From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2cd0b8b65b7d84fb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: rodemann@mathematik.uni-ulm.de (Joerg Rodemann) Subject: Re: Ada's Assembly Language Comments Date: 1997/07/11 Message-ID: <33c62761.0@news.uni-ulm.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 256171893 Distribution: world References: <33BBD7AC.286F@link.com> Organization: University of Ulm, SAI, Germany Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: RC (rc1@clanchy.demon.co.uk) wrote: > Compilers do their best to preclude this, programmers have their own > techniques of minimising their mistakes, making their intentions clear > and testing that the program does what the specification (and the > comments) say it should. Really? Do they? What if your are not actually debugging the code but trying to understand it for maintenance or porting purposes? Just recently I was wondering how some piece of code could function. It contained some really weird constructs. It was only them that I eventually recognized the code was commented out. This is the major reason I only use these single line comments now (using C++ and Java). They can save a lot of time i. e. for someone not familiar with the code. Surely this is just my humble opinion... Joerg -- rodemann@mathematik.uni-ulm.de | Dipl.-Phys. Joerg S. Rodemann Phone: ++49-(0)711-5090670 | Flurstrasse 21, D-70372 Stuttgart, Germany -------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- rodemann@rus.uni-stuttgart.de | University of Stuttgart, Computing Center Phone: ++49-(0)711-685-5815 | Visualization Department, Office: 0.304 Fax: ++49-(0)711-678-7626 | Allmandring 30a, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany