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)