If it fails, try again
-
Have you been reviewing your own code years later? At the beginning I was like you, but then I started having to upgrade my own code... I ended writing comments where needed note: I say where needed, not overall. But... if not sure, the default is... comment, better one too much than one too few.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Yes, I did. And I've always been able to follow it (and my memory concerning code is really bad, most of the time I can't even remember writing it, let alone what it does) :D Nothing you can say or do will make me change my mind on comments. They do more harm than good. I've written a little tip about comments some years ago: Write comments that matter[^] It shows that I'm not completely against comments, but use them sparse and wise :)
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
:laugh: :thumbsup: Really should be in a loop 42 times! 42 times always work out nicely! ;P
A new .NET Serializer All in one Menu-Ribbon Bar Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Yes, I did. And I've always been able to follow it (and my memory concerning code is really bad, most of the time I can't even remember writing it, let alone what it does) :D Nothing you can say or do will make me change my mind on comments. They do more harm than good. I've written a little tip about comments some years ago: Write comments that matter[^] It shows that I'm not completely against comments, but use them sparse and wise :)
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
Sander Rossel wrote:
Nothing you can say or do will make me change my mind on comments.
I am not trying to convince you. I am just giving another point of view related to your message.
Sander Rossel wrote:
And I've always been able to follow it
I forgot to say: I have been programming in AWL/LAD for PLCs a quite similar language to assembly. There is a bit more difficult make code "self explanatory" and sometimes the names for the variables are coming from electrical engineer / customer...
Sander Rossel wrote:
t shows that I'm not completely against comments, but use them sparse and wise
That's exactly the point. And I agree with you, obvious comments just make the program unnecessarily longer and uncomfortable to read
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
Nothing you can say or do will make me change my mind on comments.
I am not trying to convince you. I am just giving another point of view related to your message.
Sander Rossel wrote:
And I've always been able to follow it
I forgot to say: I have been programming in AWL/LAD for PLCs a quite similar language to assembly. There is a bit more difficult make code "self explanatory" and sometimes the names for the variables are coming from electrical engineer / customer...
Sander Rossel wrote:
t shows that I'm not completely against comments, but use them sparse and wise
That's exactly the point. And I agree with you, obvious comments just make the program unnecessarily longer and uncomfortable to read
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Nelek wrote:
AWL/LAD for PLCs a quite similar language to assembly
I'd comment the hell out of that! :laugh:
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
Have you been reviewing your own code years later? At the beginning I was like you, but then I started having to upgrade my own code... I ended writing comments where needed note: I say where needed, not overall. But... if not sure, the default is... comment, better one too much than one too few.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
When students learn their first programming, and hopefully good programming habits, the big issue is learning the craft of programming, not the complexities of the problem solution they are set to program. So the problem solution is usually fairly simple, down to trivial. So simple that the code line says it all. The professor requires is to comment the code, but what should I write? Isn't it obvious, doesn't the code line tell? - that is common reaction from students. You don't need comments until the problem solution is getting more complex than you can handle in the first programming course (and second, and third). The problem is so simple that the code IS obvious, and students get into the habit of writing obvious information into the comments. When they later in life get into really huge and composite data structures, intricate execution logic and complex interfaces, they are not into the habit of identifying the non-obvious, only the obvious. When I teach people programming, I give them one rule regarding comments: Don't waste comments on what the code does, but on why it does it. Of course some students rephrased the "what" part, and I remarked: Sure, you said so in the code statement. Now tell me why you did it! - and usually, they were able to come up with a "why". That's what comments are for.
-
Beacause it will surely work a 100% the second time :-\
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(query,conn);
SqlDataReader reader = null;
try
{
reader = cmd.ExecuteReader();
}
catch(InvalidOperationException e)
{
cmd = new SqlCommand(query,conn);
reader = cmd.ExecuteReader();
} -
See [Einstein's definition of insanity](https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html).
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack. --Winston Churchill
Two minor points here: 1. Einstein was a physicist, not a psychologist or psychiatrist. Being a genius in one field does not necessarily qualify you to speak with authority in any other. 2. He never said it anyway. At least he seems to have been smart enough to know (1). (Quora[^])
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
-
Even though I consider comments to be one of the evils of programming I agree with you on this one :D
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
It's my fundamental issue with Literate programming - Wikipedia[^], it assumes programmer's have basic literacy.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
-
True story. Some users seems to assume that printers have internal memory which would keep our queued documents. This assumption comes from a fact that printer keeps printing even when they closed our software. They don't know that these queued documents are stored on operating system's printer spooler service. Some colleagues once asked me, why did her printer stop printing? I who was in the middle of serious work mode, glanced over at her desk and yelled, you turned off your computer, that's why!
We have a networked printer that very much does have an internal queue, so different people may have had different experiences. (At first I found it unsettling, as jobs disappeared from the queue on my PC almost immediately every time).
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
-
If "try again!" always was silly coding practice, the the concept of "busy waiting" would not be known. Busy waiting does have its place, especially in embedded systems where the processor has nothing else to do. Another situation is where several activities are competing for the same resource, but they hold the resource comparatively briefly. As long as you can modify all the competitors, you could program the queueing mechanism, where a process trying to access a busy resource is sent to sleep in a queue and woken up when it gets its turn. Often you can only modify some of the competitors. The effort of implementing a queue mechanism may be high. If the risk of collision is small, it simply doesn't pay. I have fairly recently programmed a couple "try again" cases: On a quite heavily loaded file system, the number of exceptions due to confliciting accesses was higher than desired. So, when making modifications to a set of files, I make one try for each. Those failing are put into a list for retrying, and a second attempt is made once the first round was completed. Only after a second try, the user is notified. We went from too many access collisions to almost none. Sometimes, the second try came too fast, and the file was still busy. So I added a 5 ms sleep before starting a second round, and after that I haven't seen a single collision. This "try again" code is next to trivial, and it does solve a real problem. So I cannot agree that the strategy is silly in every case. Sometimes it makes perfect sense.
Member 7989122 wrote:
I have fairly recently programmed a couple "try again" cases: On a quite heavily loaded file system, the number of exceptions due to confliciting accesses was higher than desired. So, when making modifications to a set of files, I make one try for each. Those failing are put into a list for retrying, and a second attempt is made once the first round was completed. Only after a second try, the user is notified. We went from too many access collisions to almost none. Sometimes, the second try came too fast, and the file was still busy. So I added a 5 ms sleep before starting a second round, and after that I haven't seen a single collision.
So, you just assumed that whoever/whatever else had been writing to the file had been doing nothing worthwhile? Personally, if I detect any changes to a file I would avoid writing to it, and notify the user. Better still, open it for exclusive write.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough." Alan Kay.
