Comments should explain "why", the code already explains "what".
The allowable exception is when the what is a what the fuck, as in you had to use a hack so horrible that it requires an apology comment
Absolutely, although I see that as part of why
Why is there a horrible hack here?
Because stupid reason...
Or if the what is so cryptic and esoteric that it would require the reader a couple hours of research to understand it.
Also, I find it useful to summarise the what before code blocks if that can't be summarised in a function name
Describing the what also helps when you dabble in a new technology or little-used technology. It helps to explain to yourself what you’re doing and it helps in onboarding. “Hey, newbie, there’s a function in XYZ module that’s extensively documented. Look there for guidance.”
Inline comments yes.
Function/Class/Module doc comments should absolutely explain "what".
You are absolutely right. It was inline comments I had in mind.
I don't code, at best I script. I'm a sysadmin, not a dev, so I play around in PowerShell mostly.
I just started to naturally do all of this. Not because I was taught to, but because I've written too many scripts that I later looked at, and thought, WTF is going on here.... Who tf wrote this? (Of course it was me)...
So instead of confusing my future self, I started putting in comments. One at the beginning to describe what the file name can't, and inline comments to step me through what's happening, and more importantly why I did what I did.
The sheer number of comments can sometimes double the number of lines in my script, but later when I'm staring into the abyss of what I wrote, I appreciate me.
I agree.
I usually think of that as documentation, not comments.
But even so, the code should say what it does, with a good name. The documentation adds details.
Unless you're working with people who are too smart, then sometimes the code only explains the how. Why did the log processor have thousands of lines about Hilbert Curves? I never could figure it out even after talking with the person that wrote it.
"Smart"
If you know how the code does something, you also know what it does.
Comments should explain "why", the code already explains "what".
The allowable exception is when the what is a what the fuck, as in you had to use a hack so horrible that it requires an apology comment
Absolutely, although I see that as part of why
Why is there a horrible hack here? Because stupid reason...
Or if the what is so cryptic and esoteric that it would require the reader a couple hours of research to understand it.
Also, I find it useful to summarise the what before code blocks if that can't be summarised in a function name
Describing the what also helps when you dabble in a new technology or little-used technology. It helps to explain to yourself what you’re doing and it helps in onboarding. “Hey, newbie, there’s a function in XYZ module that’s extensively documented. Look there for guidance.”
Inline comments yes.
Function/Class/Module doc comments should absolutely explain "what".
You are absolutely right. It was inline comments I had in mind.
I don't code, at best I script. I'm a sysadmin, not a dev, so I play around in PowerShell mostly.
I just started to naturally do all of this. Not because I was taught to, but because I've written too many scripts that I later looked at, and thought, WTF is going on here.... Who tf wrote this? (Of course it was me)...
So instead of confusing my future self, I started putting in comments. One at the beginning to describe what the file name can't, and inline comments to step me through what's happening, and more importantly why I did what I did.
The sheer number of comments can sometimes double the number of lines in my script, but later when I'm staring into the abyss of what I wrote, I appreciate me.
I agree.
I usually think of that as documentation, not comments.
But even so, the code should say what it does, with a good name. The documentation adds details.
Unless you're working with people who are too smart, then sometimes the code only explains the how. Why did the log processor have thousands of lines about Hilbert Curves? I never could figure it out even after talking with the person that wrote it.
"Smart"
If you know how the code does something, you also know what it does.