//> Since ++ and -- wont see the light of day in ruby, can we
//use it for
//> comment notation?
//
//Come on! Real programmers don't comment their code. It was
//hard to write, it should be hard to understand
:-))
let's just say I'm just one of the weirdos on the other side. I read code
if and only if there is a comment
The closest connection bw code and comments I can think of is (eiffel's)
pre/post condition..
but that is just me of course and am not a real proggmr -just a nuby
//Come on! Real programmers don't comment their code. It was
> //hard to write, it should be hard to understand
>
it's so funny
>
)
>
> The closest connection bw code and comments I can think of is (eiffel's)
> pre/post condition..
if fully agree with you and I believe at 100% in pre/post conditions, class invariant, check clause... and in general in Design By Contract
it answers well at the question : Who do what ? With wich garanties ?
== The *most* important question to solve the issue of the quality of software ==
Part of that can be done by well written AND explained unit tests.
That is my current favorite method. Pre/Post can be so limiting for
some things as ruby supports diverse behavior and I tend to use its
dynamics to the fullest (even to the point where the method is
dynamically added so I can't easily add a comment to it).
Just my thoughts. Still a bright green nuby although I am getting
shades of red finally
Brian.
路路路
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:59:51 +0900, at <"neo.matrix.fr(at)"@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> //Come on! Real programmers don't comment their code. It was
> //hard to write, it should be hard to understand
>
it's so funny
>
)
>
> The closest connection bw code and comments I can think of is (eiffel's)
> pre/post condition..
if fully agree with you and I believe at 100% in pre/post conditions,
class invariant, check clause... and in general in Design By Contract
it answers well at the question : Who do what ? With wich garanties ?
== The *most* important question to solve the issue of the quality of
software ==
