lex at cc.gatech.edu
lex at cc.gatech.edu
Tue Oct 19 23:15:54 UTC 2004
goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> > X + (good, uncommented code) > X
> > A decent way to getting a higher volume of commented code is to put
> > uncommented code in there and thus make it easy for people to contribute.
> Eh... What? That is probably the silliest thing I have heard in this
> thread. Really. ;)
It is an expression that volume matters. "+" is combining two globs of
code. ">" means I like the left side better than the right. You would
not consider this to be a true formula in all cases, but I would.
> And also - what you are proposing (?) is AFAICT what we have been doing
> over the years. And it hasn't really worked, has it? I have just
> collected some stats (code below and printout) on 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and
> current 3.8. If you look at percentage of classes without comments it
> was about 43%->40%->37% (positive trend? hard to say, depends) and now
> 42% (oops). Of course, 3.5 to 3.6 removed a LOT of classes so more
> analysis is needed to get the whole picture.
Have you tried counting the *number* of *commented* classes? That has
surely increased over the years. I really don't care that the
percentage has gone down. Truly. So what if it has?
> > If we reject code then we spoil the open source process we have going
> > and make it hard for people to fix (comment) the code. But of course,
> > putting in uncommented code reduces the *percentage* of commented code,
> > perhaps indefinitely.
> Note that having a rule saying that all classes should have a comment
> (no matter how small) is IMHO not a rule that will reject code. I
> honestly believe that the author would take the little time needed and
> just fix it.-
Well what is it then? If it's just a statement of what we would like,
then I am pretty well agreeing with you. It's the rule part that
bothers me. We have enough barriers and enough load on the harvesting
> > I agree the *percentage* of good code would be important if Squeak were at
> > a stage that it is worth picking it up and studying it. However, I think
> *We* are studying it every day!!! Your reasoning strikes me as truly
Well then please try to see where I am coming from. I don't know how
better to express it than the difference between percentage and volume
of nice code.
To try and get concrete again, I am suggesting that we generally include
code into the image at an early stage, if the image is where it belongs,
so that we can use the standard open-source approach and let everyone
start playing with it. If there is some other way to make open source
work, e.g. by sticking it on SqueakMap, then that would be fine, too, so
long as it's really an optional package that isn't supposed to be in the
I really dislike the idea that the author is supposed to perfect the
code before releasing it to play with. Squeak is a work in progress.
More information about the Squeak-dev