| ??? 05/20/10 09:57 Read: times |
#176061 - RE: not subject to any scrutiny of the compiler Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
[comments] are not subject to any scrutiny of the compiler as the code is, so they may lie. Very true. A bit of a tangent, I know, but another thing to beware of is that Syntax Highlighting is not done by the compiler - so it is possible that the highlighting might lie... This is particularly true for editors which (try to) identify the active/inactive parts within #if sections... There's nothing which would prevent the programmer to be malicious (even if not knowingly). Is it possible to be unknowingly malicious...? |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| When comments go wrong | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Always document what the code is doing or the weather | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| do you have some examples of that? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I've never seen anything like that ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Do it like a pro. ;) | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the dubious value of comments | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: not subject to any scrutiny of the compiler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| limited vocabulary | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| dubious | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Please remove baby from bathwater before disposal! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Good selection of symbol names helps a lot | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| variable/function names can be misleading too | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RE: the word Andy will be so kind to supply... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Dodgy premise | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
That's no fun. | 01/01/70 00:00 |