• hex
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Yeah. I advocate for self explanatory code, but I definitely don’t frown upon comments. Comments are super useful but soooo overused. I have coworkers that aren’t that great that would definitely comment on the most basic if statements. That’s why we have to push self explanatory code, because some beginners think they need to say:

    //prints to the console
    console.log("hello world");
    

    I think by my logic, comments are kind of an advanced level concept, lol. Like you shouldn’t really start using comments often until you’re writing some pretty complex code, or using a giant codebase.

    • Faresh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Comments are super useful but soooo overused

      I think overusing comments is a non-issue. I’d rather have over-commented code that doesn’t need it, over undocumented code without comments that needs them. If this over-commenting causes some comments to be out of date, those instances should hopefully be obvious from the code itself or the other comments and easily fixed.

      • hex
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I understand what you’re saying and I mostly agree, but those few instances where a line of code is only slightly different and the comment is the same, can really be confusing.

    • TehPers@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Sometimes when I don’t leave comments like that, I get review comments asking what the line does. Code like ThisMethodInitsTheService() with comments like “what does this do?” in the review.

      So now I comment a lot. Apparently reading code is hard for some people, even code that tells you exactly what it does in very simple terms.

      • hex
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Fair. I guess in this case, it’s a manner of gauging who you’re working with. I’d much rather answer a question once in a while than over-comment (since refactors often make comments worthless and they’re so easy to miss…), but if it’s a regular occurrence, yeah it would get on my nerves. Read the fuckin name of the function! Or better yet go check out what the function does!

        • nous
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Worse, refactors make comments wrong. And there is nothing more annoying then having the comment conflict with the code. Which is right? Is it a bug or did someone just forget to update the comments… The latter is far more common.

          Comments that just repeat the code mean you now have two places to update and keep in sync - a pointless waste of time and confusion.

          • hex
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yes- exactly, they make comments wrong. But comments aren’t always a waste of time, like in legacy code, or just in general code that isn’t gonna change (mathematical equations too)

            • nous
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Comments are not always a waste of time, but comments that repeat or tell you what the code is doing (rather than why) are a waste. For legacy code you generally don’t have comments anyway and the code is hard to read/understand.

              But if you can understand the code enough to write a comment you can likely refactor the code to just make it more readable to start with.

              For code that does not change generally does not need to be read much so does not need comments to describe what it is doing. And again, if you understand it enough to write a comment to explain what it is doing you can refactor it to be readable to begin with. Even for mathematical equations I would either expect the reader to be able to read them or link to documentation that describes what it is in much more detail to name the function enough that the reader can look it up to understand the principals behind it.

              • hex
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                You make some great points. Using smaller functions and breaking up your code in readable bits makes a huge difference and you will likely never need comments if you do it right 👍🏻

                • nous
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Creating functions is IMO not the first thing you should do. Giving variables better names or naming temporaries/intermediate steps is often all you really need to do to make things clearer. Creating smaller functions tends to be my last resort and I would avoid it when I can as splitting the code up can make things harder to understand as you have to jump around more often.

                  • hex
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    I hear ya. As always, it’s a balance between having functions that are too long, and many too small functions. Matter of team preferences too.