• SokathHisEyesOpen
    link
    fedilink
    English
    461 year ago

    I used to work with a guy who insisted his code was self explanatory, and then he’d nest loops 5 levels deep and give variables names like “thingyOne”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        101 year ago

        Namely, the first one. Next you’re going to ask about thingySixtyNine or thingyOneHundredTwentyTwo, I suppose?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          I don’t know why you guys are so dense. How pedantic do thingiesNumX need to be?! It’s perfectly obvious!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            When people don’t understand WTF you’re talking about, it’s just cause they’re dumb. Communication is for the weak.

            - Confucius

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I wonder if there’s a warning for that in Clang or GCC. That seems like something I’d want, but also want it to be 100% opt-in. Not even enabled with -Wall or -Wextra.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      I worked with a guy who was smart but “useless smart”. He was convinced that “code is self descriptive”, that is comments are not needed because the code speaks for itself. Well that is like saying DNA is self descriptive. Yes, I can sit there tracing the code, tracking the variables, etc or you could make a small effort to describe what is happening instead and save me a lot of time and risk missing subtle points.