Just playing devil's advocate: I don't think it's pseudo-macho or any other kind of macho to leave comments out of code if the code in question is self-documenting by the way it's written. Good code, IMHO, is a translation layer that sits between the human and the computer, so when it's done right it doesn't require a whole lot of explanation in the form of comments. A contrived example:
sub refuse_to_cooperate { my $beef_with_user = shift; print qq(I'm refusing to cooperate with you: $beef_with_user\n\n); die "Don't go away mad, just go away."; } if ($username eq 'gwbush') { refuse_to_cooperate(qq(Spoiled momma's boys should not be given armi +es to play with.)); }
Commenting that would add clutter without value. $beef_with_user could have been left out by simpling shifting off of @_ when needed, but then the function would have been slightly less self-documenting.
My rule of thumb: Provide POD for the interface, self-documenting code whenever possible, and comments when I'm typing before I'm truly done thinking. If I've thought my way through a thing sufficiently, then it's probably going to be self-documenting (AKA Living Documentation) when I'm done as a natural consequence.
In reply to Re^3: Why programming is so much more than writing code
by gloryhack
in thread Why programming is so much more than writing code
by swngnmonk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |