What is Well-Commented Code?

WannaBeGeekGirl queries: "What exactly is well-commented code anyway? Can anyone suggest resources with insight into writing better comments and making code more readable? After about six years in the software development industry I've seen my share of other people's code. I seem to spend a lot of time wishing the code had better (sometimes _any_) comments. The comments can be frustrating to me for different reasons: too vague, too specific, incoherent, pointing out the obvious while leaving the non-obvious to my imagination, or just plain incorrect. Poorly or mysteriously named variables and methods can be just as confusing. In a perfect world everyone would follow some sort of coding standards, and hopefully those standards would enforce useful comments. Until then, any suggestions for what you, as a programmer, consider to be good/useful/practical comments? Any suggestions for what to avoid? Also, I usually work with C++ so any resources/comments specific to that language would be too."

Comments

Re:Code Complete

[NewtonsLaw]

I can absolutely recommend a book called Code Complete [amazon.com]. Yes, it is published by Microsoft

Yes, that's on my bookshelf -- but, given the fact that they go to great lengths to point out the importance of checking for buffer over/under-runs and fencepost errors, one can't help wondering if (in the wake of all those critical bugs in IE/Outlook/IIS) any of Microsoft's own programmers have read it.

More "do as we say, not as we do" from Microsoft?

Re:Variable Names

[emag]

On one of the last projects I worked on, the specs we received from the customer were horrendous. Actually, it wasn't the customer themselves who had done the specs, but another contracting firm. Spending 5 months on the project, and finding repeated errors in the "data maps" (it was apparently too bloody difficult for us to be supplied with a schema for the DBs we were supposed to be accessing and updating), I'd finally had enough.

Querying the DBs directly showed that the data maps were works of pure fantasy in several spots, or would lead to outright data loss if followed precisely. In a fit of pure...creativity...I ended up setting a "$workAroundFuckups" variable, and in the sections where it was needed, had a false evaluation do precisely what thee datamaps said, which would corrupt data. If the variable was true (ie, non-zero), it would work correctly, which meant ignoring the data maps and doing what was needed to have the data be entered correctly.

I ended up getting moved to another customer (due to the limited resources *we* had, not because of my creativity), so I don't know if the remaining folks on the project removed it after I left. When I added it, I explained to them precisely why I'd added it, and since they'd had similar experiences with what we were given to work with, were behind me 100%.

This wasn't even the *only* part of the project which was FUBARed, but it was unfortunately what I spent many a 15+ hour day dealing with, so I was rather familiar with it. Had I access to the server that *read* the data and used it, I probably would have just gone in and redesigned everything "for free", just to avoid having to deal with such a horrible layout.

This is also the client where, after a few months of an irksomely out of sync clock (off by 12 hours...made figuring out when something happened a bit of a PITA), I finally went in and set the damned clock to the proper time. Not surprisingly, the same folks who made that wonderful novel for us were the ones admining the dev server we were working on. AFAIK, no one ever noticed that the time suddenly became "correct" either.

Re:type* var is evil

[emag]

Oh, you've really touched on a sore spot. At a company I worked for once, there was a group of managers and developers who were working on coding standards for the entire division. Somehow, since *my* manager knew I was a fairly proficient coder, and wanted to make sure our group had input, I ended up on the panel. I remember telling a manager for another project point blank that he was an idiot for insisting that:

char* foo, bar;

was good coding practice, while

char *foo, bar;

wasn't, because the code was declaring two pointers, and so the * should be with the type and not the variable name.

Even pulling out K&R, and writing sample code showing the sizeof(foo); vs the sizeof(bar); wouldn't convince him that he was wrong.

Unfortunately, I don't think it was ever "officially" settled. Nor were several of the other corrections that I immediately made to his "proposed" coding standards document he handed out at the first meeting.

Thankfully, my manager at the time listened to me (and also, helpfully, knew C and C++), so when we got the coding standards, they were filed with the rest of the useless paperwork we got, and we kept on writing things properly, including:

• comment blocks before each function describing usage, parameters, expected range of return values, and error conditions
  
• comments describing thee amount and type of testing done to verify things worked
  
• comments about who had done what with what code and when
  
• comments preceeding anything non-obvious about the code itself
  

Three guesses as to which project was ahead of schedule. (Of course, not entirely fair, since we also didn't force code generation via Rational Rose. We instead reverse-engineered all of our final UML from the code we'd written and tested, and knew worked the way it was supposed to...)

Things to bear in mind

[Rogerborg]

• All modern compilers that I know of can handle symbol names of at least 256 characters, not the old 31 character limit.
• The most widely understood naming convention is the English language.
• If you feel that you have to comment the purpose of a method, function or variable when you declare/define it, why isn't it necessary to comment every use of it as well?
• The time spend typing or reading characters of code is insignificant compared to the time spent comprehending it.
• Whenever you write code that requires any interpretation at all, you cost yourself developer time, and that's a precious resource.
• If you comment something that the language supports, you're not using the language.
• People who slate you for using over-verbose naming are really saying "You shouldn't need long names to understand my code." That's a solipsistic ego trip, as the target audience isn't or your peers or anyone in a code review or with white box knowledge of the code or system. It's the poor contractor shmuck five, ten or fifteen years down the line who has to come to your code stone cold on to fix a critical bug with a deadline breathing down his neck and a hankering to get the hell out of the office and have some semblance of a life. Write for the benefit of that guy, because one day you'll probably become him.
• Every time you write a comment, you introduce a potential headache for the maintainers. Ask yourself when the last time you updated a comment in production was, even when it contradicted the code.

Here's the rules I use:

• A function/method name is too long when it doesn't fit on a typical screen. 80 characters is about my limit.
• If I find myself thinking that I'd better comment the purpose of a variable, I incorporate the comment in the variable name. As a side effect, that also tends to give a good feel for how important a variable is.
• Yes, we all know that "i" is a counter, but what is it counting? It costs me perhaps five seconds to use a variable that describes what is being counted. Then it costs a reader an extra tenth of a second to read it, but that saves a quarter of a second to translate to what it actually means. Let people read your code, don't keep making them stutter and recap.
• Describing the function and purpose of "input" and "output" parameters in a function description comment is a hell of a long winded way of typing "const WhatTheParameterIsActuallyUsedFor". You only have to type it once; that's what copy and paste is for. Don't comment expected values, assert(them).
• Completely self commenting code is an unrealistic ideal. But get as close to that ideal as possible, and don't be afraid to change comments when you change the code during maintenance. If you're sure what the code deos, you should have no problems doing that. If you're not sure what the code does, then find out.

Favor Code Clarity Over Comments

[Bob9113]

In any situation where I see the need for code commentary, I try first to find a way to make the code clearer. If the source code is sufficiently clear, comments are unnecessary. This also avoids the risk that the comments will diverge from the code - making claims that were once true, but no longer reflect the code's actual logic.

This is poorly commented code (despite the fact that the comment is clear and accurate):

aClassName = aTask.getUiInitializerClassName();
// empty or null uiInitializerClassName means this task is not
// defined for use in this interface. Skip it.
if( aClassName != null && ! aClassName.equals( "" ) ) {
... do something ...
}


This is well commented code (despite the fact that there are no comments at all):

initializerName = aTask.getUiInitializerClassName();
boolean isNotNull = initializerName != null;
boolean isNotEmpty = ! initializerName.equals( "" );
boolean definedForThisUi = isNotNull && isNotEmpty;
if( definedForThisUi ) {
... do something ...
}

Of course, this doesn't work in all situations, but I find that I can improve the clarity and accuracy of seventy to eighty percent of my commentary this way.

Re:Good Comments

[MadAndy]

Changes have to be done twice? That's right, when they change the code, they must change the comment.

I'll repeat that: they MUST change the comment. And it must make complete sense when they're done or they'll be out of a job!

Why is this important? When you change the comment, you must think about the comment. You must think about the change you've done and how it fits in with the rest of the code, and what the rest of the code is trying to do. If a comment isn't up to date or doesn't make sense, that's a bug in the code, as bad as any other, and it needs to be fixed.

It's not difficult to spot when the comments don't line up, so they're fairly easy to fix. While you're there fixing the comments you need to check the code, 'cos whoever the idiot was that wrote it, they obviously haven't checked it properly. Go and hit them with a Very Big Stick.

Certainly you shouldn't whine about the extra typing. A little extra typing shouldn't hurt - and you should be able to type faster than you can think, so it shouldn't really slow you down. If it does, go take a typing class.

And if your lame excuse is that you're in too much of a hurry to maintain comments, just make sure you're not in too much of a hurry to deal with the bug reports that come back because you haven't checked your code properly.