It should *always* be the simplest thing that could possibly work, my
experience is that the bit in doubt is often the definition of "work" in
question, especially if that definition has evolved over time.
For example, "working" could include the need to handle malformed data, or
backwards compat
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Bruce Chapman <
brucechap...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> If what we write first is "the simplist thing that might work", then I'd
> suggest comments should explain code that is not apparently the "the
> simplist thing that might work". or "comments should explain wh
If what we write first is "the simplist
thing that might work", then I'd suggest comments should explain
code that is not apparently the "the simplist thing that might
work". or "comments should explain why the simplistic thing that
might have worked, didn't"
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote:
> Though it pains me... I have to agree with you Cedric ;-)
Yeah sorry, I can't have that.
I totally reverse my position on the subject.
--
Cédric
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java
P
Though it pains me... I have to agree with you Cedric ;-) Another bug-a-boo is
intent.. the intent of the author sometimes doesn't come through in the low
level view you get from the code. I'd guess another example.. imagine using the
regular expression package without both intent and lower lev
Imagine a world where all the standard Javadoc (e.g. java.util.collections,
java.util.concurrent, etc...) were stripped out...
I don't know about others, but not a week goes by without me reading and
rereading all these Javadocs. I do this all the time. Sometimes for the
same class over and over a
On the discussion on whether comments are good or bad, I posit:
Code which is eminently understandable based solely on the name of the
method, the code, and the names of variables and parameters is always
better than code which requires comments to be easily understood, and also
better than cod
Yeah, chiming in with the me toos:
That was a great episode, guys!
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:01:39 PM UTC+2, Roger Armstrong wrote:
>
> How very refreshing to hear the Java Posse discussing Java again! There's
> plenty of Java programmers out there and there's plenty of material to
> discu
