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: 109fba,f292779560fb8442 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,af40e09e753872c X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1008e3,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gid1008e3,public X-Google-Thread: f8c65,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gidf8c65,public From: ENGR@GSSI.MV.COM (Michael Furman) Subject: Re: The Last Word on Comments (was Re: Hungarian notation) Date: 1996/06/19 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 161053921 x-nntp-posting-host: gssi.mv.com references: <31bf6e29.185297643@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <31C685A1.F1@wgs.estec.esa.nl> <4q79lr$ju5@panix3.panix.com> content-type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII organization: GSSI mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.modula2,comp.edu,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1996-06-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4q79lr$ju5@panix3.panix.com>, zink@panix.com says... > [....] > >My feeling after years of programming is that the only meaningful >documentation a procedure carries are the documentation of its >interface and its evolution, and the code itself. That is not correct for code that implements algorithms that are not obvious. Description of such algorithm in problem domain thems sometimes helps very much (of cause if it is published it may be replaced by reference). And what is absolutely necessary for some original algorithms - some kind of proof of correctness (of cause, usually non formal) - "why it works". >Any comment >inserted in the code is a mistake for which someone will eventually >pay. After years of programming and working with other's code (olmost 30) I can't agree with that. I can only interpret this sentence as a dream of a language so expessive that you can make code extremely close with natural definition of algorithm. But, as I said before, besides an algorithm there is a "proof of correctness" or "explanation why it works and does what it supposed to do" - it can't be expressed in the language (I guess it simillar to Goedel's theorem) - it needs some metalanguage. Of couse comments (as well as any language elements) are being abused very often. Regards, --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Furman, (603)893-1109 Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. fax:(603)889-3984 13 Klein Drive - P.O. Box 97 engr@gssi.mv.com North Salem, NH 03073-0097 71543.1334@compuserve.com ---------------------------------------------------------------