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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,587e0e0a16d65b10 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.germany.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "(see below)" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Invade wikipedia! Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:10:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1tw8gryqdolal$.1osqedj9x821c.dlg@40tude.net> <5c44eaae-631d-46d2-8384-86af79d5e048@n20g2000vba.googlegroups.com> <944a1924-0fa7-487f-a94d-084a2be1b231@v31g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <9f2553d3-66f5-4708-a237-bfef1d8404f4@v42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <4013d6a4-f4f4-4d6e-92bd-161687608db9@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net 7bZtVSrDSjxGgNh8M5tNZwyGU2L4mUvRe8b5F/i+WUGtNKts3w Cancel-Lock: sha1:kqAjD0xIM4omFVqKiZRZJEqYwIU= User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024 Thread-Topic: Invade wikipedia! Thread-Index: AcmXY4s3SsSKSr9tfUqNOP5G1p2I7A== Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3793 Date: 2009-02-25T16:10:15+00:00 List-Id: On 25/02/2009 08:59, in article 4013d6a4-f4f4-4d6e-92bd-161687608db9@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, "Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" wrote: > To say that these comments does not offer any value, ... it is a > valuable point of view (as is as much the one which says that it may > be useful for visual seeking). It is not at all clear who you are replying to, but I take it to be me. > But the to comment on comments asserting it is unuseful and dangerous, > is another matter. Indeed, it is more insightful and accurate to say the letter. 8-) [...] > A source without comments, is a source which hides every thing. Please note that I did NOT say that source should be without comments. > If comments are dangerous, so the human though which drives the > application developpement (or order it), is as much dangerous. True, but the compiler checks the human (through their code). It does not check the comments. > I agree that comments may be dangerous when these are not up to date, > but this is another matter. No, it is not another matter. > Did you ever tried to come back to you own code two years, three years I have code that I wrote 40 years ago, and I can easily follow it. That is because I did the work needed to made it understandable. (That included writing a few, judicious, comments.) > later ? I use to do, on some application I lacked to comment.... the > only one thing I could do was to regret this lack, and restart the > whole work, without forgetting comments the second time. How much better to have written the code comprehensibly the first time! > Well, perhpaps it should be worth to point about the life cycle. If > you are talking about very short life cycle applications, then, I > agree.... you can drop comments. But if not, you will inevitably face > a fact : meanings, purpose and implementations are not the same > things. There is code for implementations and purposes, and comments > for purposes and meanings. Agreed, if we extend to . -- Bill Findlay chez blueyonder.co.uk