Slashdot Mirror
Auto Code Commenting Software, Free Chairs
sien writes "When you think about it, code is usually fairly mundane and simple. Finally someone has come up with a parser and lexer that actually auto-comments code, allowing for vastly more rapid coding. This amazing new tool is called The Commentator and claims to analyse source code as it's being written and insert the necessary code comments. It's absolutely amazing. Also the problem of seating for eXtreme Programming has finally been solved."
I can look at any piece of code in any project I've worked on and see what the code technically does. What I can't do is look at something and say "Ah, this criteria exists in the code because of business rule #275 for customer X." Almost all my comments are related to business rules and what I'm trying to accomplish. There is no way an autocomment tool could analyze the code for the business rules I use.
Real programmers don't comment. If you did that someone might actually be able to figure out what you are doing. You need a code obfuscate function that takes simple functions and makes them complex and adds nonsensical comments, such as:
... A[i] ...;
//Super Froopy node generator //Charge the Interociter ... A[(i-3)/8] ...; //null node generator
Before:
int i = 1;
while (i 1000) {
i ++;
}
After:
int i=11;
while (i 8003) {
i += 8;
}
Now that's a death ray!
If the comments are so simple that a machine parser can write them, how could they possibly be useful?
I thought the point of comments is to write the things that are not obvious. Obvious comments are coding spam where I work.
Raydude
Dude, if you have some screenshots or files left over from that place, you should send some choice bits over to here for proper... umm... evaluation.
It's not even very well optimized.
Ignoring the obivous need for a generally unique function name...
dm.MM_p=[];
would save some bytes and parsing time
The "i=0" isn't needed, since default type of i will be "undefined" which will silent convert to 0 in an integer context
It "should" be quicker to do "++i" rather than "i++" in the for loop.
The "!=0" test of indexOf result isn't needed