One point that I think has a bearing is that different languages and tools have different lexical scoping associated with functions.
For example, Java allows you to suppress warnings with an annotation. It may be desirable to limit the scope of the annotation and so you keep the function short for that purpose. In another language, breaking that section out into it's own function might be completely arbitrary.
Controversial: In JavaScript, I tend to only create functions for the purpose of reusing code. If a snippet is only executed in one place, I find it burdensome to jump around the file(s) following the spaghetti of function references. I think closures facilitate and therefore reinforce longer [parent] functions. Since JS is an interpreted language and the actual code gets sent over the wire, it's good to keep the length of the code small--creating matching declarations and references doesn't help (this could be considered a premature optimization). A function has to get pretty long in JS before I decide to chop it up for the express purpose of "keeping functions short".
Again in JS, sometimes the entire 'class' is technically a function with many enclosed sub-functions but there are tools to help deal with it.
On the other hand in JS, variables have scope for the length of the function and so that's a factor that may limit the length of a given function.
