code comments
-
What's more disturbing is that C# *still* doesn't allow this:
if (!someObj) {...}
which would preclude them from having to come up with the bullsh|t "?" operator.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
bullsh|t "?" operator
More like boolsh|t in this case.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
What's more disturbing is that C# *still* doesn't allow this:
if (!someObj) {...}
which would preclude them from having to come up with the bullsh|t "?" operator.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
IsNotNull? Also, you should not be purposely throwing an error from an extension method, as part of some divine plan. Just check if it is null or not, that is all. Leave the implementation to the calling party - this helps with code reuse (I may not want to do a
console.writeline). My 2 unsolicited cents on your post. :-DWell, I am afraid someone took me off the "divine plan" update service some years ago. Please note: 1. the code will throw an error in the Extension method only when the 'throwerror parameter is 'true, and, of course, the instance of the generic parameter T (constrained to Type 'Class) is null. 2. the code will only call Console.WriteLine when the compiler directive '#define ErrorsToConsole is included at the start of the file. One would expect this to be present only in the developer's code who is using the source. Again, keep in mind this is only an experiment. I gladly accept your 2 cents ! cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
Currently, I have a coworker who writes comments like:
Perhaps he used to teach first level coding in high school. :-\
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
He never did coding in school, maybe he's trying to make up for it? :sigh:
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
What's more disturbing is that C# *still* doesn't allow this:
if (!someObj) {...}
which would preclude them from having to come up with the bullsh|t "?" operator.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013The new approach (v6.0) is the null conditional operator, so you don't need to check for null.
someObj?.DoStuff();
Regards, Nish
Website: www.voidnish.com Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
I am one of the other poor b*st*rd now. The original developers think their code is so beautiful and wonderful that no comment is needed to explain. They think I should ask if I do not understand. It will take longer than my lifetime to finish project this way.
You have my deepest sympathy. X|
'PLAN' is NOT one of those four-letter words.
'When money talks, nobody listens to the customer anymore.' -
I really dislike code comments in general[^] X| Currently, I have a coworker who writes comments like:
// Declare a variable.
int i;
// Assign the variable.
i = 42;He doesn't do it all the time, but such comments are common practice. Learn to friggin code so you don't have to remind yourself of how to declare and assign a friggin variable! :mad:
Read my (free) ebook Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly. Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles here on CodeProject.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
I was always taught that code comments are to describe a process your code is doing, if it is complex and not easily understood from the existing code base - otherwise, don't comment. It has served me well, all these years, so I stick with it...very minimal commenting in my code.
-
I hate code comments that say what the code is doing but not why.
/* check for null */
if (someObj != null) {...}Really? Argh!
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
I have found that "50 Specific Ways to Improve Your C#" is really good, and one of the things that the author Bill Wagner points out is that your code should be self explanatory, and not require much in comments. Good variable names helps a lot.
-
I have found that "50 Specific Ways to Improve Your C#" is really good, and one of the things that the author Bill Wagner points out is that your code should be self explanatory, and not require much in comments. Good variable names helps a lot.
:thumbsup: And good function names/class names. And a alear breakdown of code into bitesized pieces. Aptly named.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
I hate code comments that say what the code is doing but not why.
/* check for null */
if (someObj != null) {...}Really? Argh!
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
This seems like suspiciously good timing: Documentation just before vacation | CommitStrip[^] :D
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
The new approach (v6.0) is the null conditional operator, so you don't need to check for null.
someObj?.DoStuff();
Regards, Nish
Website: www.voidnish.com Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
I think that's what JSOP was referring to as the "bullsh|t operator".
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
This seems like suspiciously good timing: Documentation just before vacation | CommitStrip[^] :D
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Damn you beat me to it by 15 min :)
Tom
-
I think that's what JSOP was referring to as the "bullsh|t operator".
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
I am one of the other poor b*st*rd now. The original developers think their code is so beautiful and wonderful that no comment is needed to explain. They think I should ask if I do not understand. It will take longer than my lifetime to finish project this way.
My sympathies. Been there, hated it. Look at the bright side, though: if the job were too easy, you'd get bored. Mind you, the jury's still out on which of bored and tearing-your-hair-out-in-frustration is worse.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
:thumbsup: And good function names/class names. And a alear breakdown of code into bitesized pieces. Aptly named.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
Yes. That and using good encapsulation. On one project they passed all 3-d point vectors as separate arguments. They also had 1000+ line methods.
-
I hate code comments that say what the code is doing but not why.
/* check for null */
if (someObj != null) {...}Really? Argh!
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
The new approach (v6.0) is the null conditional operator, so you don't need to check for null.
someObj?.DoStuff();
Regards, Nish
Website: www.voidnish.com Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
Often, in cases like that, you could very well add a comment indicating why the ojbect reference would be null (or non-null). Not always, but often. When studying code written by others, one of the questions I frequently as myself is of the kind "OK, so I understand that you can't Do Stuff on a null object, but in which cases is the object null?? A short end-of-line comment such as 'null if child hasn't been named yet' or 'null if cleanup actions are already performed' can be worth their weight in gold.
-
I hate code comments that say what the code is doing but not why.
/* check for null */
if (someObj != null) {...}Really? Argh!
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
Back in the Dark Ages, I worked with DEC's RT-11 operating system. It was written in PDP-11 assembler. I had the opportunity to look at the commented source code, and I remember the following line:
NOP # We don't know why it's here, but it doesn't work without it.In a proprietary OS. From the manufacturer of the CPU. Sometimes commentary will reveal far more than you ever wanted to know.
Freedom? That is a worship word. -- Cloud William The only thing a free man can be forced to do is die.
-
:thumbsup: And good function names/class names. And a alear breakdown of code into bitesized pieces. Aptly named.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
Reminding me of a fellow student (long, long time ago!) writing his programs using variable names like I001, I002,... F001, F002 (for floating point values). Before handing in the exercise he would to a global replacement of, say, I001 with 'NumberOfEggsPerBox' or someting like that. Writing those long names while developing the program would require too much typing, he argued. Also it served as a limited 'copy protection'. It was too easy in those days to access the work of fellow students, to use as a basis for your own exercise solution. Martin never had his half-finished work 'stolen' - understanding it (before the last-minute variable name replacement) required as much effort as developing your own solution.
-
Back in the Dark Ages, I worked with DEC's RT-11 operating system. It was written in PDP-11 assembler. I had the opportunity to look at the commented source code, and I remember the following line:
NOP # We don't know why it's here, but it doesn't work without it.In a proprietary OS. From the manufacturer of the CPU. Sometimes commentary will reveal far more than you ever wanted to know.
Freedom? That is a worship word. -- Cloud William The only thing a free man can be forced to do is die.
Like http://geek-and-poke.com/geekandpoke/2013/7/28/tdd[^] While we are talking about assemblers: Long time ago (around the RT-11 times), I looked into the source code of the assembler, of course written in assembler. Yes, the code was commented. Only that each and every comment was like 'Smart trick here!' and 'This is messy but it works' or 'Faster than [...]'. And the module heading (that is if you consider an assembler source file a 'module' :)), there was a comment referring all questions, problems and bugs to R.S, which at the time when I read it, was the CEO of a 3000 man company...
