Re^4: [OT] The joys of bad code

I do see the point in documenting it (not in what the code does, but why it does it)

So this is off topic: bad documentation does not bad code make.

Documenting what the code does isn't bad by itself, it just isn't needed at all if the people supposed to be reading the documentation can program already.

Imagine they can't, that kind of documentation might help them understand what's happening.

Cheers, Sören

Comment on Re^4: [OT] The joys of bad code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: [OT] The joys of bad code by hardburn (Abbot) on Oct 26, 2004 at 13:38 UTC
If they can't program already, why are they digging around in code? Over-documentation does make bad code. The documentation in the cases above is highly redundant with the actual code. Humans like some redundancy to keep communication robust, but there is a threshold where it just becomes silly. Flowerbox comments like the above go well past that point. "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.	[reply]
Re^6: [OT] (and even more so) The joys of bad code by Happy-the-monk (Canon) on Oct 26, 2004 at 13:59 UTC
why are they digging around in code? We can never know, can we? Just a happy guess: to learn from a code example? Another one: to do something we would not want them to do? I wasn't advocating that kind of documentation, if you thought I was - But some managers strongly do that. I do understand their views, even though I think they are flawed. Cheers, Sören	[reply]