| ??? 12/08/05 14:19 Read: times |
#104884 - the point Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Dear Erik,
your persistence is unbelievable, however, you are probably missing a point here. I think everybody here agrees with you that comments should describe the purpose rather than the process; however, Slobodan's comments really went down to the purpose - at that particular place a multiply by 100 was required, which is not completely clear from mov b,#64h (at least not for me, the hex-to-dec table is probably not burned deeply enough in my brain). He commented what I would call a code (in contrast to program) in a most illustrative way possible at the first reading. I believe, should Slobodan write the routine, he would write mov b,#100 and make no more comments. On another issue: Jack Ganssle said:
There’s a spec somewhere - perhaps only in the developer’s head - which describes in English what a function should do in a human-friendly manner. The code is a translation of that spec to cryptic and unforgiving computerese. So I figure the way to write a function is to create all of the comments first. The header, and even all of the individual little snippets of English spread throughout the code. Then the function’s design is done.
After that, anyone can fill in the code. Oh yes, THIS is the IT managers' view. Should every program I wrote be of this simplistic/static/mechanistic case, I would have no job today, all has been already done... or would be "filled in by anybody"... I guess I had some 10% of my job specified so that I just sit down and "fill in the code"... I feel much more creative. Oh yes, sometimes when I get exceptionally inspired, the lines come out from under my fingers too fast to get commented :-( Jan Waclawek |
