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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,f3bebae566a54cab X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.erje.net!news.ett.com.ua!not-for-mail From: anon@att.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Some exciting new trends in concurrency and software design Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:52:29 +0000 (UTC) Organization: ETT newsserver Message-ID: References: <8a5765ba-622a-42cd-9886-28ed7cfed31e@s17g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> Reply-To: anon@anon.org NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-4.225.172.157.dial1.dallas1.level3.net X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.ett.com.ua X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.6.1 X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:21034 Date: 2011-06-30T16:52:29+00:00 List-Id: Actually, choosing the right name for a variable is in some case 50% of the comments needed. That's is one point that a programmer can correctly choose. I'm just tied of seeing a page of comments mostly dup of previous page for a single statement wrap in a conditional statement. One of many reasons that I dislike Ada and GNAT using conditional statement. In , Robert A Duff writes: >anon@att.net writes: > >> Taking a weekend break may clear your head that may help solve the >> problem but it can also cause you to forget how you were solving that >> problem. >> >> Plus, back in the day, some of the profs would say "It might be the best >> code in the world, but without comments its a grade of zero." Because >> even the prof may not remember which problem your working on. > >Yes, indeed! I find it extremely annoying when I have to read an entire >screenful of code in order to puzzle out what this code is trying to >accomplish, when a little comment would explain it. > >> And it only take a few comments. > >Under-commenting is far worse than over-commenting. You shouldn't >comment the obvious. But the person writing the code is necessarily >a poor judge of what's obvious -- that person just got done thinking >carefully about it, so it all seems obvious, but it's mysterious to >somebody else (or to the same person a week later). So I say: err >on the side of too many comments. > >- Bob