|
CHill60 wrote: I've gone into my own code after some time and silently thanked Earlier Me for comments like
Same 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
These are strange times, we got some young developers who were told by their teacher at the local school that documentation was not necessary, said teacher seems to be a follower of the "code should be self documenting" doctrine.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe have them analyze a complicated method from your code base, after the comments are removed.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Well, to be fair, some of our code is so complicated that even with documentation no one can understand it anymore 
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe one of the rookies is a savant and could explain it to you, then you could document it better? 
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Younger programmers, yes I know them and have experience with them.
Yes, they can program very nice websites for you. They also know all the new features of e.g. c#.
But it seems that they have no ability to get to grips with a specific business, let alone understand its basics in the very minimal basics.
[Edit]
Would you trust a surgeon who simply knows how to cut open a body part, do something on what's inside it and sew it back up...
... or would you not prefer more, it if the surgeon also had specific knowledge of how to operate on a heart, a hip joint or a knee, etc.?
modified 31-Jul-24 15:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
MarcusCole6833 wrote: Is the code documenting itself good enough?
I am personally a big fan of using descriptive variables such that the code becomes self-explanatory. I also have a standard set of names for common-use objects that could incriminate identify me as the author.
Edit: That said, when the intent is not clear, or you/they are doing something 'clever', then documenting/commenting is encouraged.
Comments may or may not get updated, but the code doesn't lie.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
I think calling it "self-explanatory" is a bit of a stretch. Although consistent naming is a big plus and something I strive for, it's also important to document why it was done the way it was unless it's obvious. Along the lines of your final point, I've referred to code as the urtext.
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: you/they are doing something 'clever', then documenting/commenting is encouraged.
I maintain as a strong rule: 'Clever' code should be avoided, if at all possible. If it can be rewritten in a more readable way, do so -- even if timing of that specific loop shows that it takes 40% more time. Most likely is is 0.01% of the total run time for the application.
Comments may or may not get updated, but the code doesn't lie. Well ... The comment may still be the honest truth of what the code was intended to do. The code may be honest about the coder's misconceptions, or possibly his intent to impress with his 'smartness', without succeeding 
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: Comments may or may not get updated, but the code doesn't lie. 
Unless that code is being refactored and the naming butchered by some other dev. While I do agree good naming is important, it doesn't remove the need for comments completely. Blanket statements is typically the tell tale sign of the inexperienced.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
"Is the code documenting itself good enough?"
You're joking, right?
I am the sole proprietor of a legacy system written in the 80s. Technically, I've retired, but I've given this one customer the option of lifting the production (note: production) system to today. It's a re-write (the core functions) but most of the code goes away due to a functional database, report writer and C++ or .net. The group involved is part of a huge international corporation, so crickets.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
"If that's all there is, then let's keep dancing"
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Most developer document the wrong things. Far too often, they repeat what the code line says, whether like "Here we set i to the value 5" or repeat the parameters of the method heading, "explaining" e.g. "numberOfApples: The number of apples".
Or, when asked for more high level, code independent documentation, they present a block chart with Application, Database and Network modules.
What other developers need lies in between: A documentation of the purpose of each code module, of its interaction with other modules. Replace 'module' with 'class' as appropriate. The data structures - how they are interlocked, what they represent as a whole - that usually means, across several object classes.
To draw a line: I want off line - in the sense: off the code lines - documentation to go down to the deepest level where it is still independent of the programming language. You should be able to build those modules, those data structures, in Python, in C++, even in Visual Basic. You document the interfaces between modules, not only the syntax (name, parameters) but the dynamics as well. That will help the next code maintainer on the right track! And, these interactions are far more stable than the individual code lines; you can make a lot of changes without invalidating the documentation. Every now and then it may need to be extended with new interactions or parameter options, yet all the old stuff remains valid.
When you get down to code, you may of course add code comments - but without repeating the off code line documentation; there is no need to. Obviously, you should avoid 'Here we set i to 5' style comments, and you should use descriptive type and variable names. When you delete code lines, you delete the accompanying comments. When you change code lines, you change the accompanying comments. End-of-line comments (lined up at col. 70 or 80 not to blur the code) is a lot better for keeping them up to date than pushing them to the top of the method.
But these code comments are far less essential. You read them after you have studied all the off line documentation, and know the interactions, the data structures, the interfaces. What is left is to understand how these interfaces are realized, within a single module/class. That is usually a far simpler task than grokking the structure of the entire program system as a whole. I do like to have (i.e. both make and read) code comments, but if I could have a choice between code comments and a system documentation from immediately above the programming language dependent level and upwards, I'd gladly take the second. I very rarely have that option.
Bonus rant: I wish that code designers to a much larger degree would forget which programming language they are designing code for. Far too often, I see code that serves more as a schoolbook example of how to use that new feature in the latest language revision, than to illustrate an issue in the problem to be solved. Not only should documentation be language independent, so should a lot more program code. We are here to solve problems, not to boast our intimate knowledge of the latest language definition.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
that's pretty religious 
Seems to me a bit of a pet peeve of yours. Mine as well.
I'll swing this in a different direction. There are a few people I've worked with that I term "whiz kids." Their minds work so fast, 5x faster than mine, that everything is intuitively obvious. Not one damn line of comments. No doc to save anyone's lives, nothing. I simply gave up. I completely concur about not documenting loops and i++, but module level comments are necessary. And ffs, tie the code comments back to external documentation.
Now, 40 years later, no one gives an elephant. I've worked at (counting....) 9 companies and myself, and there is only one person I can count on to write proper documentation. It's simply pathetic.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Contrary to my last(vastly misunderstood post), this is not <b>apparent</b>, it simply is (for real).
I am an OF and have noticed how "newer generations" choose NOT to use (simple) old, proven methods , stuff.
My manager did not use AI or RTFM - his "comment or else " was based on
"what will happen if you get run over by a bus and your code is not documented / commented?"
For those hard of hearing - undocumented / uncommented code was against company interest, period.
I am not a wiz kid, but if the code task is to test HARDWARE , CLOSE TO REAL TIME, and if the code is not documented , commented AND is missing ANY time reference - it will not "just " APPARENTLY fail - it will fail for sure.
IMHO
self documented code is oxymoron
|
|
|
|
|
What is an OF, and more to the point, what other post? Inquiring minds want to know (I looked at the thread, and this is your first post).
But, I completely agree with your comment.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
OF = Old Fogey (or some ruder word that starts with F.)
|
|
|
|
|
oops <blush>
yeah I have that shirt.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
All documentation is out of date as soon as it's written. Code is never out of date.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it really just the code, or a whole system? If a whole system, check and/or create a high-level overview, even if it "should be obvious" and make sure you have the documentation necessary to make a change, rebuild, test, distribute and install. (I.e. you have to go through that process to be sure it works).
As for code, depends partly on how much expertise in the coding language(s) you think will be available if a change is necessary, particularly if people have used unusual language features or coded in an unusual way compared to "normal industry practice" - perhaps make a few general remarks noting such stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
THIS!!!
Code does not exist on it's own. It was written to solve a problem. If you don't tie the code back to the problem, you lose context. Sometimes this is called tribal knowledge. I'm watching an organization bleed to death, but the multinational corp above it is oblivious. As my boss told me, it's not up to you to help a multi-billion dollar company fix their stupidity. 2 weeks later, I jumped out of the plane (with a parachute) and retired. It's been two months now, and I have not received a single email.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I just got a copy of some Fortran code I wrote in 1982. Thankfully, I put in a lot of comments. Sadly, I was missing one crucial comment, but I figured it out in about 10 hours.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Old guru Tony Hoare remarked after reviewing the various proposals for Fortran-77 extensions (some of them went quite far, to phrase it in a polite manner): "I don't know what programming languages will look like in the year 2000, but I know that they will be named 'Fortran'."
When I first saw code written to the Fortran-2003 standard, my immediate reaction was: Hoare was right!
So my curious question is: How did your 1982 vintage Fortran code fare with a 2024 vintage Fortran compiler?
(Fortran 77 was so much delayed that the '77' is a misnomer, so I wouldn't be surprised if 1982 vintage code is not even by the F77 standard.)
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote:
o my curious question is: How did your 1982 vintage Fortran code fare with a 2024 vintage Fortran compiler?
I was translating the code to C#, so there was no problem, except I wonder if I had a brain 46 years ago.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Lord willing, I will be in this boat late this year or maybe next year. The FORTRAN production system I support breaks down into basic components:
1) UI. It's designed to allow order entry people to do it FAST. The new developers want to make the UI pretty, and they don't bother to talk to their customers. The customer is NOT The contract manager, it's the people in the factory.
2) Reports - enough said.
3) Number crunching to produce a manufacturing file. This is the grail.
I cut my teeth on FORTRAN, but C and C++ allow string processing to a useful form. Trying to do it in FORTRAN brings tears to my eyes and my hemeroids swell.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
