13,345,954 members (58,831 online)
alternative version

Stats

11K views
8 bookmarked
Posted 30 May 2013

, 30 May 2013
 Rate this:

Background

I'm not sure when I stopped providing large amounts of commentary within computer programs. It was probably when I started programming in Pascal (having been programming in FORTRAN). I'm sure that the change in style came about as a result of the change in acceptable identifier name lengths. In those days (1978), FORTRAN allowed only six characters for identifier names while Pascal allowed 32. Thus the need to explain the sense of a variable diminished.

Introduction

I believe that the suggestion that computer software be extensively commented flies in the face of good programming practice. This note discusses some of the issues surrounding my gradual adoption of minimalist commentary.

The following forms of comments should be reconsidered in light of these guidelines.

Comments that should be Variable Names [^]

One type of comment that I have found is what I refer to as comments that should be variable names. Consider the following fragment (from a Pascal textbook that I was forced to use while teaching programming at Chapman University):

```CONST
max = 100;            { maximum test score }
```

How can this code be improved? I suggest that the constant be named maximum_test_score. Thus later in the source code, where the constant is referenced, rather than finding the somewhat cryptic max, we would find maximum_test_score. The improvement in readability is enormous.

Consider the following fragment:

```                        /* compute the average of
the n observations */
a = 0.0F ;
if ( n )
{
s = 0 ;
for ( i = 0; ( i < n ); i++ )
{
s += v [ i ] ;
}
a = ( float ) s / ( float ) n ;
}
/* now compute the average
arrival time */
:
:
```

What's wrong with this code? I argue that the comments are not necessary if the variables were well named. By "well named," I mean that the variable names are drawn from the functional domain of the problem area. Thus, if the average is of ship speeds, then the code could take the following form.

```average_ship_speed = 0.0F ;
if ( number_of_ships )
{
sum = 0 ;
for ( i = 0; ( i < number_of_ships ); i++ )
{
sum += speeds [ i ] ;
}
average_ship_speed = ( float ) sum /
( float ) number_of_ships ;
}
:
:
```

Another problem with the comments in this example is their form. Within the statement body of the source code, I argue that only inline comments should be used. Suppose that the last line of the first comment was accidentally deleted. Now, without warning, the compiler will ignore all of the source code between the comment lines

```/* compute the average of
arrival time */
```

```// compute the average of
// the n observations

// now compute the average
// arrival time
```

and the last line of the first comment was accidentally deleted, no serious effect (other than loss of readability) occurs. A maintenance programmer would most likely find the error more quickly.

Of all comment forms misuse, the one that is most dangerous is a comment that is wrong. Consider the following fragment (from another Pascal textbook):

```{ compute sum of values 14 to 741 }
FOR i := 741 DOWNTO 17 DO BEGIN
sum := sum + value [ i ] ;
END ;
```

This is a case of the comment being just plain wrong! Rather than compute up from 14 to 741, the computation is from 741 down to 17. Needless to say confusion will arise when a maintenance programmer finds this comment. There are four options available:

• Ignore the comment entirely.
• Remove the comment.
• Change the comment to reflect what the code actually does.
• Change the code to reflect what the comment says.

I don’t like any of these choices. The comment could have been removed and the error avoided had the original author not used literal constants in the code. Assuming that the values 741 and 17 have some special meaning in the problem domain, two constants with descriptive names should have been declared. Then those constants should have been used in the source code.

```CONST
FIRST_SHIPMENT = 17 ;
LAST_SHIPMENT = 741 ;

FOR i := LAST_SHIPMENT DOWNTO FIRST_SHIPMENT DO BEGIN
sum := sum + shipment [ i ] ;
END ;
```

Another source of commentary problem occurs when a comment remains after the source code to which it referred has either been moved or deleted. Again, confusion will arise when a maintenance programmer finds the comment. The solution to this problem is simply use only inline comments in statement bodies.

Recommended Guidelines [^]

In writing software, I use the following guidelines:

• Use descriptive identifier names, drawn from the functional area of the problem domain. To the extent possible, use no abbreviations.
• Never use literals (other than 0, 1, or 2) in source code. Use constants in their place.
• Minimize the use of comments. If a block comment is needed, use the inline comment form.

History [^]

 05/30/2013 Original Article

Share

 Software Developer (Senior) United States
I started programming more than 42 years ago using AutoCoder and RPG (note no suffixing numbers). Programs and data were entered using punched cards. Turnaround between submitting a job for compilation and execution was about 3 hours. So much for the "good old days!" Today, I particularly enjoy programming real-time software. I consider myself capable in WinForms, Mobile Apps, and C# although there are occasions that I yearn to return to C and the Win32 API.

You may also be interested in...

 First Prev Next
 My vote of 4 Dr. Jones DK4-Jun-13 10:58 Dr. Jones DK 4-Jun-13 10:58
 Re: My vote of 4 gggustafson10-Jun-13 5:57 gggustafson 10-Jun-13 5:57
 My vote of 5 Dave Cross3-Jun-13 23:07 Dave Cross 3-Jun-13 23:07
 Re: My vote of 5 gggustafson4-Jun-13 4:40 gggustafson 4-Jun-13 4:40
 My vote of 4 HeWillem3-Jun-13 21:12 HeWillem 3-Jun-13 21:12
 Re: My vote of 4 gggustafson4-Jun-13 4:37 gggustafson 4-Jun-13 4:37
 Re: My vote of 4 HeWillem4-Jun-13 6:18 HeWillem 4-Jun-13 6:18
 Re: My vote of 4 gggustafson10-Jun-13 7:20 gggustafson 10-Jun-13 7:20
 Good article. Paul Clift30-May-13 22:59 Paul Clift 30-May-13 22:59
 Re: Good article. gggustafson31-May-13 5:21 gggustafson 31-May-13 5:21
 My vote of 5 GregoryW30-May-13 21:12 GregoryW 30-May-13 21:12
 Re: My vote of 5 gggustafson31-May-13 5:19 gggustafson 31-May-13 5:19
 Re: My vote of 5 GregoryW31-May-13 6:25 GregoryW 31-May-13 6:25
 Re: My vote of 5 gggustafson31-May-13 9:23 gggustafson 31-May-13 9:23
 I agree with caveats Nic_Roche30-May-13 13:33 Nic_Roche 30-May-13 13:33
 Re: I agree with caveats gggustafson31-May-13 5:02 gggustafson 31-May-13 5:02
 Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 19:00     Last Update: 17-Jan-18 5:38 Refresh 1