Two Squeak-related bugs and three questions
tim Rowledge
tim at rowledge.org
Thu Jun 15 16:28:04 UTC 2006
On 15-Jun-06, at 8:51 AM, Wolfgang Helbig wrote:
>
> It sure is! But most of it simply rephrases the code. And that is what
> I consider useless.
I completely disagree. It *explains* what the code is intended to do
and the way that it does it. Simply sticking the code in there would
be completely unreasonable since it is non-obvious how it provides
the correct result.
Comments that explain the intent, the purpose, the reason, for the
code are crucial to maintaining a system. The old joke "comments? why
do think it's called code?" sums up the antithesis of responsible
programming that seems to be the normal approach. Yes, reading the
code tells you what it *does* do (until you find a compiler bug for
example) but it tells you nothing about what it was intended to do,
what spec it was putatively meeting or what limits on its
functionality were known about.
tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Strange OpCodes: SD: Self Destruct
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|