- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
In a more serious note, that’s why you document your software!
deleted by creator
- encapsulation and meaningful function names.
You dont. Thats why you write comments!
Code never lies; comments sometimes do.
You dont. Thats why you write code that explains itself. For higher level info you write documentation.
Yes. And also comments :-)
The only moment you write comments is when you are doing something extremely weird for a specific reason that will not be immediately obvious and you want to warn the person doing a refactor in the future. In any other case, writing self documenting code is the way. If you are unable to do that, then your code needs to be rewrtitten.
Self documenting code is a myth as what’s self documenting to one person is not to the next. Code comments and process/workflow documentation is needed for a healthy codebase.
Lmao. Sure buddy.
♫tale as old as time♫ ♫opinions that are mine♫
Not really an opinion when most companies run on self documenting code since time immemorial.
Try handing over your “self documenting code” to a junior dev who doesn’t know the language it’s written in and see how far they get with it.
Now hand that exact same codebase with comments to the same junior dev, and I guarantee you they’ll get further than without the comments.
I have given well documented code to plenty of juniors, it comes with being a senior dev / techlead. And it was perfectly understood. Maybe you simply don’t write self documenting code.
My first tech job out of college, I was told to go talk to “Dave,” the guru old-timey programmer and learn the lay of the land. He turned out to be this crotchety old guy, with low tolerance for idiots, but a soft spot for someone who actually paid attention.
A few months in, I was told to go fix a feature in the company’s main product which was sold to power utilities. This was a MASSIVE code base, with a mix of C, C++, assembler, and a bit of Fortran thrown in. I spent a week poring through all the code trying to figure things out. Then I hit a mystery workflow that didn’t make sense.
I walk over to Dave’s office and ask a specific question. Now, mind you, he had worked on this years ago, and had long moved on to new products. He leans back in his chair, stares at the ceiling, then without looking at the screen once tells me to go look at such and such file for such and such variable, and a list of functions that were related. I go back to my desk and damn if it wasn’t EXACTLY as he described.
Now, I’m probably as old as he was then. I don’t remember what I wrote an hour ago. No matter what I build, I’ll always be in awe of Dave and what he could keep in his head.
I wish my brain worked half as well as guys like that.
Plot twist: Dave had cheat sheets for previous projects glued to the ceiling
Alt theory: The guy you replaced failed miserably. Dave poked around but decided it wasn’t worth his time fixing. Instead, decided to look badass for the cameras and died a legend.
Which is why making code readable is so very important. Our juniors and students will think we’re ridiculous, when we spend a long time cleaning up some code or choosing the least misunderstandable name for a type. But you fuck that up and then others, as well as your future self, will be wasting many more minutes misunderstanding what your code does.
Readable code is especially important when companies lay people off every six months so you constantly lose expertise
I treat my future self a few months from now as a separate person who does not remember anything about why or what the specific code fragments do. And I’m grateful to my past self for doing the same.
Plus, you never know when you need to actually delegate supporting a particular piece of a solution to another person.
Write your code as if the next person that works with it is a violent psychopath who knows where you live.
Partially yes. But if I create something myself I can “revisit” the headspace of that portion very easily, like I walked into a room.
Doesn’t work as well on codebases I don’t own fully though.
Yeah, which is why pairing works so well. Suddenly, you’ve got two people who were there when it was created and might know why certain design decisions were made.
Which means twice the savings when you unexpectedly lay them both off!
This made me chortle. I remember when I first joined a dev team asking someone how many of something their section should be able to store:
I don’t know, I’d have to look at the code.
It was an eye opening moment. Very few people can keep everything in their head. I’ve met a couple. They were rockstars who were truly exceptional.
For me it all depends on how often a project changes. If it’s constantly in flux, I don’t bother remembering any of it because I might not be the last one who touched it. The more you try to remember everything, the more wrong you become due to the successive work of your coworkers.
The people who say “the code is the documentation” totally misunderstood what that was supposed to look like
deleted by creator
a good code doesn’t require comments.
Commenta should only exist to explain external requirement leading to a functionality being unexpected.
I’m also not a programmer, you’ll find my longest comments to explain why I’ve done some terrible mangling, what this does and how.
Spamming comments is rather controversial, especially in high-level languages. Problem is, they only show up in one place, so they’re just not very useful, but also have a high chance of becoming inaccurate over time. In particular when you spam them to explain relatively trivial stuff, people will stop reading them, meaning they won’t update them.
The ‘what’ can be documented with meaningful variable/function names, log/error/assert messages and perhaps most importantly unit/integration tests (which should be understood like a specification that checks automatically that it’s applied correctly).
Comments are indispensible for explaining the ‘why’, though, whenever that is not obvious.
Yeah, there’s a balance. If you comment every row of your code, you aren’t naming things clearly. If you never comment, the context is always incomplete.
You don’t comment what something does, ir can clearly be seen from the code itself. You comment why you do it.
“Clearly” is also subjective. What might be perfectly clear to me reading my own code may be really confusing to someone else, and vice versa. Especially if the person reading the code isn’t as familiar with the language as the person who wrote it, or if the code is using some syntactic sugar that isn’t super common, or plenty of other reasons.
True. It’s more like there’s no need to comment an if statement with “checks if a is larger than b”
Yes, that would be the context I’m talking about
Bonus points for the cedilla
Hello fellow basher.
The code is so convoluted the programmer has no idea how it works. Just tables and arrays references each other.
deleted by creator
