggy, and easier to modify.

You’re Kidding, Right?

Consider this: when you lift your sandwich to take a bite, you don’t think about all the work that goes into contracting your muscles and coordinating your movements so that the mayo doesn’t end up in your hair. You, in essence, execute a series of subroutines that say “Lift the sandwich up to my mouth and take a bite of it, then put it back down on the plate.” If you had to think about all of your muscle contractions and coordinating them every time you wanted to take a bite, you’d starve to death.

The same is true for your code. We write programs for a human’s benefit. The computer doesn’t care how complicated or simple your code is to read–it converts everything to the same 1s and 0s whether it has perfect indentation or is all on one line. Programming guidelines, and nearly every single programming language feature, exist for human benefit.

Tell Me More

Subroutines truly are the magical cure for all that ails your programs. When done right, you will find that you write your programs in half the time, you have more confidence in what you’ve written, and you can explain it to others more easily.


A subroutine provides a name for a series of steps. This is especially important when dealing with complicated processes (or algorithms). While this includes ivory-tower solutions such as the Guttler-Rossman transformation (for sorting), this also includes the overly complicated way your company does accounts receivables. By putting a name on it, you’re making it easier to work with.

Code Reuse

Face it–you’re going to need to do the same thing over and over in different parts of your code. If you have the same 30 lines of code in 40 places, it’s much harder to apply a bugfix or a requirements change. Even better, if your code uses subroutines, it’s much easier to optimize just that one little bit that’s slowing the whole application down. Studies have shown that 80 percent of the application’s runtime generally occurs within one percent of an application’s code. If that one percent is in a few subroutines, you can optimize it and hide the nasty details from the rest of your code.


To many people, “test” is a four-letter word. I firmly believe this is because they don’t have enough interfaces to test against. A subroutine provides a way of grabbing a section of your code and testing it independently of all the rest of your code. This independence is key to having confidence in your tests, both now and in the future.

In addition, when someone finds a bug, the bug will usually occur in a single subroutine. When this happens, you can alter that one subroutine, leaving the rest of the system unchanged. The fewer changes made to an application, the more confidence there is in the fix not introducing new bugs along with the bugfix.

Ease of Development

No one argues that subroutines are bad when there are ten developers working on a project. They allow different developers to work on different parts of the application in parallel. (If there are dependencies, one developer can stub the missing subroutines.) However, they provide an equal amount of benefit for the solo developer: they allow you to focus on one specific part of the application without having to build all of the pieces up together. You will be happy for the good names you chose when you have to read code you wrote six months ago.

Consider the following example of a convoluted conditional:

if ((($x > 3 && $x<12) || ($x>15 && $x<23)) &&
    (($y<2260 && $y>2240) || ($z>foo_bar() && $z<bar_foo()))) {

It’s very hard to exactly what’s going on. Some judicious white space can help, as can improved layout. That leaves:

if (
       ( $x > 3 && $x < 12) || ($x > 15 && $x < 23)
       ($y < 2260 && $y > 2240) || ($z > foo_bar() && $z < bar_foo())

Gah, that’s almost worse. Enter a subroutine to the rescue:

sub is_between {
    my ($value, $left, $right) = @_;

    return ( $left < $value && $value < $right );

if (
    ( is_between( $x, 3, 12 ) ||
      is_between( $x, 15, 23 )
    ) && (
      is_between( $y, 2240, 2260 ) ||
      is_between( $z, foo_bar(), bar_foo() )
    ) {

That’s so much easier to read. One thing to notice is that, in this case, the rewrite doesn’t actually save any characters. In fact, this is slightly longer than the original version. Yet, it’s easier to read, which makes it easier to both validate for correctness as well as to modify safely. (When writing this subroutine for the article, I actually found an error I had made–I had flipped the values for comparing $y so that the $y conditional could never be true.)

How Do I Know if I’m Doing It Right?

Just as there are good sandwiches (turkey club on dark rye) and bad sandwiches (peanut butter and banana on Wonder bread), there are also good and bad subroutines. While writing good subroutines is very much an art form, there are several characteristics you can look for when writing good subroutines. A good subroutine is readable and has a well-defined interface, strong internal cohesion, and loose external coupling.


The best subroutines are concise–usually 25-50 lines long, which is one or two average screens in height. (While your screen might be 110 lines high, you will one day have to debug your code on a VT100 terminal at 3 a.m. on a Sunday.)

Part of being readable also means that the code isn’t overly indented. The guidelines for the Linux kernel code include a statement that all code should be less 80 characters wide and that indentations should be eight characters wide. This is to discourage more than three levels of indentation. It’s too hard to follow the logic flows with any more than that.

Well-Defined Interfaces

This means that you know all of the inputs and all of the outputs. Doing this allows you to muck with either side of this wall and, so long as you keep to the contract, you have a guarantee that the code on the other side of the interface will be safe from harm. This is also critical to good testing. By having a solid interface, you can write test suites to validate both the subroutine and to mock the subroutine to test the code that uses it.

Strong Internal Cohesion

Internal cohesion is about how strongly the lines of code within the subroutine relate to one another. Ideally, a subroutine does one thing and only one thing. This means that someone calling the subroutine can be confident that it will do only what they want to have done.

Loose External Coupling

This means that changes to code outside of the subroutine will not affect how the subroutine performs, and vice versa. This allows you to make changes within the subroutine safely. This is also known as having no side effects.

As an example, a loosely coupled subroutine should not access global variables unnecessarily. Proper scoping is critical for any variables you create in your subroutine, using the my keyword.

This also means that a subroutine should be able to run without depending upon other subroutines to be run before or after it. In functional programming, this means that the function is stateless.

Perl has global special variables (such as $_, @_, $?, $@, and $!). If you modify them, be sure to localize them with the local keyword.

What Should I Call It?

Naming things well is important for all parts of your code. With subroutines, it’s even more important. A subroutine is a chunk of work described to the reader only by its name. If the name is too short, no one knows what it means. If the name is too long, then it’s too hard to understand and potentially difficult to type. If the name is too specific, you will confuse the reader when you call it for more general circumstances.

Subroutine names should flow when read out loud: doThis() for actions and is_that() for Boolean checks. Ideally, a subroutine name should be verbNoun() (or verb_noun()). To test this, take a section of your code and read it out loud to your closest non-geek friend. When you’re done, ask them what that piece of code should do. If they have no idea, your subroutines (and variables) may have poor names. (I’ve provided examples in two forms, “camelCase” and “under_score.” Some people prefer one way and some prefer the other. As long as you’re consistent, it doesn’t matter which you choose.)

What Else Can I Do?

(This section assumes a strong grasp of Perl fundamentals, especially hashes and references.)

Perl is one of a class of languages that allows you to treat subroutines as first-class objects. This means you can use subroutines in nearly every place you can use a variable. This concept comes from functional programming (FP), and is a very powerful technique.

The basic building block of FP in Perl is the reference to a subroutine, or subref. For a named subroutine, you can say my $subref = \&foobar;. You can then say $subref->(1, 2) and it will be as if you said foobar(1, 2). A subref is a regular scalar, so you can pass it around as you can any other reference (say, to an array or hash) and you can put them into arrays and hashes. You can also construct them anonymously by saying my $subref = sub { ... }; (where the ... is the body of the subroutine).

This provides several very neat options.


Closures are the main building blocks for using subroutines in functional programming. A closure is a subroutine that remembers its lexical scratchpad. In English, this means that if you take a reference to a subroutine that uses a my variable defined outside of it, it will remember the value of that variable when it was defined and be able to access it, even if you use the subroutine outside of the scope of that variable.

There are two main variations of closures you see in normal code. The first is a named closure.

    my $counter = 0;
    sub inc_counter { return $counter++ }

When you call inc_counter(), you’re obviously out of scope for the $counter variable. Yet, it will increment the counter and return the value as if it were in scope.

This is a very good way to handle global state, if you’re uncomfortable with object-oriented programming. Just extend the idea to multiple variables and have a getter and setter for each one.

The second is an anonymous closure.


Many recursive functions are simple enough that they do not need to keep any state. Those that do are more complicated, especially if you want to be able to call the function more than once at a time. Enter anonymous subroutines.

sub recursionSetup {
    my ($x, $y) = @_;

    my @stack;

    my $_recurse = sub {
        my ($foo, $bar) = @_;

        # Do stuff here with $x, $y, and @stack;
    my $val = $_recurse->( $x, $y );

    return $val;

Inner Subroutines

Subroutine definitions are global in Perl. This means that Perl doesn’t have inner subroutines.

sub foo {
    sub bar {

    # This bar() should only be accessible from within foo(),
    # but it is accessible from everywhere

Enter anonymous subroutines again.

sub foo {
    my $bar = sub {

    # This $bar is only accessible from within foo()

Dispatch Tables

Often, you need to call a specific subroutine based some user input. The first attempts to do this usually look like this:

if ( $input eq 'foo' ) {
    foo( @params );
elsif ( $input eq 'bar' ) {
    bar( @params );
else {
    die "Cannot find the subroutine '$input'\n";

Then, some enterprising soul learns about soft references and tries something like this:

&{ $input }( @params );

That’s unsafe, because you don’t know what $input will to contain. You cannot guarantee anything about it, even with taint and all that jazz on. It’s much safer just to use dispatch tables:

my %dispatch = (
    foo => sub { ... },
    bar => \&bar,

if ( exists $dispatch{ $input } ) {
    $dispatch{ $input }->( @params );
else {
    die "Cannot find the subroutine '$input'\n";

Adding and removing available subroutines is simpler than the if-elsif-else scenario, and this is much safer than the soft references scenario. It’s the best of both worlds.

Subroutine Factories

Often, you will have many subroutines that look very similar. You might have accessors for an object that differ only in which attribute they access. Alternately, you might have a group of mathematical functions that differ only in the constants they use.

sub make_multiplier { 
    my ($multiplier) = @_;

    return sub {
        my ($value) = @_;
        return $value * $multiplier;

my $times_two  = make_multiplier( 2 );
my $times_four = make_multiplier( 4 );

print $times_two->( 6 ), "\n";
print $times_four->( 3 ), "\n";



Try that code and see what it does. You should see the values below the dotted line.


Subroutines are arguably the most powerful tool in a programmer’s toolbox. They provide the ability to reuse sections of code, validate those sections, and create new algorithms that solve problems in novel ways. They will reduce the amount of time you spend programming, yet allow you to do more in that time. They will reduce the number of bugs in your code ten-fold, and allow other people to work with you while feeling safe about it. They truly are programming’s super-tool.



Something wrong with this article? Help us out by opening an issue or pull request on GitHub