|
I'm pretty sure the risk is limited. It isn't a website and most teams are limited in size.
You could build in a feature that seriously limits the file size per "attachment" and it will always remain more tedious to add an image than to write a comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Or just make a link that, when clicked, opens the file.
Shouldn't be all that hard to do. I don't know anything about Visual Studio AddIns/Extensions/etc, though.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion you need to separate things.
Code comments serve a different purpose than technical specs and to make it "worse", they have different life-cycles. They can change separately without a strict need to one affect the other.
So in your code comments you can eventually refer to a section in the technical spec, but attaching pieces of documentation directly to code would be a maintenance mess.
|
|
|
|
|
My code is self explanatory
modified 19-Nov-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know! I've seen it, it explains, in no uncertain terms,
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
The "variable" "naming" "convention" is particulary convincing in this aspect.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice idea. Had felt this need sometime ago.
One thing though. Would mean that source control should also include some kind of parental control - regarding image content.
Or ratings like General, PG, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to have to ding you for poor commenting! The indeffinate article before a vowel is 'an' not 'a'!
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
"Anise Aardvark" is the name of the office mascot. She's humble, that's why all lowercase.
|
|
|
|
|
How about an IDE that loads all the crap after it has opened and not before? That way if I want to check a file I don't have to wait three days and slaughter a small chicken just to check how something was done.
Bastard coders, too smart for there own godo!
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: too smart for there own godo!
I was waiting for that
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
Now that's something one can agree on
|
|
|
|
|
This still doesn't solve the problem of changing requirements, changing code, etc.
- How do you ensure that comments remain current when requirements have been added / deleted?
- ditto when code has been modified.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Go live in Utopia, there the specs are not changed afterwards .
I'm a bit surprised that everyone is worried about bloating or about the maintainence of this. I wouldn't have thought about putting these attachments everywhere I go, rather use it where normal comments don't really cut it. But I admit, I do live in my own private small world were none can enter
|
|
|
|
|
85 million years ago, we had a simple submission check tool. The rules where that every file had a comment header with mod history and every public method had one too; this is all pre XML clever type doc/comments. If they were not there, or unchanged, the change could not be submitted.
Simple yet effective.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
The tool you describe can ensure that a comment exists; it can't ensure that the comment is current. I suppose that a slightly more sophisticated tool could ensure that comments are modified along with functions, but that is not always necessary (e.g. fixing a bug would not necessarily change the description of a function).
Until this problem is solved, any fancy tools that e.g. link a function to the requirement that was responsible for it are worse than useless.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Something like this[^], or this[^]?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. Just tried and googled and none of them is working... unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
Heck, I want a 3 dimensional code editor. You have an if statement? The code branches orthogonally to the main code "vector". If-else? Same idea, but with two orthogonal branches. nested loops? Again, you can render that in 3D rather than a 2D "one inside the other" surface.
It would really be quite fascinating to see code represented three dimensionally and be able to fly around it, zoom in/out, etc.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
How would recursive functions be handled?
|
|
|
|
|
5 seconds after you attach an image to a line of code, the requirements change, and the image/doc/whatever is now useless.
I worked on a project where we all had the spec printed out on our desk. It was 3" thick - and VERY outdated. We spent more time discussing what the spec really meant than coding it.
Any spec is outdated the moment it's saved. Now imagine that attached to ever changing code. Mass confusion ensues.
Terrible idea.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
modified 29-May-15 10:17am.
|
|
|
|
|
My first thought is if you need a picture to explain what is going on, it might be time to refactor and simplify.
|
|
|
|
|
There is already an extension that does that (and a bit more...)
Look for MarkdownComments in the tools/Entensions and update menu.
|
|
|
|
|
Movie Quote Of The Day
Deoxyribonucleic acid!
Which movie?
|
|
|
|