You really need to work on your logic. Your statement that I make assumptions is an assumption itself. And although you are rude, arrogant when the only evidence submitted indicates you don't qualify to be entitled, and rude I will respond briefly.
Lets cut to the chase, writing clear code is a given and was before this nonsense about self documenting code came about. The problem is comment avoidance. We have comments for a reason and because coders are too lazy to change them along with the code the relate the entire "self documenting code" nonsense arose to justify it. I suspect your one of those coders who hates taking the time to update comments.
Also, it may come as a shock but unless a program is poorly written, any code change that does not change an API should have NO effect that is not within a screenful of text from the code being changed. OO or not code should be modular and the modules should have blackbox type interfaces. Believe it or not a coder should not have to become intimate with your project to change "Initializing Floogenbooper..." to print "Go go gadget Floogenbooper...".
Basically, I agree that code should be easy to follow by itself. But poorly written code and well written code should be commented equally. Having written your code clearly is no excuse for not commenting it thoroughly.
One simple test is that contrary to what you posted, one should be able to LEARN an algorithm one has no prior knowledge of from reading the code and corresponding comments. When writing code one should not assume that the one who reads it will have familiarity with anything but the language that you are coding in.
"By putting in more than minimal comments, you are actually increasing the number of defects in your code. And the thing is that the compiler and testing will help to remove the defects from the code logic. But they'll tend to remain in the comments, and get worse as the code is touched by other programmer."
I know this will come as a surprise to you. Code is a little different than a spoken language. If I use "an" improperly in a comment, it is an error but will have no impact on the meaning of the comment. The same goes for typos in almost every case.
And if programmers are being worked hard enough they don't stop to read the comment they just typed you might as well move them in and put a cot in the corner. Let them take a nap. Code is a funky sprinkling of cryptic characters with rigorous syntax that must be followed. The slightest subtle deviation is an error in the code.
Comments however are the spoken language we have been using since we were three. They are interpreted by humans who automatically ignore 99.999% of errors in them while retaining the correct meaning.
As for not knowing which is right, the code or the comment.
" Offset is one word. I'd go for gmtOffset and caseComplex. But also happy with gmt_offset and case_complex.
I'd find it easier to read still without those comments cluttering up the code. "
Then we have a fundemental disagreement on this that cannot be resolved.
"I would never, ever use an underscore to differentiate between two otherwise identically named variables. Theres something deeply wrong with that suggestion."
I'd agree. I said similarly named not identically.
"On the contrary, one on the big reasons you find the need for comments is you go for non-descript identifiers."
Comments are harmless in all cases and helpful in most. Believe it or not comments were not invented to hinder programmers and are not evil. Not updating comments as you code is bad programming practice. Commenting is not bad programming practice.
"I think there is a curve that programmers go through in their career."
You and every other programmer. And the curve always end with thinking just like the programmer in question does or has the programmer's point of view as the pinnacle with the view getting dated down the road (depending on the programmers stage in his career).
The truth is that both are right... maybe half the time.
"wondering whether the code is wrong or the comemnt is wrong"
Inaccurate comments are the results of bad programming. Don't blame comments because programmers don't update them as they go. You change a line of code with a comment you change the comment too, it is not that difficult. The verbose naming system is the result of programmers who fail to understand that comments are part of the programming, not just sprinkles on top.
int gmtoffset; #odd, seems easy to read to me int GMTOffSet; #difficult to read and to type
int casecomplex; # Do you find it easier with
# underscores?
Seriously, in practice there are times when you use ONE underscore in a variable name because it is similar to another variable name. Of course in practice your codeblock is probably too large or improperly commented if those variable names aren't clear without being that verbose.
"If you work at a place that uses CamelCase, you use that, whether you personally think it's the source of all evil in the world or not."
Actually I believe that software firms are the source of all evil in the world. Go figure.
"Why do you think the various diagramming "languages", such as the ones in the UML, were invented if human language was so superior for describing code-related concepts?"
You would have a stronger point here if we were talking about one or the other. But we are in fact talking about both. Terse function and variable names can convey more meaning than a 20-30 character name when coupled with a comment. If you are going to neglect one area or the other I'd prefer you hand me commented obfuscated perl code than an uncommented attempt at documentation through code.
"If you have to comment a variable, it means that you've failed to think of a sufficiently descriptive name for it"
If you have to comment a variable it means you haven't properly commented the code block it is used in or that it comes from somewhere else. A variable name like VB_Int_Table makes perfect sense when used with comments to give context or when defined within the same code block but could actually be damn near anything. If you find yourself using a variable name that is over 30 characters and is actually a phrase seperated by underscores and caps you should be using a comment instead. BTW my rant on mixed case is not exactly a new idea. It is part of what makes the cli on *nix systems usable.
"I comment my overall approach"
Always
"I'll comment a loop that has a fair amount of content, to give a one-line description of what it's for"
That depends on how you define fair amount of content. It really depends on the content of the lines, but roughly a line or two comment every 10-15 lines is needed. And it is better to use a long comment than a terse one. A terse comment is a greater sin than a terse variable name, that is certain.
"I'll comment things like where the API documentation is in error"
Odd, I would correct the API documentation or the API, whichever fits.
"isConnected"
hmm, nice. What parameters does it take? It checks to see if something is connected to something. How flexible is it? Does it check to see if I have a tcp connection or a connection in a higher level sense in the protocol? Can is it flexible enough to send a flag and get foo? isConnected is not returning the proper value, in which lib will I find it? Is it one of ours or part of x-api we are using? How about the first time you use it in this block of code you use a standard comment which tells me what file it is contained in?
If we move a function between libraries or rename a lib we can use a script to automatically update all these references easily. Your function name does not tell me enough to actually use your function or be certain what each of the 6 integers you passed it is for at a glance. Hopefully the comments in the library/headers will tell me and failing that at least I can find the code itself. I might even be able to fix your buggy function call and find out why it wasn't returning the value it should be.
"Huh. What kind of errors are you talking about? Compile-time errors? They are not exactly the main problem when writing reliable software, now are they?"
Yes, they use development time that could be used for debugging real problems and writing better software.
"Well, I don't know about you, but my coding speed isn't even remotely limited by my typing speed. If it is, you really need to learn to type."
Have you considered that perhaps you need to learn to code? Coding is like speaking, I can speak English faster than I can type it. I can also formulate code faster than I can type it.
"Specifically, if you create an API, don't document it too much. API's change, and your comments will get out of sync with reality. If the API ever stabilizes, and lots of people start using it, that's the time to start thinking about proper documentation. Because that's the time you don't want to change anything. Look at GTK for example. It's highly succesful, but still not perfectly documented. And still changing!"
Here is where our opinions differ. Your mentality is why there is so much poorly documented code. The thing is, your not finished updating the API until you have updated the comments. You should be commenting WHILE your coding. The comments are just as important as any functional code.
"For the love of God! Please don't! So when the API changes, you have approximately 2 billion places to update comments to get them in sync with reality."
Woah, stop the presses right here. You have misunderstood what I am saying. I'm talking about referencing the library the function is contained in at logical intervals not actually documenting the API with each use! The filename of a library should change rarely enough that this shouldn't be a big deal, in fact if you document these in a standard way you can whip up a script in about 5 mins to change these for you throughout all your sourcecode. This tells me where to look for your function and THERE I will find the updated api comments (these should be updated BEFORE the new api is written and both should be done before a commit.
"But if you have a need to sprinkle them liberally"
How about doing the rest of us a favor and sprinkling them liberally whether you feel it is needed or not?
"not splitting your code up into small functions"
This makes a codebase easier to maintain, not easier to understand. What this means is that if I am not familiar with your codebase I have to refer to some other class or library to find out the interface for EVERY line of your code.
Modular code is a good thing but it only has a relation to commenting in your own mind buddy. It also is generally overdone by people who express the attitude you are.
While you think your class is perfect and that you only need to document the interface. I think your class is an ok start and I need to fix half the individual pieces within it or tweak it to turn it into the new class_mine. So please comment it so I can see what each and every portion is doing. Really, English is better method of conveying meaning between humans than code.
"It is perfectly possible to write legible code that needs very few comments"
Yes, and legible code should only have a comment or two every 10-15 lines instead of every other line. At particularly cryptic points each line should have a comment explaining it's function (for instance everytime a regex is used there should be a comment next to it saying what it is searching for).
Commenting 50 lines of code well will take you about 30 seconds when you write it. Those comments will save everyone who reads it several minutes following your code.
"morals and ethics, one destroys the relationships of society"
Which society is it that you speak of? There is nothing instinctual or inherent about any particular set of morals, ethics, or social structure. This is why different morals and ethics are found in every individual and are drastrically different were different social structures have evolved.
While I would agree that there are base instincts which play a role here (primarily the mating instincts of females and protective instincts of males) the one which leads to most of the morals which hinder science is self-preservation. You see if the value on human life is considered in truth as equivelent to that of any other life, the one who must admit that could be the one who ends up being the guinea pig. In the interest of self-preservation nobody wants to admit that their own life and class of life is ultimately insignificant.
"The preservation of society and human lives is the ultimate value"
Correction. The preservation and advancement of mankind is the ultimate value. Social structures and individuals are expendable in the persuit of this goal. Those who deny this simply do not like a definition that includes themselves and those they care for as expendable.
"It is your burden to show that science, in fact, can exist in its proper societal role without morality."
That is faulty logic. I am not trying to establish a relation between the cold search for knowledge and morals, you are. Therefore the burden is on your to prove a relationship. You have not even come up with any evidence that Science has a need to maintain any particular societal role, let alone what that role is and if it has a relation to morals. Once all of the above have been established with fact we can consider what is needed to maintain it.
"You even contradict yourself; scientifically, show me why the purpose of science is to "assure [our] species stay one step ahead of natural selection"?"
Because that is the best scientifically established purpose for existance. The purpose of any species is to exist as long as it may until it is overtaken by an evolution better suited to survive. This is not the case because of a principal or a rule, it is simply the observable result.
"Isn't "improv[ing] the quality and length of life for ourselves and for those we know and care about" a moral instinct"
No it is simply an instinct. We 'care' about those who are either our offspring or who we instinctually believe to improve the existance of ourselves or our offspring.
"and one that is emotional and biased? Please show me how those ideas are "scientific"?"
Yes, this is called self preservation. I never said that instincts didn't conflict with the aims of science. Merely that we all have them, including the scientists. That does not make them a good thing or ultimately beneficial.
"To advance human causes, we must have limitations to prevent abusive power from being wrought upon the minority."
If you make that the "minority opinion" you would have an argument, but it wouldn't be the type of limitation you are arguing for. The minority opinion must be protected because the most intelligent are the minority. As such we must have limitations to prevent abusive majorities from silencing them. I can present a great deal of evidence to back this argument and examples of when the opinions of most were wrong.
The point your actually trying to argue about the interests of individuals having weight compared to that of the human animal in general is of course false and there is no evidence to back it. As I said before the only provable purpose to our existance to survive as a species.
"the sacrifice of people will devolve into an abuse of power from the strong unto the weak, from the majority upon the minority"
And this is contrary to natural selection in what way? Survival of the fitest was the system which resulted in you and me, how is that bad? With the understanding the strength is
I do too. Unfortunately some of the coding standards floating around make code very difficult to write and to read. There are people claiming that mixed case is a good idea.
Dear god no, mixed case leads to gobs of errors from nothing more than incorrect case. All code should be lowercase unless some idiot has set an ancient precedent that Thingy(R) should always be all caps, period. This one thing can double the speed at which you write and debug code.
Next is this BS about self-documenting code. Code is not meant to be self documenting. Proper scoping will prevent names from clashing. Write the most efficient function you can and choose names that make sense in the smallest scope possible.
And then *gasp* COMMENT the code well. You can even include comments near where a variable or function is to indicate in plain English what it is for! Believe it or not, code should not be self commenting, code is not a spoken language and is a poor medium to use to express messages between people who speak one. Nothing works better than your actual spoken language in complete sentence structures in a comment to remind you what a variable or function is or what a block of code does.
By_using_variable_nms_that_dnt_lk_like_this 40 times in 6 lines of code you will save enough time writing those 6 lines that you can add a nice comment that says # vnameshort is used to demonstrate a horribly verbose and lengthy variable name in this function. and please for god sake comment EVERY call of a function that is not part of the standard c libraries within 20 lines explaining where it came from! Doing this will not only easier for people who know the project well to see what is happening and where to refer to but it will also help those who are NOT familiar jump in and possibly change one thing.
Believe it or not, I do not want to read your 100,000 lines of source to make one change. I want to be able to look at the main routine and b-line right from there to the portion of the code I need using the commented function calls.
"We are, in fact, by far the most intelligent species known to man. In terms of cognitive ability, in terms of brain capacity, in terms of problem solving skills and talent, ability to trained, ability for language, ability for critical thinking, in terms of manual dexterity. By far, without question, humans are the most advanced and intelligent species on the earth."
Ok, like most of what you have posted, your logic is invalid AND unsound. We are not the most intelligent species known to man. There are a few aquatic species which have more neurons and therefore more powerful brains. That part is intelligence. The best mean estimate of brain "power" we have is essentially based on how many neurons we have, other species have more so this claim is false.
In terms of problem solving our most advanced solutions merely copy those of other species. Our best ideas are stolen and synthesised versions of what other creatures have come up. Everything from shock absorbtion to adhesives based on the feet of a gecko. As far as training goes, when speaking of aquatic creatures we know to have more brain power than us, there has been no indication of a limit to trainability other than our own ability to train.
We also now know that these creatures do communicate using sound waves, although our understanding of this is primitive. The most experts who work with creatures like porpoise and dolphins will tell you that they pick up on a great deal more of OUR language than you would believe.
"manual dexterity" has nothing to do with intelligence. We are the only manually capable creature I am aware of. The important differences between man and say dolphin. We have different diets, they are smarter than we are, they live in water and we live on land, we have feet and thubs, they have flippers.
"Humans are the "general purpose machines" of Earth - not specifically excelling ant any task - we aren't the fast, nor the strongest, nor the longest lived, nor the tallest nor the most studly built, etc."
Yes, that i would agree with. But your list should include intelligent. It is not merely physical traits we do not excel in, we do not have the largest set of grey matter either.
"There really is no scientific basis for suggesting that we are anything but the most intelligent species on Earth."
Yes there is, to the best of our knowledge brain power is proportional to the number and activity of the neurons contained in the brain. There are other species with more neurons and greater measurable activity. As of yet there is nothing to discredit the theory that they are more intelligent than us.
"Wht other unsubstantited claim will you try to pass off today?"
To be honest, neither of us have substantiated any of the claims we have made. Me because I am too lazy, and you because you do not have valid claims.
"Odd that you choose that one item to comment on, out of that whole post. You are really not faring well against me today."
I choose that one item because the rest was either blatantly faulty logic that needed no additional commenting from me or was faulty logic that collapses once this point is lost.
We glorify our own species and it's characteristics, that does NOT make our species superior or sacred. The moment man accepts that we are not the most advanced lifeform in existance is the moment we can start to realize that being advanced is not what makes life precious. Upon accepting that simple life is no more or less precious than complex life we must accept that biological ooze is biological ooze and for scientific purposes should be treated accordingly.
Accepting this will lead to the elimination of barriers and inhibitions that have slowed the progress of our species. At present our species is plagued by morals that descend from the belief in fairy tales (religion). Even those who do not believe in the fairy tales often still cling to some of the "morals" imparted by them.
I hate to break it to you, but you are not faring well today against yourself. It would be wise to give it up now while you can still delude yourself into believing you are ahead.
"We are the only species who can question our own existenance."
False. We are not the only species which can think, almost all complex lifeforms can and are therefore capable of questioning their own existance. Hell we aren't even the most intelligent species we are aware of. The only thing unique to humans that I am aware of is our combination of traits and that we are manually capable.
Morals cannot themselves hold up to scientific scrutiny (their basis always comes down to something like "It just isn't done.") and therefore are not scientific. Scientists may have morals which serve to hinder science but science itself does not. Ethics which have their basis in morallity are not worthwhile, those which have their basis in preserving the validity of data are however worthwhile.
"Science is moral, and in the interest of *saving human lives* , I think ES research is the holy grail."
Science exposes morality as a false construct which should be abolished. The interest of *saving human lives* is not moral, it is a survival instinct also termed as self-preservation. Ultimately the purpose of science is to increase our mean knowledge, overcome biases (such as morals and religion) and assure we as a species stay one step ahead of natural selection. As individuals it is to improve the quality and length of life for ourselves and for those we know and care about.
Make no mistake, science is all about facing reality and overcoming morals. If psychologically damaging individuals helps to advance our species knowledge of the human mind then it is worthwhile. For that matter, this is what shrinks do now. Considering the infancy of our knowledge of the mind actually adminstering mind altering drugs and counciling at this point is nothing but research and likely does more damage than good.
You realize that the US imposed the sanctions to begin with? It was us who pushed the UN in the matter of Iraq. It was us who led the first assault to protect our oil interests in kuwait. It was us who pushed for UN sanctions and have kept the issue alive since.
Iraq reclaimed territory it's people had believed to have been stolen from their nation long ago. It is for that we have been bombing them for over a decade and had these sanctions imposed to begin with. Make no mistake, we have killed far more Iraqis than Saddam killed people of all nationalities combined.
"- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)"
No, no institute which recieves federal funding FOR ANYTHING can conduct such research. There are not many research facilities that aren't recieving federal funding for at least ONE project. This is effectively a ban.
"- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information."
It is called a Red Herring, it is a rhetorical device along similar lines to the subject at hand (that Bush has banned embryonic stem cell research in any facility that receives federal funding for ANY type of research) designed to distract you from the actual topic and lend pseudo-logical strength to an argument.
"- When is an embryo "life"? At some arbitrary time? When it's in a woman's womb? When it's "wanted" by someone as the product of actions to create a child? When and how does it become life? What's the magic cutoff? When and why is it ok to destroy it? When it can exist on its own? What does "exist on its own" mean? I'm not saying any of these things necessarily should preclude embryonic stem cell research, and indeed, federal funding for it. But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered? It may well be that society collectively decides that the benefit outweighs ethical concerns. But bear in mind, too, that farming more developed human life for research would no doubt yield untold answers to questions that might hold great benefit. Does that mean we should do it? If not, why is that any different? Scientifically, it would seem clear that it's a life the second the embryo comes into being..."
Scientifically the cells are alive before they ever join to become a fertilized egg. Scientifically each of the millions of skin cells each of us has die everyday are life. We kill living cells when we mow our lawns or take anti-biotics.
Scientifically moral and ethical issues do not exist, it is people who create these artifical constructs. Humans attribute a uniqueness or addional value to their own lifeform.
However, since this ignorance is not likely to change soon we can consider natures answer. Nature has created a reference point for us, it exists in all complex lifeforms. It is at this point that multiple simple lifeforms can be considered a complex lifeform. It is called birth. Of course if something is raised entirely artifically (which we can't do now with humans) we can roughly call it at a full development term (9months for humans).
Outside the studios our masters ARE dvd's, since this IS our original when someone in file trading refers to a compressed movie it means further compressed from dvd.
If you want to get really anal then any conversion from analog to digital is lossy compression. Divx 4 and Xvid implement the same standard but they are drastically different implementations. The biggest difference between them is the level of control you have access to in the encoder.
Divx sucks, nobody has used that crap in a long time. If you use compressed content then xvid is current. Since DVD burners have gone sub $100 and 3mbit connections are common, actual dvd-r images are becoming vogue. You are a couple steps out of date.;)
You would think if this guy wanted to be taken seriously by someone outside of France he would at least publish the editorial in English for god's sake.
My experience in every case is that properly built beige box systems are FAR MORE reliable than the same systems from large oem vendors.
The large vendor may offer you a better support than you'd get with hardware manufacturer warranties that come with the equipment, but your more likely to need that support in the first place.
Large vendors will use the cheapest piece of crap they can find that meets the specifications on the table. Beige box builders will use the best piece of equipment that meets the specifications and is within budget. If you pay HP $10k for a server, you could have spent $5k on a beige box and been putting $1k more into the hardware than HP did.
If you spend the other 4k on extra components then you'll have your replacement even faster than HP could get them to you as well.
To a bean counter who doesn't want to confess that only technicians are qualified to make purchase decisions on technical components and equipment large vendors make sense, to technicians they do not.
In order to preserve 16bit compatibility a dirty hack that was segmentation was required, that it was the best hack for the job makes it no less of a hack for a memory addressing scheme. The elegent solution would have been to use the best addressing scheme possible moving forward rather than preserving backward compatibility.
That is fine and dandy for scanners, but what about reliable 15k rpm drive in a hardware raid configuration, MS is grouping them under the label of "legacy". Last I checked nothing has come up that is able to replace scsi for connecting to internal devices.
I realize these work fine under SP2, it is really that MS has adopted a focus which considers these to be legacy devices that is really scary.
The onboard parallel port is also still the best way to connect a printer last a checked. USB printers have a tradeoff in software overhead and support for them is buggy on any platform. If your a technician and you need to purchase low end printers, you pick something that has both usb and parallel (nothing low end comes without usb;'( ) since parallel requires no memory resident software.
This means no significant overhead and you can perform an inf only install, no worries about installers seeing the printer or concerns about whether the software runs on your platform, or setting up peer2peer sharing, etc.
Works better with an hp jet direct this way too. That becomes important as they start taking parallel connections out of low end laserjets. If this keeps up only corporate users will have network printers since the jetdirect cards sometimes cost an additional $500-$600+
For things that previously used a serial port, usb is great and an improvement. For scanners also I'd agree it is an improvement. For anything else that will be connected and disconnected frequently, usb is a great solution. For all other periphial devices (keyboards, mice, printers, etc) usb is a downgrade.
Those problems are mostly resolved now, but I think a good number of companies would be interesting in hearing that MS views what is still the best disk technology we have (SCSI) as "legacy".
Slashdot Mirror
You really need to work on your logic. Your statement that I make assumptions is an assumption itself. And although you are rude, arrogant when the only evidence submitted indicates you don't qualify to be entitled, and rude I will respond briefly.
Lets cut to the chase, writing clear code is a given and was before this nonsense about self documenting code came about. The problem is comment avoidance. We have comments for a reason and because coders are too lazy to change them along with the code the relate the entire "self documenting code" nonsense arose to justify it. I suspect your one of those coders who hates taking the time to update comments.
Also, it may come as a shock but unless a program is poorly written, any code change that does not change an API should have NO effect that is not within a screenful of text from the code being changed. OO or not code should be modular and the modules should have blackbox type interfaces. Believe it or not a coder should not have to become intimate with your project to change "Initializing Floogenbooper..." to print "Go go gadget Floogenbooper...".
Basically, I agree that code should be easy to follow by itself. But poorly written code and well written code should be commented equally. Having written your code clearly is no excuse for not commenting it thoroughly.
One simple test is that contrary to what you posted, one should be able to LEARN an algorithm one has no prior knowledge of from reading the code and corresponding comments. When writing code one should not assume that the one who reads it will have familiarity with anything but the language that you are coding in.
"By putting in more than minimal comments, you are actually increasing the number of defects in your code. And the thing is that the compiler and testing will help to remove the defects from the code logic. But they'll tend to remain in the comments, and get worse as the code is touched by other programmer."
I know this will come as a surprise to you. Code is a little different than a spoken language. If I use "an" improperly in a comment, it is an error but will have no impact on the meaning of the comment. The same goes for typos in almost every case.
And if programmers are being worked hard enough they don't stop to read the comment they just typed you might as well move them in and put a cot in the corner. Let them take a nap. Code is a funky sprinkling of cryptic characters with rigorous syntax that must be followed. The slightest subtle deviation is an error in the code.
Comments however are the spoken language we have been using since we were three. They are interpreted by humans who automatically ignore 99.999% of errors in them while retaining the correct meaning.
As for not knowing which is right, the code or the comment.
" Offset is one word. I'd go for gmtOffset and caseComplex. But also happy with gmt_offset and case_complex.
I'd find it easier to read still without those comments cluttering up the code.
"
Then we have a fundemental disagreement on this that cannot be resolved.
"I would never, ever use an underscore to differentiate between two otherwise identically named variables. Theres something deeply wrong with that suggestion."
I'd agree. I said similarly named not identically.
"On the contrary, one on the big reasons you find the need for comments is you go for non-descript identifiers."
Comments are harmless in all cases and helpful in most. Believe it or not comments were not invented to hinder programmers and are not evil. Not updating comments as you code is bad programming practice. Commenting is not bad programming practice.
"I think there is a curve that programmers go through in their career."
You and every other programmer. And the curve always end with thinking just like the programmer in question does or has the programmer's point of view as the pinnacle with the view getting dated down the road (depending on the programmers stage in his career).
The truth is that both are right... maybe half the time.
"wondering whether the code is wrong or the comemnt is wrong"
Inaccurate comments are the results of bad programming. Don't blame comments because programmers don't update them as they go. You change a line of code with a comment you change the comment too, it is not that difficult. The verbose naming system is the result of programmers who fail to understand that comments are part of the programming, not just sprinkles on top.
int gmtoffset; #odd, seems easy to read to me
int GMTOffSet; #difficult to read and to type
int casecomplex; # Do you find it easier with
# underscores?
Seriously, in practice there are times when you use ONE underscore in a variable name because it is similar to another variable name. Of course in practice your codeblock is probably too large or improperly commented if those variable names aren't clear without being that verbose.
"If you work at a place that uses CamelCase, you use that, whether you personally think it's the source of all evil in the world or not."
Actually I believe that software firms are the source of all evil in the world. Go figure.
"Why do you think the various diagramming "languages", such as the ones in the UML, were invented if human language was so superior for describing code-related concepts?"
You would have a stronger point here if we were talking about one or the other. But we are in fact talking about both. Terse function and variable names can convey more meaning than a 20-30 character name when coupled with a comment. If you are going to neglect one area or the other I'd prefer you hand me commented obfuscated perl code than an uncommented attempt at documentation through code.
"If you have to comment a variable, it means that you've failed to think of a sufficiently descriptive name for it"
If you have to comment a variable it means you haven't properly commented the code block it is used in or that it comes from somewhere else. A variable name like VB_Int_Table makes perfect sense when used with comments to give context or when defined within the same code block but could actually be damn near anything. If you find yourself using a variable name that is over 30 characters and is actually a phrase seperated by underscores and caps you should be using a comment instead. BTW my rant on mixed case is not exactly a new idea. It is part of what makes the cli on *nix systems usable.
"I comment my overall approach"
Always
"I'll comment a loop that has a fair amount of content, to give a one-line description of what it's for"
That depends on how you define fair amount of content. It really depends on the content of the lines, but roughly a line or two comment every 10-15 lines is needed. And it is better to use a long comment than a terse one. A terse comment is a greater sin than a terse variable name, that is certain.
"I'll comment things like where the API documentation is in error"
Odd, I would correct the API documentation or the API, whichever fits.
"isConnected"
hmm, nice. What parameters does it take? It checks to see if something is connected to something. How flexible is it? Does it check to see if I have a tcp connection or a connection in a higher level sense in the protocol? Can is it flexible enough to send a flag and get foo? isConnected is not returning the proper value, in which lib will I find it? Is it one of ours or part of x-api we are using? How about the first time you use it in this block of code you use a standard comment which tells me what file it is contained in?
If we move a function between libraries or rename a lib we can use a script to automatically update all these references easily. Your function name does not tell me enough to actually use your function or be certain what each of the 6 integers you passed it is for at a glance. Hopefully the comments in the library/headers will tell me and failing that at least I can find the code itself. I might even be able to fix your buggy function call and find out why it wasn't returning the value it should be.
I find mixed case code harder to read not easier.
"Huh. What kind of errors are you talking about? Compile-time errors? They are not exactly the main problem when writing reliable software, now are they?"
Yes, they use development time that could be used for debugging real problems and writing better software.
"Well, I don't know about you, but my coding speed isn't even remotely limited by my typing speed. If it is, you really need to learn to type."
Have you considered that perhaps you need to learn to code? Coding is like speaking, I can speak English faster than I can type it. I can also formulate code faster than I can type it.
"Specifically, if you create an API, don't document it too much. API's change, and your comments will get out of sync with reality. If the API ever stabilizes, and lots of people start using it, that's the time to start thinking about proper documentation. Because that's the time you don't want to change anything. Look at GTK for example. It's highly succesful, but still not perfectly documented. And still changing!"
Here is where our opinions differ. Your mentality is why there is so much poorly documented code. The thing is, your not finished updating the API until you have updated the comments. You should be commenting WHILE your coding. The comments are just as important as any functional code.
"For the love of God! Please don't! So when the API changes, you have approximately 2 billion places to update comments to get them in sync with reality."
Woah, stop the presses right here. You have misunderstood what I am saying. I'm talking about referencing the library the function is contained in at logical intervals not actually documenting the API with each use! The filename of a library should change rarely enough that this shouldn't be a big deal, in fact if you document these in a standard way you can whip up a script in about 5 mins to change these for you throughout all your sourcecode. This tells me where to look for your function and THERE I will find the updated api comments (these should be updated BEFORE the new api is written and both should be done before a commit.
"But if you have a need to sprinkle them liberally"
How about doing the rest of us a favor and sprinkling them liberally whether you feel it is needed or not?
"not splitting your code up into small functions"
This makes a codebase easier to maintain, not easier to understand. What this means is that if I am not familiar with your codebase I have to refer to some other class or library to find out the interface for EVERY line of your code.
Modular code is a good thing but it only has a relation to commenting in your own mind buddy. It also is generally overdone by people who express the attitude you are.
While you think your class is perfect and that you only need to document the interface. I think your class is an ok start and I need to fix half the individual pieces within it or tweak it to turn it into the new class_mine. So please comment it so I can see what each and every portion is doing. Really, English is better method of conveying meaning between humans than code.
"It is perfectly possible to write legible code that needs very few comments"
Yes, and legible code should only have a comment or two every 10-15 lines instead of every other line. At particularly cryptic points each line should have a comment explaining it's function (for instance everytime a regex is used there should be a comment next to it saying what it is searching for).
Commenting 50 lines of code well will take you about 30 seconds when you write it. Those comments will save everyone who reads it several minutes following your code.
"morals and ethics, one destroys the relationships of society"
Which society is it that you speak of? There is nothing instinctual or inherent about any particular set of morals, ethics, or social structure. This is why different morals and ethics are found in every individual and are drastrically different were different social structures have evolved.
While I would agree that there are base instincts which play a role here (primarily the mating instincts of females and protective instincts of males) the one which leads to most of the morals which hinder science is self-preservation. You see if the value on human life is considered in truth as equivelent to that of any other life, the one who must admit that could be the one who ends up being the guinea pig. In the interest of self-preservation nobody wants to admit that their own life and class of life is ultimately insignificant.
"The preservation of society and human lives is the ultimate value"
Correction. The preservation and advancement of mankind is the ultimate value. Social structures and individuals are expendable in the persuit of this goal. Those who deny this simply do not like a definition that includes themselves and those they care for as expendable.
"It is your burden to show that science, in fact, can exist in its proper societal role without morality."
That is faulty logic. I am not trying to establish a relation between the cold search for knowledge and morals, you are. Therefore the burden is on your to prove a relationship. You have not even come up with any evidence that Science has a need to maintain any particular societal role, let alone what that role is and if it has a relation to morals. Once all of the above have been established with fact we can consider what is needed to maintain it.
"You even contradict yourself; scientifically, show me why the purpose of science is to "assure [our] species stay one step ahead of natural selection"?"
Because that is the best scientifically established purpose for existance. The purpose of any species is to exist as long as it may until it is overtaken by an evolution better suited to survive. This is not the case because of a principal or a rule, it is simply the observable result.
"Isn't "improv[ing] the quality and length of life for ourselves and for those we know and care about" a moral instinct"
No it is simply an instinct. We 'care' about those who are either our offspring or who we instinctually believe to improve the existance of ourselves or our offspring.
"and one that is emotional and biased? Please show me how those ideas are "scientific"?"
Yes, this is called self preservation. I never said that instincts didn't conflict with the aims of science. Merely that we all have them, including the scientists. That does not make them a good thing or ultimately beneficial.
"To advance human causes, we must have limitations to prevent abusive power from being wrought upon the minority."
If you make that the "minority opinion" you would have an argument, but it wouldn't be the type of limitation you are arguing for. The minority opinion must be protected because the most intelligent are the minority. As such we must have limitations to prevent abusive majorities from silencing them. I can present a great deal of evidence to back this argument and examples of when the opinions of most were wrong.
The point your actually trying to argue about the interests of individuals having weight compared to that of the human animal in general is of course false and there is no evidence to back it. As I said before the only provable purpose to our existance to survive as a species.
"the sacrifice of people will devolve into an abuse of power from the strong unto the weak, from the majority upon the minority"
And this is contrary to natural selection in what way? Survival of the fitest was the system which resulted in you and me, how is that bad? With the understanding the strength is
I do too. Unfortunately some of the coding standards floating around make code very difficult to write and to read. There are people claiming that mixed case is a good idea.
Dear god no, mixed case leads to gobs of errors from nothing more than incorrect case. All code should be lowercase unless some idiot has set an ancient precedent that Thingy(R) should always be all caps, period. This one thing can double the speed at which you write and debug code.
Next is this BS about self-documenting code. Code is not meant to be self documenting. Proper scoping will prevent names from clashing. Write the most efficient function you can and choose names that make sense in the smallest scope possible.
And then *gasp* COMMENT the code well. You can even include comments near where a variable or function is to indicate in plain English what it is for! Believe it or not, code should not be self commenting, code is not a spoken language and is a poor medium to use to express messages between people who speak one. Nothing works better than your actual spoken language in complete sentence structures in a comment to remind you what a variable or function is or what a block of code does.
By_using_variable_nms_that_dnt_lk_like_this 40 times in 6 lines of code you will save enough time writing those 6 lines that you can add a nice comment that says # vnameshort is used to demonstrate a horribly verbose and lengthy variable name in this function. and please for god sake comment EVERY call of a function that is not part of the standard c libraries within 20 lines explaining where it came from! Doing this will not only easier for people who know the project well to see what is happening and where to refer to but it will also help those who are NOT familiar jump in and possibly change one thing.
Believe it or not, I do not want to read your 100,000 lines of source to make one change. I want to be able to look at the main routine and b-line right from there to the portion of the code I need using the commented function calls.
"We are, in fact, by far the most intelligent species known to man. In terms of cognitive ability, in terms of brain capacity, in terms of problem solving skills and talent, ability to trained, ability for language, ability for critical thinking, in terms of manual dexterity. By far, without question, humans are the most advanced and intelligent species on the earth."
Ok, like most of what you have posted, your logic is invalid AND unsound. We are not the most intelligent species known to man. There are a few aquatic species which have more neurons and therefore more powerful brains. That part is intelligence. The best mean estimate of brain "power" we have is essentially based on how many neurons we have, other species have more so this claim is false.
In terms of problem solving our most advanced solutions merely copy those of other species. Our best ideas are stolen and synthesised versions of what other creatures have come up. Everything from shock absorbtion to adhesives based on the feet of a gecko. As far as training goes, when speaking of aquatic creatures we know to have more brain power than us, there has been no indication of a limit to trainability other than our own ability to train.
We also now know that these creatures do communicate using sound waves, although our understanding of this is primitive. The most experts who work with creatures like porpoise and dolphins will tell you that they pick up on a great deal more of OUR language than you would believe.
"manual dexterity" has nothing to do with intelligence. We are the only manually capable creature I am aware of. The important differences between man and say dolphin. We have different diets, they are smarter than we are, they live in water and we live on land, we have feet and thubs, they have flippers.
"Humans are the "general purpose machines" of Earth - not specifically excelling ant any task - we aren't the fast, nor the strongest, nor the longest lived, nor the tallest nor the most studly built, etc."
Yes, that i would agree with. But your list should include intelligent. It is not merely physical traits we do not excel in, we do not have the largest set of grey matter either.
"There really is no scientific basis for suggesting that we are anything but the most intelligent species on Earth."
Yes there is, to the best of our knowledge brain power is proportional to the number and activity of the neurons contained in the brain. There are other species with more neurons and greater measurable activity. As of yet there is nothing to discredit the theory that they are more intelligent than us.
"Wht other unsubstantited claim will you try to pass off today?"
To be honest, neither of us have substantiated any of the claims we have made. Me because I am too lazy, and you because you do not have valid claims.
"Odd that you choose that one item to comment on, out of that whole post. You are really not faring well against me today."
I choose that one item because the rest was either blatantly faulty logic that needed no additional commenting from me or was faulty logic that collapses once this point is lost.
We glorify our own species and it's characteristics, that does NOT make our species superior or sacred. The moment man accepts that we are not the most advanced lifeform in existance is the moment we can start to realize that being advanced is not what makes life precious. Upon accepting that simple life is no more or less precious than complex life we must accept that biological ooze is biological ooze and for scientific purposes should be treated accordingly.
Accepting this will lead to the elimination of barriers and inhibitions that have slowed the progress of our species. At present our species is plagued by morals that descend from the belief in fairy tales (religion). Even those who do not believe in the fairy tales often still cling to some of the "morals" imparted by them.
I hate to break it to you, but you are not faring well today against yourself. It would be wise to give it up now while you can still delude yourself into believing you are ahead.
"We are the only species who can question our own existenance."
False. We are not the only species which can think, almost all complex lifeforms can and are therefore capable of questioning their own existance. Hell we aren't even the most intelligent species we are aware of. The only thing unique to humans that I am aware of is our combination of traits and that we are manually capable.
Morals cannot themselves hold up to scientific scrutiny (their basis always comes down to something like "It just isn't done.") and therefore are not scientific. Scientists may have morals which serve to hinder science but science itself does not. Ethics which have their basis in morallity are not worthwhile, those which have their basis in preserving the validity of data are however worthwhile.
"Science is moral, and in the interest of *saving human lives* , I think ES research is the holy grail."
Science exposes morality as a false construct which should be abolished. The interest of *saving human lives* is not moral, it is a survival instinct also termed as self-preservation. Ultimately the purpose of science is to increase our mean knowledge, overcome biases (such as morals and religion) and assure we as a species stay one step ahead of natural selection. As individuals it is to improve the quality and length of life for ourselves and for those we know and care about.
Make no mistake, science is all about facing reality and overcoming morals. If psychologically damaging individuals helps to advance our species knowledge of the human mind then it is worthwhile. For that matter, this is what shrinks do now. Considering the infancy of our knowledge of the mind actually adminstering mind altering drugs and counciling at this point is nothing but research and likely does more damage than good.
Bush cut all federal funding for ANY TYPE OF RESEARCH to any facility which conducts stem cell research on lines he didn't grant funding for.
BIG difference.
You realize that the US imposed the sanctions to begin with? It was us who pushed the UN in the matter of Iraq. It was us who led the first assault to protect our oil interests in kuwait. It was us who pushed for UN sanctions and have kept the issue alive since.
Iraq reclaimed territory it's people had believed to have been stolen from their nation long ago. It is for that we have been bombing them for over a decade and had these sanctions imposed to begin with. Make no mistake, we have killed far more Iraqis than Saddam killed people of all nationalities combined.
"- There isn't a "ban" on any kind of stem cell research in the US. There is a restriction on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - entities are still free to perform embryonic stem cell research (see California's recent US$3 billion bond initiative to support such research in the state)"
No, no institute which recieves federal funding FOR ANYTHING can conduct such research. There are not many research facilities that aren't recieving federal funding for at least ONE project. This is effectively a ban.
"- The Bush administration is the first administration to allow any federal funding at all for embryonic stem cell research. Granted, this is partly due to timing, but it's still a point of information."
It is called a Red Herring, it is a rhetorical device along similar lines to the subject at hand (that Bush has banned embryonic stem cell research in any facility that receives federal funding for ANY type of research) designed to distract you from the actual topic and lend pseudo-logical strength to an argument.
"- When is an embryo "life"? At some arbitrary time? When it's in a woman's womb? When it's "wanted" by someone as the product of actions to create a child? When and how does it become life? What's the magic cutoff? When and why is it ok to destroy it? When it can exist on its own? What does "exist on its own" mean? I'm not saying any of these things necessarily should preclude embryonic stem cell research, and indeed, federal funding for it. But doesn't it seem that those ethical questions should be addressed or at least considered? It may well be that society collectively decides that the benefit outweighs ethical concerns. But bear in mind, too, that farming more developed human life for research would no doubt yield untold answers to questions that might hold great benefit. Does that mean we should do it? If not, why is that any different? Scientifically, it would seem clear that it's a life the second the embryo comes into being..."
Scientifically the cells are alive before they ever join to become a fertilized egg. Scientifically each of the millions of skin cells each of us has die everyday are life. We kill living cells when we mow our lawns or take anti-biotics.
Scientifically moral and ethical issues do not exist, it is people who create these artifical constructs. Humans attribute a uniqueness or addional value to their own lifeform.
However, since this ignorance is not likely to change soon we can consider natures answer. Nature has created a reference point for us, it exists in all complex lifeforms. It is at this point that multiple simple lifeforms can be considered a complex lifeform. It is called birth. Of course if something is raised entirely artifically (which we can't do now with humans) we can roughly call it at a full development term (9months for humans).
Outside the studios our masters ARE dvd's, since this IS our original when someone in file trading refers to a compressed movie it means further compressed from dvd.
If you want to get really anal then any conversion from analog to digital is lossy compression. Divx 4 and Xvid implement the same standard but they are drastically different implementations. The biggest difference between them is the level of control you have access to in the encoder.
there's a difference?
Divx sucks, nobody has used that crap in a long time. If you use compressed content then xvid is current. Since DVD burners have gone sub $100 and 3mbit connections are common, actual dvd-r images are becoming vogue. You are a couple steps out of date. ;)
You would think if this guy wanted to be taken seriously by someone outside of France he would at least publish the editorial in English for god's sake.
My experience in every case is that properly built beige box systems are FAR MORE reliable than the same systems from large oem vendors.
The large vendor may offer you a better support than you'd get with hardware manufacturer warranties that come with the equipment, but your more likely to need that support in the first place.
Large vendors will use the cheapest piece of crap they can find that meets the specifications on the table. Beige box builders will use the best piece of equipment that meets the specifications and is within budget. If you pay HP $10k for a server, you could have spent $5k on a beige box and been putting $1k more into the hardware than HP did.
If you spend the other 4k on extra components then you'll have your replacement even faster than HP could get them to you as well.
To a bean counter who doesn't want to confess that only technicians are qualified to make purchase decisions on technical components and equipment large vendors make sense, to technicians they do not.
In order to preserve 16bit compatibility a dirty hack that was segmentation was required, that it was the best hack for the job makes it no less of a hack for a memory addressing scheme. The elegent solution would have been to use the best addressing scheme possible moving forward rather than preserving backward compatibility.
Try again now, I don't use the webserver much and apparently somewhere along the way an apache update went awry.
That is fine and dandy for scanners, but what about reliable 15k rpm drive in a hardware raid configuration, MS is grouping them under the label of "legacy". Last I checked nothing has come up that is able to replace scsi for connecting to internal devices.
;'(
I realize these work fine under SP2, it is really that MS has adopted a focus which considers these to be legacy devices that is really scary.
The onboard parallel port is also still the best way to connect a printer last a checked. USB printers have a tradeoff in software overhead and support for them is buggy on any platform. If your a technician and you need to purchase low end printers, you pick something that has both usb and parallel (nothing low end comes without usb
) since parallel requires no memory resident software.
This means no significant overhead and you can perform an inf only install, no worries about installers seeing the printer or concerns about whether the software runs on your platform, or setting up peer2peer sharing, etc.
Works better with an hp jet direct this way too. That becomes important as they start taking parallel connections out of low end laserjets. If this keeps up only corporate users will have network printers since the jetdirect cards sometimes cost an additional $500-$600+
For things that previously used a serial port, usb is great and an improvement. For scanners also I'd agree it is an improvement. For anything else that will be connected and disconnected frequently, usb is a great solution. For all other periphial devices (keyboards, mice, printers, etc) usb is a downgrade.
Those problems are mostly resolved now, but I think a good number of companies would be interesting in hearing that MS views what is still the best disk technology we have (SCSI) as "legacy".