|
First of all... I am 95% of the time dealing with PLCs (so the comments I do might not fit into high-level world)
I partially agree that the lack of comments is not so terrible. But with the condition of: Code is done easy to understand.
Variable names: I have been fixing bugs in programms where "TaskDone" was used for "TaskActive" (but not ended), or "PlaceActive" used for "PlaceFull" or even worst just "int1", "int2", "int3" and try to understand what does each one mean.
Bad Formatting: It can be a kick in the ass to read something with bad format, but this is for me one not so critical for the understanding. It is just comfortability.
Mistery side-effects: This is one that I very often have to deal with, when I go to a customer to fix something, and it is really annoying because it is very difficult to simulate the error-trigger situation. One of my "favourite" is when same area in memory is being written from two different places at the same time and the value get mixed, triggering god knows what in other places.
Magic Numbers: Lucky me, this is something I don't find often
Leaving commented out code for long: This is something I have to deal with 90% of the times in legacy code. I hate it. Starting to get into the functionality, spending a precious time to know what it is done in a function and then find a commented out call to that function, or a return (1) or whatever else making it for the cats. I really hate it.
Copy and paste programming: ---> Search and replace for something meaningful / useful. Time wasting but... not so bad as others
Assuming default behaviour: Related to mistery side-effects. Can be really annoying / dificult to find out.
Swallowing Errors: It depends, if the programm get blocked, then I don't really care. They are easy to find. If not... 
Not checking values: In my experience, that use to end into points "Assuming default behaviour" and/or "mistery side effects"
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
My team deals with PLC code a lot, since our application is primarily process control. Our experience has been that PLC programming is done by hardware engineers, often with little or no software background. Even when the PLC development environment includes sophisticated support for input/output, communications, concurrent processing, and the like, the hardware engineer has an inherent distrust of the smart tools. They re-invent the wheel. The end result is limited, buggy, and the interfaces are painful.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Such problems are not specially to be found in Software done by hardware ingineers. That can increase a bit the statistics, OK, but... if you saw things I have seen from people with electronics engineering (specialization in automation) degree... you would not believe it.
I had once a trainee...
Situation:
memory area with an Array for 30 data units and dynamical presentation into the human interface. When opening window or clicking in +1 or -1 just get the actual number and bring it to the edit area. When saving, geting that element and overwrite the position in the memory area.
Question of the trainee when I explained it: Why "place - 1"???
Me:    (explanation for about 15 minutes about arrays, start addresses of elements and the difference between "human" place 1 and "array" place 1)
Trainee: hmmmm, Ok (10 sec later), but would not be easy to show the element in "place" instead of "place - 1"??
Me: Ok, it doesn't matter  let's go to another thema
I don't mind to train newbies, but that one was the most defying challenge until now. Not to teach him, but not to kill him  
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
How about none of the above. And who says no code comments is a bad habit? Code should be self documenting. If you need to document your code, then you are need to think about restructuring your code!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I fully commit that - code should be self explaining and no comments are needed. Many comments are really a sign for restructuring.
But sometimes are hacks, workarounds or magic numbers needed. And that is screaming for comment.
The big exclamation is, that I write a "major change history" on top of the file. 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If you can say it in code, do so. Otherwise, say it in a comment.
- Dan Saks, one-time secretary of the ANSI/ISO C/C++ standardization committee
Comments should describe your intent, not what the code is doing (or what you think it's doing). They can also correlate requirements to features, and describe interactions between components. Identify the algorithm if it's noteworthy. Comments can aid source code navigation.
Having comments in your code is not a blind indicator that refactoring is in order. The KISS rule applies here. I've seen several projects that used esoteric language features to force the compiler to process 'self-documenting' code (C++ template meta-programming comes to mind). The end result is that the intent is obfuscated by the syntax, the code itself is difficult to read and impossible to debug, not to mention the concomitant obscure compiler diagnostics.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, I am not saying that you should never comment your code, and indeed I often do, but to have it on a list saying its a bad coding habit is odd. It seems to suggest that you should always comment your code, which of course is not the case.
To clarify one of my statements, I should have said, as far as possible code should be self describing, as rather than self commenting.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Solomon wrote: Code should be self documenting.
Absolutely!
And you shouldn't need written details about driving a car, flying an aeroplane, or using microsurgery machines, either!
Anyone who can't look at 40,000 lines of code and immediately understand absolutely everything that the program does and how all elements of the program affect each other should not even be allowed near an IDE!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Adding Table name + "ID" as identity column in database cases.
It is going to be more terrible when table name is too long.
Table Name: DocItemCostCenters
Identity Column Name : DocItemCostCentersID
|
|
|
|
|
What do you prefer to do instead? I hope it's not this:
Table Name: DocItemCostCenters
Identity Column Name : ID
... which I find even worse.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Its the worst case in above all.
You can have all the tools in the world but if you don't genuinely believe in yourself, it's useless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although it is a good habit to do a lot of check, if you are using a managed languages like C#, a lot of those are often already done so it is much less critical...
In .NET exception are thrown for out-of-bound and using null pointers so « missing » checks are far less a problem that with native C++ for example where you can easily cause hard-to-find bug by writing something outside an array for example.
And even in language like C++, you can help yourself using debug libraries of STL, smart pointers, assertions, string class and thus avoid many bugs related to level coding.
Philippe Mori
|
|
|
|
|
|
It can't always be you. I hear quite a few people make that statement......
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot to include your e-mail address 
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Should have been an option.
|
|
|
|
|
It was, you just have to tick all the boxes!
|
|
|
|
|
No comments: should be "the default case" because code should be self-explaining.
I cant blame for "Writing code that assumes a default behaviour" because thats my style
How often do you "Copy & Paste" Code? 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
KarstenK wrote: code should be self-explaining.
I don't entirely agree with that.
No matter how simple person A makes code, Person B reading it may or may not find it that way.
If you want to avoid person B saying "Why did he do that?" or "Why did he do it this way?", put comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Yepp. You got to read my comment (and all source code) precisly 
I hammered it out: "code should be self-explaining" - what does it mean 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
As per the title.
The 'No Comments' one only applies to code that is not obvious on first glance. Code that is obvious, like i++, doesn't need a comment.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
