Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site randvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Forced Commenting - (nf)
Message-ID: <1706@randvax.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 18-Feb-84 03:52:15 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.1706
Posted: Sat Feb 18 03:52:15 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Feb-84 01:55:57 EST
References: <117@iuvax.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 16

----------------------------------
I'm a great believer in block comments in front of every procedure
definition, and a minimum number of line-by-line comments in the
code.  I assume that the person reading the code knows the language,
and so reserve line comments for `tricky' code only (which I try to
avoid).  If the algorithm needs explaining, put it in the block
comment.  If that comment is too long, it's a sure sign the procedure
is doing too much, and should be divided into sub-procedures.

Forced commenting?  The ultimate in silliness.  It's quality, not
quantity you want.  If the code is badly written, commenting doesn't
make it any better.

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall   (UUCP)
		edhall@rand-unix        (ARPA)