Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I'll come out of the closet and admit that I like descriptive names. There's a point they get ludicrous, but that's also a very clear sign the concept they're representing has become confusing and unwieldy too. If you can't come up with a name that's both clear and short, maybe the function's purpose is also unclear.

After many years of maintaining large codebases written by other people, the comments are very seldom useful, and often actively misleading, thanks to code changes over time. Coders seem a lot more reluctant to change a function so it no longer does what the name implies than they are to modify code without updating the comments.

I'm with you all the way on descriptive names.

As for comments though, in my experience they can be extremely useful. And I don't mean just one liner's but a couple sentences here and there explaining what you're doing and why you're doing it.

Agree with you also though, that often a coder working with someone else's base won't take the time to do it. I think this is because we naturally take less pride in maintenance work then we do in the creation of an application.

The only comments I ever find useful are the "unprofessional" ones - things like "WTF, FooCorp are complete dicks and didn't implement the Blah spec properly, so now we have to work around their shit here". Without those kinds of comments it can be hard to understand the motivation behind broken-looking code that is actually broken by necessity.

Just aslong as they say how they have to work around the FooCorp fuck up rather than saying something like "Dunno how we did it, it just works".

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact