• curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    As an extensive commenter, I completely agree.

    I need to know wtf I was doing, making it convoluted to save a few lines is pointless.

      • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        “Some people do a bad job commenting and updating comments, so lets not do comments” is not an approach that works for me.

        Most of my code is at the prototype level. I’m concepting something out, usually paired with hardware.

        If someone can’t follow what I’m doing, its going to lead to problems. If a change happens to the hardware being controlled, code will not be good enough on its own.

        Rather than being accepting of bad commenting practice, make comments (and updating them properly) part of good practice. In my experience, It saves time in the long run and leads to better code at the end.

        • pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.frOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 days ago

          That’s not what I said. I said that comments can often (but not always) be replaced with good and explicit names.

          This can be pushed to some extreme by making functions that only get called at a single place in the code, just for the sake of being able to give a name to the code that’s inside (instead of inlining it and adding a comment that conveys the same informations as the function’s signature)

          It’s definetly not for everyone, but for beginners/juniors it gives something objective they can aim for when trying to build good coding habits

          • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            I am going to disagree, comments should be an explanation.

            The code is what’s being done, a comment should be why its being done.

            • pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.frOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              I’m not sure how we disagree. At least, I don’t disagree with you. My whole comment was talking about “what” comments. “Why” comments are a very good thing to have where they’re needed

              • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                Not updating comments with code is what I’m talking about - that’s not a comment problem, thats a programmer problem.

                If they aren’t updating the “why”, that programmer is the problem, not comments.

                  • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    That really depends.

                    Especially for a function that may see use in a variety of scenarios.

                    I’m going to be firmly against anyone suggesting against proper comments - which, I’m sorry, but you are by your own statement.

                    Code will change for many, many, many reasons beyond just refactoring.

                    Edit: and why it was refactored is important as well.

                    There are just so many reasons, and yes, I will continue to be against this newer trend of “dont comment, make codes your comments”.

                    All that is, is a great way to make your code harder to manage later. It doesnt take much effort to explain why you’re doing something.