Slashdot Mirror
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."
I can absolutely recommend a book called Code Complete. Yes, it is published by Microsoft, but it is an invaluable language-agnostic guide to writing software that includes heavy doses of common sense regarding commenting, coding styles etc.
Good code comments should describe the intention of the code. Write them *before* you write the code in a function/method to describe it's purpose. This will make you think exactly what you want it to do, and will allow for others to find/fix bugs easier when the implementation doesn't meet the intention.
I then write inline comments in the code describing it's flow. It's only then do I actually write the code.
Comments at file/class level should describe what it does and is used for. It should also describe how it fits in with the big picture of it's packages and the classes around it - give a reader some architectual scope to what they're looking at.
Get into a habit, even for trivial functions/methods and you'll soon not realized you're doing it.
Some people say code shouldn't need commenting, and the code itself should be enough. In a perfect world of no bugs and only populated by wizard programmers, this is fine, but not in the world I live in. You write some code and someone else (maybe yourself) will have to debug it at some point - maybe 3-4 years down the line. Even with a "neat" language like Java, working out how things work is much more time consuming without comments.
Well commented code should definitely contain a liberal smattering of four-letter expletives, eg:
// no fucking idea how this works
obj.doMagic();
or...
//bet those fucking lazy cunts in the QA team don't pick this up
fileSystem.delete();
When your code is released as open source and becomes famous, people can amuse themselves by searching through the source code to find all the hidden expletives, sort of like easter eggs. If you work for a commercial organisation, you can sit back and enjoy the panic as the QA and release teams sweat it out trying to track down every last filthy utterance before shipping to a fucker...errr..customer.
Tools like javadoc, or maybe better in your case doxygen can really help when it comes to commenting code... the idea is pretty much that you place a documentation comment before each function, or class, and so on, which usually makes the entire thing much easier. Having done that, I've found that only a few more non-obvious parts have to be commented within the actual functions.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
It's been quite a while since I wrote any significant amount of code but after spending far too many years cutting code too early in the development process I eventually woke up to the fact that coding is the *last* thing you do (apart from testing and debugging that is).
First-up you need a good spec -- and the spec should include the user-interface details to the extent that you could actually write the user-manual from that spec.
Indeed -- if you can't write the user-manual from the spec then the spec is incomplete.
From the spec the programmer should develop the structure of the code in another document.
That structure document is repeatedly refined in a top-down process until you (eventually) reach a point where you're actually cutting code.
I was always surprised just how much easier it was when the code was written as the lowest level of the structure documentation.
Not only could you comment out the program structure document so that the compiler would ignore it -- but you ended up with absolutely accurate and comprehensive documentation built into that source.
Project managers love this technique (and when I was in a project management role I demanded it of my team) -- it ensures that technical and end-user documentation are no longer the bits that get left until last and thus are either very shoddily thrown together or, if the project goes really over-budget, not produced at all.
Of course, as we all know, there's a huge amount of temptation to just leap into coding at the earliest possible stage and leave the documentation until later -- because some stupid managers use number of code-lines completed as a metric of project performance -- duh!
If you're smart and use good tools you can selectively collapse and expand the in-source documentation so that when you're trying to get familiar with a module that someone else has written, you can descend down the structure tree one level at a time without the meaning being diluted by stuff that is at a lower level.
Unlike the days of interpreted BASIC, there's very little overhead involved in integrating documentation and code these days -- so there's no excuse not to do it.
If required, the documentation can be automatically extracted from the source -- but by keeping the master copy in the code it becomes easier to ensure synchronization as changes and updates are made during the lifecycle of the project.
The same goes for 'amusing' comments in the code, or CVS logs.
For your sake in the future, and your coworkers' sake now, please stop it.
PS. Did I mention how fucking annoying it is?
Take a look at this function, and tell me if there's a bug:
Easy, the bug's the SEGV, right? Take a look at the same function, this time with comments:
The point? A bug is unwanted behaviorm, but that only makes sense if you've defined what the correct behavior is. My example is trivial, but often this is a real concern. Function "bar(int,int)" returns null whenever one of the arguments is negative--is that a bug or a feature? Your function has a goal in life, a contractual obligation to do something; make sure it's clear what that something is.
Note that if you choose good function and good variable names, a simple one or two line comment at the beginning is usually sufficient to document whe function's intended behavior.
I also find that an "assert()" or two on the arguments at the top of the function makes it clear what values the function accepts, and which one the function doesn't handle. It's an easy way to document the contractual obligations of the function.
Stuff not to put in comments is stuff that's easily devised from the code. Check this out:
Did the "Inputs" or "Outputs" add any value? That information appears again, two lines below in the function definition, and it's guaranteed to be correct there (unlike the comment which will be out-of-date and wrong when we change "square" to work on longs). The "Used by" might have added some value, if it was correct, but as it turns out it's out of date, and 15 other functions now use "square". Any information better derived looking at the code should be left off. Any information which can be better found using "grep" or "find in files" should be left off. Any information that will probably be out of date at some point should be left off. Heck, in this situation even the description is probably extra verbiage, since it doesn't really help anyone. (I'd probably put it in out of habit anyway, though...so sue me:)
are the best way to comment it all.
//end if" or something.
One day you're commenting on what variables do, the next you try to explain functions, etc.
I just switched to Java from C++ and neatness is the most important thing I've acquired, not in code per se, but in variable naming. I've gotten used to doingThisWithVariableNames and DoingThisWithClassNames, while keeping THE_CONSTANTS capitalized. Ok, this isn't comments? But you'll be surprised at how much better it is to browse a new language like Java and see the norms of style in it, because old languages use too many confusing double_StandardslikeWritingThis_way.
Comments go at the top of a page, with the coder's name and date, as well as a small bug report and if you can, a brief function list for those without a visual IDE like JBuilder. You then put a like with PRE: and POST conditions in your code and try to keep one liner comments to a min.
I learned to comment the end of if structures and function blocks to make the code easier to follow... just add " }
Comments should be a paragraph long so that they make some sense. And comments, since they look different from the code sections, should be embelished with ===============, stars, and some
nice spacing and vertical bars.
Good comments to me mean good-looking comments, even if they don't have that much substance. Just my 2 cents. They're better than no comments at all.
"Wireless : LAN
Personally I think the linux kernel is very well documented, at least the scheduling part, which is what I've looked at. Linus has a style of inserting huge comment blocks that explain exactly what's going on, then he'll have a page of code that does it, with little or no comments.
A style suggested in Code Complete (I forget what they call it) is to write a method completely in pseudo code, make sure it's correct, then insert the actual programming code under each line of pseudo code. This technique, while clever I find leads to many useless comments like "loop through the employee records" and "increment the counter".
A good test to see if the comments are working is through a code review, people will very often not know what's going on, or point out confusing comments or code that needs a better explanation. Code Reviews really improves your idea of what good comments are and teaches you what works and what doesn't.
this is my sig.
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.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
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:
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...)
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
Nice idea; never works in practice. The reason is that what you think is easy to understand is not always what other people think is easy to understand.
The code you are writing now might have to be modified in the future by someone just out of university which means, generally, someone with very little experience. Your red-black binary tree might be "easy to understand" for you and a novelty to them.
Also, mature highly-factored, optimised code that has been improved over several years can be very hard to follow even when the original code was quite straight-forward (but perhaps too slow).
Finally, as a philosophical point, source code is supposed to be terse in comparison to natural language so it should take longer to describe the code in your own language than in the programming language.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
i++; //increments the variable i
I think that they are unclear and do not properly explain the situation. Remember, you're writing so people can UNDERSTAND the code, not so that you can impress them with how smart you are. Instead, strive for a comment like this:
i++; /*changes the value stored in the space referred to by i to be the sum of the old value stored in the space referred to by i and the constant 1. Note: In C, this may cause what is known as a "silent overflow" if the value is too large, and go so far as to make a large positive value into a larger negative one. Oh my!
This way, people who read your code not only understand your program, but all programs. I really think that each function you write should repeat a semester's worth of computer science theory and programming practice, so that anyone who reads your code will learn from it. Remember, not everyone knows idioms, and why should they? And since we all write open source on slashdot, many novices are going to have their introduction to any computing environment by looking at the code you write at any point.
Your most humble and obedient servant,
Dan
Sometimes, from other ppl. If I see it, it goes right back in review, and I won't pass the review until the fuckwit responsible has removed them. If you're writing code for yourself, then fine, please yourself. If you're writing code that anyone else will see, *especially* the customer, then hell no.
Thing is, there's two essential things that a reviewer/maintainer has to understand about a program: what it does; and why it does it. It should be possible to work out the first one of these just from the code, so long as the variables and functions are named sensibly. The second can be worked out from code with some effort, or the coder can add comments to explain why they're doing things that way and make it easier for maintainers.
But if someone has deliberately given all the variables names which don't reflect what they do, then it's utterly impossible to work out what the code is doing, and it's therefore also impossible to work out why it's doing it. So the code is unmaintainable - it isn't possible for anyone else to pick it up and work out what it does, except with massive work. If in 6 months time your company says "oh, we've got this code we can use with slight modifications, let's quote 1 month to do this contract" and then they find out you've made the code utterly obscure, then they'll crash and burn. And if that happens, the company *will* fire (or at least formally discipline) the person who wrote the original code, bcos they've been grossly negligence in doing their job. And you can kiss goodbye to any reference from them, so you'll be SOL in finding your next job.
Grab.
Here's the rules I use:
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
// empty or null uiInitializerClassName means this task is not
// defined for use in this interface. Skip it.
... do something ...
... do something ...
This is poorly commented code (despite the fact that the comment is clear and accurate):
aClassName = aTask.getUiInitializerClassName();
if( aClassName != null && ! aClassName.equals( "" ) ) {
}
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 ) {
}
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.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I strongly disagree. The proper delineation of a function or method is the operation that it abstracts, not how long it is.
If a subroutine is only called once, and doesn't cleanly abstract some idea (i.e., if you can't tell me what it does in one simple sentance), it should not be in a separate subroutine.
I've seen too much code written in the manner you suggest, that makes the reader bounce around from function to function to function for no reason other than "otherwise that function would be more than 30 lines".
If I have to maintain such code I always refactor it into one subroutine.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
One purpose of comments is to explain the code to another engineer (including oneself in the future). Another purpose is to demonstrate the code works, whether an informal argument that the code does what it should or a mathematical proof. These two purposes have different needs.
For the former case, standard writing rules apply. Decide who the audience is. I often figure the audience is an engineer who knows the type of programming at hand, but doesn't know what is done by this particular code, and may or may not be familiar with the product, depending on circumstances. Knowing the audience tells you what assumptions to make and what has to be explained, either by prose or by giving directions to reference material.
Write complete, grammatically correct sentences. This goes a long way to making comments comprehensible. Sometimes a little phrase won't be understood because the reader can't fill in the unwritten parts, or because there's ambiguity in the wording. It is okay to use short phrases when describing objects being defined or declared (e.g., "number of links to this object" or "dollars owed this customer), but keep the context in mind. Introduce the compound object with sentences where appropriate.
"Dollars owed this customer" reminds me -- use units. Don't write "Money owed this customer" or "time since last update." Specify seconds or milliseconds, not time. Document how the object models whatever it is modeling. That may be a physical thing like time or a conceptual thing. E.g., if a pointer connects one object to another, document the relationship that represents. If a "debt" class contains a pointer to a "person," don't document it as "person associated with this class." Document the relationship -- this particular pointer may represent the debtor, the creditor, the escrow agent, or somebody else.
Give context. I have seen thousands of modules that just leap into code with no explanation of what they are. Even if the comments say what a function does, a reader might not really understand it until they know what it is used for. Document where the code fits into the bigger scheme and what it is used for. Give the reader context so the purpose of the function makes sense. Even if a complete mathematical description of a function is given, so that the reader can precisely predict its behavior in every situation, it might not make sense to the human mind until they have a mental image or model of it.
For the second purpose, demonstrating the code works, explain how the code implements an algorithm. It's not enough to explain what the steps are doing; you need to show how the total result comes out of the algorithm, unless it is something simple or familiar. E.g., a formal description of the long division taught in elementary school would generally be incomprehensible. "Find the largest digit d such that d times q is less than r[i]. Subtract d*q from r[i] to get r[i+1]. Append d to output..." Nobody seeing that for the first time would understand what it is doing, even if all the steps were clear. Even if you explained each step and explained the result, it won't be clear to some readers how the steps produce the result, so explain that.
Document alternatives that weren't chosen, and the reasons why. If you were tempted to implement algorithm X but found you had to do Y because some error might occur, record that information. Otherwise, somebody working on the code next year might see your longer code for Y and change it to X without realizing the problem.
This isn't intended to be a complete list, just what occurred to me at the moment.
...who make reviewers like me stare at computer screens for endless hours trying to figure out how the hell your computer code is supposed to work.
// Creates hash table ". Question: Where does that leave me? When I find out that there's some problem in the hash algorithm, I have to dig through 200 lines of code to find some freakin' bug that is described only by "Creates hash table." Your example of why comments don't need to be made is a poor one:
// increment loop counter
Comment sparsely. Do not sprinkle your code with comments. Especially do not use comments like
Yea, I can already picture your programming style. You'd make a 200-line function with the only comment being "
loopCounter++;
That is adding zero value.
Yes, because it's one line of code, and the code is described through the variable. But when sifting through lines of code, you often find beautiful works like iHateMyJob++; or fuckMyBoss--; to name a few. And needless to say, they're uncommented in the code. Until computer code can be written bug free in complete English sentences (aka Never), the rest of your team of workers needs to understand what your code does.
Personally, I make sure every function says what goes into it, what comes out of it, and what setup (variables, etc.) need to be made for it to be called. I do not comment every single line of code, but I do make sure that every line is accounted for by descriptive sentences, explaining the task that I wish to accomplish as well as what variables / registers / actions I take to accomplish the task.
Every time someone has to change some code, you've just forced them to double their workload, and change some comments too.
Okay, this just pisses me off. You didn't mean what you said. Here's what you meant to say:
Every time I have to change some code, you've just forced me to double my workload, and change some comments too.
I can assure you, from a reviewer's point of view, comments SAVE my time from trying to understand what each piece of code is trying to accomplish. Commented code may make you work extra time to detail the lines of code (I do admit, some programmers are quite tallented at keeping track of every single line of code in their head as they work on it on the computer), but it saves tremendous amounts of time once that chunk of code needs to be integrated with other chunks of code into the final product.