1088
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago

I had a old job that told me that code is "self documenting" if you write it "good enough". And that comments were unnecessary.

It always annoyed the heck out of me. Comments are imo more helpful than hurtful typically.

Is it just me? Or am I weird? Lol.

[-] [email protected] 37 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Document intentions and decisions, not code.

[-] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago

Code should always by itself document the "how" of the code, otherwise the code most likely isn't good enough. Something the code can never do is explain the "why" of the code, something that a lot of programmers skip. If you ever find yourself explaining the "how" in the comments, maybe run through the code once more and see if something can be simplified or variables can get more descriptive names.

For me, that's what was originally meant with self-documenting code. A shame lazy programmers hijacked the term in order to avoid writing any documentation.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

lazy programmers

I don't think they're lazy, I think they're not good writers. Not being able to write well is very common among programmers (not having to communicate with written language is one reason a lot of people go into coding) and in my experience the Venn diagrams for "not a good writer" and "thinks comments are unnecessary" overlap perfectly.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

And isn't it such a dangerous overlap! The coder whose writing (in their native language) is unclear, repetitive, convoluted, or hard to follow too often produces code with the same qualities. It's even worse when the same coder believes "code is self-documenting" without considering why. Code self-documents with careful and deliberate effort, and in my experience, it is the really good writers who are most capable of expressing code in this way.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Its definitely a balance. Good code shouldn't need much commenting, but sometimes you have to do something for a reason that isn't immediately obvious and that's when comments are most useful. If you're just explaining what a snippet does instead of why you're doing it that way, there's probably more work to be done.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Code is not self documenting when decision trees are created based on some methodology that's not extremely obvious

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I absolutely agree, and I too hate this stupid idea of "good code documenting itself" and "comments being unnecessary".
I have a theory where this comes from. It was probably some manager, who has never written a single line of code, who thought that comments were a waste of time, and employees should instead focus on writing code. By telling them that "good code documents itself", they could also just put the blame on their employees.
"Either you don't need comments or your code sucks because it's not self-documenting"
Managers are dumb, and they will never realize that spending a bit of time on writing useful comments may later actually save countless hours, when the project is taken over by a different team, or the people who initially created it, don't work at the company anymore.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I've never had a manager that was even aware of the comments vs. no comments issue. If I ever had, I would have just told them that a lack of comments makes the original coder harder to replace.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Code is the what. Comments are the why.

Few things worse than an out of date comment.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Comment should describe "why?", not "how?", or "what?", and only when the "why?" is not intuitive.

The problem with comments arise when you update the code but not the comments. This leads to incorrect comments, which might do more harm than no comments at all.

E.g. Good comment: "This workaround is due to a bug in xyz"

Bad comment: "Set variable x to value y"

Note: this only concerns code comments, docstrings are still a good idea, as long as they are maintained

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Docstring are user documentation, not comments. User documentation, with examples (tests), is always useful.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

As long as it's maintained. Wrong documentation can often be worse than no documentation.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Have you ever worked in a place where every function/field needed a comment? Most of those comments end up being "This is the , or this does ". Beyond, being useless, those comments are counter productive. The amount of screen space they take up (even if greyed out by the IDE) significantly hurts legability.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

And a good IDE let's you hide it so.... what is your point?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

The issue with having mandatory useless comments is that any actually useful comments get lost in the noise.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I get what you're saying. Perhaps I just haven't had too many variables and such that have had such comments. VsCode shows the comments on hover when you're in other parts of the code base. Which makes most any comment useful because something that is obvious in one part of the code isn't immediately obvious in another. Though, that necessitates making comments that actually help you figure that out.

this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
1088 points (99.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

19197 readers
1166 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS