我有一个同事,他坚持认为他的代码不需要注释,这是“自文档”。
我已经审阅了他的代码,虽然它比我看到的其他人编写的代码更清晰,但我仍然不同意自文档化代码与经过注释和文档化的代码一样完整和有用。
帮我理解一下他的观点。
什么是自文档代码
它真的能取代注释良好和文档化的代码吗
在某些情况下,它是否比有良好文档和注释的代码更好
是否存在代码不可能在没有注释的情况下自文档化的例子
也许这只是我自身的局限性,但我看不出这怎么能成为一种好的练习。
这并不是一个争论——请不要提出为什么注释良好并有文档记录的代码是高优先级的原因——有很多资源都表明了这一点,但它们对我的同行来说并没有说服力。我认为我需要更全面地了解他的观点,才能说服他。如果你有必要,可以提出一个新的问题,但不要在这里争论。
另外,那些反对自我记录代码的人——这主要是为了帮助我理解自我记录代码传播者的观点(即积极的方面)。
自文档代码通常使用与代码所做的事情完全匹配的变量名,这样就很容易理解发生了什么
然而,这样的“自文档代码”永远不会取代注释。有时代码太复杂,自文档化代码是不够的,特别是在可维护性方面。
I once had a professor who was a firm believer in this theory
In fact the best thing I ever remember him saying is "Comments are for sissies"
It took all of us by surprise at first but it makes sense.
However, the situation is that even though you may be able to understand what is going on in the code but someone who is less experienced that you may come behind you and not understand what is going on. This is when comments become important. I know many times that we do not believe they are important but there are very few cases where comments are unnecessary.
自文档代码是一个很容易解决的问题,随着时间的推移,代码、注释和文档会出现分歧。编写清晰的代码也是一个约束因素(如果你对自己有那么严格的话)。
对我来说,以下是我努力遵循的规则:
Code should be as easy and clear to
read as possible.
Comments should give reasons for
design decisions I took, like: why
do I use this algorithm, or
limitations the code has, like: does
not work when ... (this should be
handled in a contract/assertion in
the code) (usually within the function/procedure).
Documentation should list usage
(calling converntions), side
effects, possible return values. It
can be extracted from code using
tools like jDoc or xmlDoc. It
therefore usually is outside the
function/procedure, but close to the
code it describes.
这意味着所有三种记录代码的方法都很接近,因此更有可能在代码更改时被更改,但它们所表达的内容并不重叠。