Re: version of euphoria ZIP
Vincent wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
>> A known problem concerning comments is, that it can happen that the
>> program is changed/updated, and the comments remain unchanged.
>> Of course I also use comments, but I want to say that good readable code
>> that doesn't need comments is better than writing bad readable code, and
>> trying to make it more readable by adding comments.
>
> Fair enough, however, I personally dont make mistakes of that kind.
Ohhhh...
> I normally use comments sparingly.
Due to your "creative quoting", some text is missing here.
Previously I had written:
| I don't think that this is a good idea, because it reduces the
| readability of the code.
And your reply was:
| Not really... you can use a constant in place of the routine #, plus
| you can use comments.
So you probably should decide, whether or not you think comments should
be used to make bad readable code more readable.
>> Using a constant in place of the routine # leads to readable code, yes.
>> Then instead of the "include overhead" we have "constant overhead" ...
>
> Constant overhead is trivial in comparison with include overhead. But
> for the record, you get both, along with some extra file
> scanning/parsing overhead with the desired method. I dont use constants
> with these machine routines anyway, comments work fine for me.
So your code clearly is less readable and/or less maintainable than
"normal" code. While you are of course free to do what you want
privately, obviously this way of writing code cannot be recommended in
general.
<snip>
Regards,
Juergen
--
Have you read a good program lately?
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
