[wp-hackers] Re: 1.5.2 or on to 1.6?
skippy at skippy.net
Mon May 23 13:20:49 GMT 2005
Martin Geisler wrote:
>>I also believe that well-written code usually doesn't need comments
>>unless it's doing some sort of voodoo or workaround. (See
> Is this not a rather bad example? I mean, that file comes from an
> external project, who obviously know how to write proper doccomments.
> And the idea that there can be such a thing as well-written code
> containing no comments is bogus: it is only in small toy examples that
> the function and argument names are enough to determine what a
> function does.
Comments are _extremely_ helpful to fledgling programmers and hackers.
I've been cutting my programming teeth on WordPress, and it's been an
awful lot of trial and error as I work through the code at different points.
For some things, it's enough to look at a function name and it's list of
accepted arguments, plus its return value. But the return value can be
sent back at several different points along the way, which means I need
to work through the function to see what may be returned, and where.
For other things, it can be quite a challenge to determine what's
happening, and why.
I'd love to see all the functions at least have a modest comment block
stating accepted input, and what it returns. This would help other
fledgling coders. Yes, it will bloat the file sizes a bit, but text
compresses well, and comments won't add any delay to program execution.
skippy at skippy.net | http://skippy.net/
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 9CFA4B35
506C F8BB 17AE 8A05 0B49 3544 476A 7DEC 9CFA 4B35
More information about the wp-hackers