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)。
当前回答
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。
其他回答
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.
This is an excellent question. It traces back to the first programming language that allowed comments, I'm sure. The code certainly should be as self-documenting as possible. Comments that point out the obvious, should be eliminated. Comments that make it easier to understand the intent, purpose, and use of a given method or section of code can be invaluable to those of us dolts that may be less familiar with the language or code in question. Structured comments that allow for the generation of API documentation are a good example. Just don't comment an IF statement that checks to see if a checkbox is checked and tell me that you're checking to see if the checkbox is checked. Restating the obvious in a comment is the worst waste keystrokes in our universe.
//For example, the above text deals with what is a useful comment
我会扭转局面。
问问自己在他的代码中有什么不理解的，然后让他把这些记录下来。也许你也可以告诉我们一些。
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。
已经提出的观点是，评论应该捕捉意图，但我想再深入一点。
我认为对于任何一类问题，都有一个理想的(或几乎是这样的)词汇和语法来描述它，如果你只是让遇到这类问题的人来描述它们(假设那个人能清晰地思考)，你就能看到它。
如果词汇和语法可以很容易地(通过定义类、方法等)映射到计算机语言的代码上，那么这些代码可以是自文档化的。此外，IMO还创建了一种特定于领域的语言。(这就是我对“陈述性”的粗略定义。)
如果不能实现这个理想，如果问题不能直接映射到计算机代码上，那么就需要将两者联系起来。在我看来，这就是评论的目的。
这样，当问题发生变化时，您就可以找到相应的代码部分进行更改。
编辑:顺便说一下，我并不支持OOP方法论，即每个名词都变成一个类，每个动词都变成一个方法。我已经看过足够多的臃肿软件了。
