Two Squeak-related bugs and three questions
helbig at Lehre.BA-Stuttgart.DE
Thu Jun 15 16:44:31 UTC 2006
Tim, you disagreed:
>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.
And I completely agree with the above paragraph.
More information about the Squeak-dev