Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
G'day,
Inspired by a comment I made in my answer to this question on commenting Perl regexps I was wondering the following.
When you are working on older, old, bloody ancient, code do you update comments that are out of sync with the code or do you just update the code and ignore the comments that are already "miles out" from the reality of the current code?
I guess basically approaching things from the "broken window" syndrome?
BWS basically says that people just say "stuff it" and don't take care to fix errors that are there if they see that people, already involved with the system in question, didn't care enough to fix these sorts of things. A totally pervasive mind set IMHO!
I'd be interested to see what other people "at the coalface" do.
cheers,
I will absolutely fix bad comments.
Sometimes it is just to delete them so that they don't mislead.
Better still, I prefer to refactor the code so the comments are not necessary - self documenting code is better than comments because it can't get out of date.
Recently I started following more of Uncle Bob's Clean Code advices and I'm trying to transform comments into functions that enclose (extract) the commented code in a function that is at least as meaningful as the comment it replaces.
I always try to update them if I can, or at the very least add a note to the effect that they might be wrong. It's a worthwhile investment of a small amount of time.
The other thing I always do is add any relevant bug numbers, and what effect those edits had - that's always useful to see further down the line.
If the comment is necessary, I'll update it, otherwise I'll attempt to change the code to the point where I can just outright delete the comment and let the code document itself.
When i find useless GhostDoc-generated comments, i sometimes just delete them:
What's the purpose of these comments?
/// <summary>
/// Saves the form properties.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="form">The form.</param>
/// <param name="propertyNames">The property names.</param>
void SaveFormProperties(Form form, string[] propertyNames);
As a fairly fresh programmer, I don't really work much on older code as much as my own, but I try to go back every once in a while to ensure my own comments are mildly close to the truth. It makes no sense to leave comments that don't properly describe the function of the code.
That said if you're in a hurry it makes no sense to waste too much time updating comments. Adding one to the effect of "This is out of date" solves the problem of retaining navigation without leaving it ambiguous as to how accurate it is.
If your documentation is being generated from the comments (I highly recommend this anyway) then yes, I keep the comments in meticulous synch with the code.
I immediately fix the comments if I see a problem, and probably note down what it would take to improve the code.
If I then get hit by a bus, the code is all the better for my quick, pointed attention.
Then, if I have time, I'll sort the code itself out (fixing it usually requires time consuming regression testing). If not, I'll leave it for another day, but at least I'll know what the problem is right away when I do have time to come back to it.
Comments are oftten really useful for telling any future maintainers or programmers either what the code is doing or why it is doing it that way.
If you change the code without updating the comments, at best it's going to be confusing, if not downright misleading.
I strive to follow the Boy Scout Rule and leave the code cleaner than I found it. I will look to update the comment or refactor the code to obviate the need for the comment. I find that it is generally better not to have a comment at all than it is to have an incorrect comment.
I would fix the comments.
Why not fix any problem you can? If you understand the code you're working on, the comments should be the easiest fixes of all. Obviously if you've taken the trouble to delve into it the code should all be left better than you found it.
I would even posit that in groups where multiple people will be touching the code the comments could be considered just as important as the code itself. Without it the communication of ideas is broken down.
In practice I probably don't comment as well as I should. It's hard to admit that you or someone else will probably be digging around in your "masterpiece" later.
I would fix the comments. I saw some answers said they would rewrite the code if the comments were out of date. It seems absurd to me to rewrite working code just because the comments are bad. That kind behavior might even get you fired if your work is important enough.
I always fix the comments - primarily because I am usually the one who works on a piece of code. It may be an OCD like thing for me, but I just like code that I am working on to look nice - good variable names, formatting (not an issue now with modern IDE's), and comments.
I don't believe code can be "refactored to the point it is self-documenting". It can be refactored to the point where only comments for functions, procedures, member variables, classes etc. are needed, because each function call is only 1-5 lines each. Coming from a Lisp background I like to program through decomposition - much simpler, testable, and easier to prove correct.
If the project is under version control (and it should be nowadays, but you never know) and there's a huge hunk of out-of-date comments, I delete the hunk and leave a new comment to the effect that I've deleted a hunk of old comments that no longer seemed illuminating, and I submit with a note that I've deleted out-of-date comments.
Eventually, I'll remove the comment that mentions the deletion, or replace it with comments that apply to the new code.
However, here's the downside to changing old, supposedly meaningless comments in a system that's being maintained by a group of programmers:
The comments aren't acting as comments anymore! They are acting as landmarks for programmers familiar with the code. They're landmark comments as opposed to explanatory comments.
Programmers may actually be searching on keywords in landmark comments to navigate the file.
If you remove landmark comments, or even change them, you may drastically slow programmers who are using them to navigate the file. You're messing with the mental maps of people who have a long relationship with the code, and you'll do more damage than good. The brain's a funny thing. It may be much easier to remember a word or phrase in a funky comment than the name of a method.
It seems to me that if the comments are dreadfully out-of-date with the code, you should learn why. It seems incredibly presumptive to assume that the other programmers don't care about the code. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. If you're taking over the files from a guy who left, and you have clear ownership, dig in! If you're the new guy amongst a bunch of guys who've been working on the code for 20 years, and there's other evidence that they do care about the code, maybe you're missing something.
This is similar to the question of reformatting--changing spacing, altering where the opening braces go, etc. And much depends on ownership. Are you going to be in a file 20 times as much as the guy next to you? Or 1/20th as often? If it's the latter, do you really want to disorient him?
So make sure that's not what you're doing, or tomorrow you may hear someone yelling, "Where the hell is that function?"
Duplicate
What are your hard rules about commenting?
A Developer I work with had some things to say about commenting that were interesting to me (see below). What is your personal approach/take on commenting?
"I don't add comments to code unless
its a simple heading or there's a
platform-bug or a necessary
work-around that isn't obvious. Code
can change and comments may become
misleading. Code should be
self-documenting in its use of
descriptive names and its logical
organization - and its solutions
should be the cleanest/simplest way
to perform a given task. If a
programmer can't tell what a program
does by only reading the code, then
he's not ready to alter it.
Commenting tends to be a crutch for
writing something complex or
non-obvious - my goal is to always
write clean and simple code."
"I think there a few camps when it
comes to commenting, the
enterprisey-type who think they're
writing an API and some grand
code-library that will be used for
generations to come, the
craftsman-like programmer that thinks
code says what it does clearer than a
comment could, and novices that write
verbose/unclear code so as to need to
leave notes to themselves as to why
they did something."
There's a tragic flaw with the "self-documenting code" theory. Yes, reading the code will tell you exactly what it is doing. However, the code is incapable of telling you what it's supposed to be doing.
I think it's safe to say that all bugs are caused when code is not doing what it's supposed to be doing :). So if we add some key comments to provide maintainers with enough information to know what a piece of code is supposed to be doing, then we have given them the ability to fix a whole lot of bugs.
That leaves us with the question of how many comments to put in. If you put in too many comments, things become tedious to maintain and the comments will inevitably be out of date with the code. If you put in too few, then they're not particularly useful.
I've found regular comments to be most useful in the following places:
1) A brief description at the top of a .h or .cpp file for a class explaining the purpose of the class. This helps give maintainers a quick overview without having to sift through all of the code.
2) A comment block before the implementation of a non-trivial function explaining the purpose of it and detailing its expected inputs, potential outputs, and any oddities to expect when calling the function. This saves future maintainers from having to decipher entire functions to figure these things out.
Other than that, I tend to comment anything that might appear confusing or odd to someone. For example: "This array is 1 based instead of 0 based because of blah blah".
Well written, well placed comments are invaluable. Bad comments are often worse than no comments. To me, lack of any comments at all indicates laziness and/or arrogance on the part of the author of the code. No matter how obvious it is to you what the code is doing or how fantastic your code is, it's a challenging task to come into a body of code cold and figure out what the heck is going on. Well done comments can make a world of difference getting someone up to speed on existing code.
I've always liked Refactoring's take on commenting:
The reason we mention comments here is that comments often are used as a deodorant. It's surprising how often you look at thickly commented code and notice that the comments are there because the code is bad.
Comments lead us to bad code that has all the rotten whiffs we've discussed in the rest of this chapter. Our first action is to remove the bad smells by refactoring. When we're finished, we often find that the comments are superfluous.
As controversial as that is, it's rings true for the code I've read. To be fair, Fowler isn't saying to never comment, but to think about the state of your code before you do.
You need documentation (in some form; not always comments) for a local understanding of the code. Code by itself tells you what it does, if you read all of it and can keep it all in mind. (More on this below.) Comments are best for informal or semiformal documentation.
Many people say comments are a code smell, replaceable by refactoring, better naming, and tests. While this is true of bad comments (which are legion), it's easy to jump to concluding it's always so, and hallelujah, no more comments. This puts all the burden of local documentation -- too much of it, I think -- on naming and tests.
Document the contract of each function and, for each type of object, what it represents and any constraints on a valid representation (technically, the abstraction function and representation invariant). Use executable, testable documentation where practical (doctests, unit tests, assertions), but also write short comments giving the gist where helpful. (Where tests take the form of examples, they're incomplete; where they're complete, precise contracts, they can be as much work to grok as the code itself.) Write top-level comments for each module and each project; these can explain conventions that keep all your other comments (and code) short. (This supports naming-as-documentation: with conventions established, and a place we can expect to find subtleties noted, we can be confident more often that the names tell all we need to know.) Longer, stylized, irritatingly redundant Javadocs have their uses, but helped generate the backlash.
(For instance, this:
Perform an n-fold frobulation.
#param n the number of times to frobulate
#param x the x-coordinate of the center of frobulation
#param y the y-coordinate of the center of frobulation
#param z the z-coordinate of the center of frobulation
could be like "Frobulate n times around the center (x,y,z)." Comments don't have to be a chore to read and write.)
I don't always do as I say here; it depends on how much I value the code and who I expect to read it. But learning how to write this way made me a better programmer even when cutting corners.
Back on the claim that we document for the sake of local understanding: what does this function do?
def is_even(n): return is_odd(n-1)
Tests if an integer is even? If is_odd() tests if an integer is odd, then yes, that works. Suppose we had this:
def is_odd(n): return is_even(n-1)
The same reasoning says this is_odd() tests if an integer is odd. Put them together, of course, and neither works, even though each works if the other does. Change it a bit and we'd have code that does work, but only for natural numbers, while still locally looking like it works for integers. In microcosm that's what understanding a codebase is like: tracing dependencies around in circles to try to reverse-engineer assumptions the author could have explained in a line or two if they'd bothered. I hate the expense of spirit thoughtless coders have put me to this way over the past couple of decades: oh, this method looks like it has the side effect of farbuttling the warpcore... always? Well, if odd crobuncles desaturate, at least; do they? Better check all the crobuncle-handling code... which will pose its own challenges to understanding. Good documentation cuts this O(n) pointer-chasing down to O(1): e.g. knowing a function's contract and the contracts of the things it explicitly uses, the function's code should make sense with no further knowledge of the system. (Here, contracts saying is_even() and is_odd() work on natural numbers would tell us that both functions need to test for n==0.)
My only real rule is that comments should explain why code is there, not what it is doing or how it is doing it. Those things can change, and if they do the comments have to be maintained. The purpose the code exists in the first place shouldn't change.
the purpose of comments is to explain the context - the reason for the code; this, the programmer cannot know from mere code inspection. For example:
strangeSingleton.MoveLeft(1.06);
badlyNamedGroup.Ignite();
who knows what the heck this is for? but with a simple comment, all is revealed:
//when under attack, sidestep and retaliate with rocket bundles
strangeSingleton.MoveLeft(1.06);
badlyNamedGroup.Ignite();
seriously, comments are for the why, not the how, unless the how is unintuitive.
While I agree that code should be self-readable, I still see a lot of value in adding extensive comment blocks for explaining design decisions. For example "I did xyz instead of the common practice of abc because of this caveot ..." with a URL to a bug report or something.
I try to look at it as: If I'm dead and gone and someone straight out of college has to fix a bug here, what are they going to need to know?
In general I see comments used to explain poorly written code. Most code can be written in a way that would make comments redundant. Having said that I find myself leaving comments in code where the semantics aren't intuitive, such as calling into an API that has strange or unexpected behavior etc...
I also generally subscribe to the self-documenting code idea, so I think your developer friend gives good advice, and I won't repeat that, but there are definitely many situations where comments are necessary.
A lot of times I think it boils down to how close the implementation is to the types of ordinary or easy abstractions that code-readers in the future are going to be comfortable with or more generally to what degree the code tells the entire story. This will result in more or fewer comments depending on the type of programming language and project.
So, for example if you were using some kind of C-style pointer arithmetic in an unsafe C# code block, you shouldn't expect C# programmers to easily switch from C# code reading (which is probably typically more declarative or at least less about lower-level pointer manipulation) to be able to understand what your unsafe code is doing.
Another example is when you need to do some work deriving or researching an algorithm or equation or something that is not going to end up in your code but will be necessary to understand if anyone needs to modify your code significantly. You should document this somewhere and having at least a reference directly in the relevant code section will help a lot.
I don't think it matters how many or how few comments your code contains. If your code contains comments, they have to maintained, just like the rest of your code.
EDIT: That sounded a bit pompous, but I think that too many people forget that even the names of the variables, or the structures we use in the code, are all simply "tags" - they only have meaning to us, because our brains see a string of characters such as customerNumber and understand that it is a customer number. And while it's true that comments lack any "enforcement" by the compiler, they aren't so far removed. They are meant to convey meaning to another person, a human programmer that is reading the text of the program.
If the code is not clear without comments, first make the code a clearer statement of intent, then only add comments as needed.
Comments have their place, but primarily for cases where the code is unavoidably subtle or complex (inherent complexity is due to the nature of the problem being solved, not due to laziness or muddled thinking on the part of the programmer).
Requiring comments and "measuring productivity" in lines-of-code can lead to junk such as:
/*****
*
* Increase the value of variable i,
* but only up to the value of variable j.
*
*****/
if (i < j) {
++i;
} else {
i = j;
}
rather than the succinct (and clear to the appropriately-skilled programmer):
i = Math.min(j, i + 1);
YMMV
The vast majority of my commnets are at the class-level and method-level, and I like to describe the higher-level view instead of just args/return value. I'm especially careful to describe any "non-linearities" in the function (limits, corner cases, etc) that could trip up the unwary.
Typically I don't comment inside a method, except to mark "FIXME" items, or very occasionally some sort of "here be monsters" gotcha that I just can't seem to clean up, but I work very hard to avoid those. As Fowler says in Refactoring, comments tend to indicate smally code.
Comments are part of code, just like functions, variables and everything else - and if changing the related functionality the comment must also be updated (just like function calls need changing if function arguments change).
In general, when programming you should do things once in one place only.
Therefore, if what code does is explained by clear naming, no comment is needed - and this is of course always the goal - it's the cleanest and simplest way.
However, if further explanation is needed, I will add a comment, prefixed with INFO, NOTE, and similar...
An INFO: comment is for general information if someone is unfamiliar with this area.
A NOTE: comment is to alert of a potential oddity, such as a strange business rule / implementation.
If I specifically don't want people touching code, I might add a WARNING: or similar prefix.
What I don't use, and am specifically opposed to, are changelog-style comments - whether inline or at the head of the file - these comments belong in the version control software, not the sourcecode!
I prefer to use "Hansel and Gretel" type comments; little notes in the code as to why I'm doing it this way, or why some other way isn't appropriate. The next person to visit this code will probably need this info, and more often than not, that person will be me.
As a contractor I know that some people maintaining my code will be unfamiliar with the advanced features of ADO.Net I am using. Where appropriate, I add a brief comment about the intent of my code and a URL to an MSDN page that explains in more detail.
I remember learning C# and reading other people's code I was often frustrated by questions like, "which of the 9 meanings of the colon character does this one mean?" If you don't know the name of the feature, how do you look it up?! (Side note: This would be a good IDE feature: I select an operator or other token in the code, right click then shows me it's language part and feature name. C# needs this, VB less so.)
As for the "I don't comment my code because it is so clear and clean" crowd, I find sometimes they overestimate how clear their very clever code is. The thought that a complex algorithm is self-explanatory to someone other than the author is wishful thinking.
And I like #17 of 26's comment (empahsis added):
... reading the code will tell you exactly
what it is doing. However, the code is
incapable of telling you what it's
supposed to be doing.
I very very rarely comment. MY theory is if you have to comment it's because you're not doing things the best way possible. Like a "work around" is the only thing I would comment. Because they often don't make sense but there is a reason you are doing it so you need to explain.
Comments are a symptom of sub-par code IMO. I'm a firm believer in self documenting code. Most of my work can be easily translated, even by a layman, because of descriptive variable names, simple form, and accurate and many methods (IOW not having methods that do 5 different things).
Comments are part of a programmers toolbox and can be used and abused alike. It's not up to you, that other programmer, or anyone really to tell you that one tool is bad overall. There are places and times for everything, including comments.
I agree with most of what's been said here though, that code should be written so clear that it is self-descriptive and thus comments aren't needed, but sometimes that conflicts with the best/optimal implementation, although that could probably be solved with an appropriately named method.
I agree with the self-documenting code theory, if I can't tell what a peice of code is doing simply by reading it then it probably needs refactoring, however there are some exceptions to this, I'll add a comment if:
I'm doing something that you don't
normally see
There are major side effects or implementation details that aren't obvious, or won't be next year
I need to remember to implement
something although I prefer an
exception in these cases.
If I'm forced to go do something else and I'm having good ideas, or a difficult time with the code, then I'll add sufficient comments to tmporarily preserve my mental state
Most of the time I find that the best comment is the function or method name I am currently coding in. All other comments (except for the reasons your friend mentioned - I agree with them) feel superfluous.
So in this instance commenting feels like overkill:
/*
* this function adds two integers
*/
int add(int x, int y)
{
// add x to y and return it
return x + y;
}
because the code is self-describing. There is no need to comment this kind of thing as the name of the function clearly indicates what it does and the return statement is pretty clear as well. You would be surprised how clear your code becomes when you break it down into tiny functions like this.
When programming in C, I'll use multi-line comments in header files to describe the API, eg parameters and return value of functions, configuration macros etc...
In source files, I'll stick to single-line comments which explain the purpose of non-self-evident pieces of code or to sub-section a function which can't be refactored to smaller ones in a sane way. Here's an example of my style of commenting in source files.
If you ever need more than a few lines of comments to explain what a given piece of code does, you should seriously consider if what you're doing can't be done in a better way...
I write comments that describe the purpose of a function or method and the results it returns in adequate detail. I don't write many inline code comments because I believe my function and variable naming to be adequate to understand what is going on.
I develop on a lot of legacy PHP systems that are absolutely terribly written. I wish the original developer would have left some type of comments in the code to describe what was going on in those systems. If you're going to write indecipherable or bad code that someone else will read eventually, you should comment it.
Also, if I am doing something a particular way that doesn't look right at first glance, but I know it is because the code in question is a workaround for a platform or something like that, then I'll comment with a WARNING comment.
Sometimes code does exactly what it needs to do, but is kind of complicated and wouldn't be immediately obvious the first time someone else looked at it. In this case, I'll add a short inline comment describing what the code is intended to do.
I also try to give methods and classes documentation headers, which is good for intellisense and auto-generated documentation. I actually have a bad habit of leaving 90% of my methods and classes undocumented. You don't have time to document things when you're in the middle of coding and everything is changing constantly. Then when you're done you don't feel like going back and finding all the new stuff and documenting it. It's probably good to go back every month or so and just write a bunch of documentation.
Here's my view (based on several years of doctoral research):
There's a huge difference between commenting functions (sort of a black box use, like JavaDocs), and commenting actual code for someone who will read the code ("internal commenting").
Most "well written" code shouldn't require much "internal commenting" because if it performs a lot then it should be broken into enough function calls. The functionality for each of these calls is then captured in the function name and in the function comments.
Now, function comments are indeed the problem, and in some ways your friend is right, that for most code there is no economical incentive for complete specifications the way that popular APIs are documented. The important thing here is to identify what are the "directives": directives are those information pieces that directly affect clients, and require some direct action (and are often unexpected). For example, X must be invoked before Y, don't call this from outside a UI thread, be aware that this has a certain side effect, etc. These are the things that are really important to capture.
Since most people never read full function documentations, and skim what they do read, you can actually increase the chances of awareness by capturing only the directives rather than the whole description.
I comment as much as needed - then, as much as I will need it a year later.
We add comments which provide the API reference documentation for all public classes / methods / properties / etc... This is well worth the effort because XML Documentation in C# has the nice effect of providing IntelliSense to users of these public APIs. .NET 4.0's code contracts will enable us to improve further on this practice.
As a general rule, we do not document internal implementations as we write code unless we are doing something non-obvious. The theory is that while we are writing new implementations, things are changing and comments are more likely than not to be wrong when the dust settles.
When we go back in to work on an existing piece of code, we add comments when we realize that it's taking some thought to figure out what in the heck is going on. This way, we wind up with comments where they are more likely to be correct (because the code is more stable) and where they are more likely to be useful (if I'm coming back to a piece of code today, it seems more likely that I might come back to it again tomorrow).
My approach:
Comments bridge the gap between context / real world and code. Therefore, each and every single line is commented, in correct English language.
I DO reject code that doesn't observe this rule in the strictest possible sense.
Usage of well formatted XML - comments is self-evident.
Sloppy commenting means sloppy code!
Here's how I wrote code:
if (hotel.isFull()) {
print("We're fully booked");
} else {
Guest guest = promptGuest();
hotel.checkIn(guest);
}
here's a few comments that I might write for that code:
// if hotel is full, refuse checkin, otherwise
// prompt the user for the guest info, and check in the guest.
If your code reads like a prose, there is no sense in writing comments that simply repeats what the code reads since the mental processing needed for reading the code and the comments would be almost equal; and if you read the comments first, you will still need to read the code as well.
On the other hand, there are situations where it is impossible or extremely difficult to make the code looks like a prose; that's where comment could patch in.
Let's say you've inherited a C# codebase that uses one class with 200 static methods to provide core functionality (such as database lookups). Of the many nightmares in that class, there's copious use of Hungarian notation (the bad kind).
Would you refactor the variable names to remove the Hungarian notation, or would you leave them alone?
If you chose to change all the variables to remove Hungarian notation, what would be your method?
Refactor -- I find Hungarian notation on that scale really interferes with the natural readability of the code, and the exercise is a good way of getting familiar with what's there.
However, if there are other team members who know the code base you would need consensus on the refactoring, and if any of the variables are exposed outside of the one project then you will have to leave them alone.
Just leave it alone. There are better uses of your time.
Right click on the variable name, Refactor -> Rename.
There are VS add-ins that do this as well, but the built-in method works fine for me.
What would I do? Assuming that I just have to maintain the code and not rewrite it any significant way? Leave it well alone. And When I do add code, go with the existing style, meaning, use that ugly Hungarian notation (as dirty as that makes me feel.)
But, hey, if you really have a hankerin' fer refactorin' then just do a little at a time. Every time you work on it spend ten minutes renaming variables. Tidying things up a little. After a few months you might find it's clean as a whistle....
Don't forget that there are two kinds of Hungarian Notation.
The original Charles Simonyi HN, later known as App's Hungarian and the later abomination called System Hungarian after some peckerhead (it's a technical term) totally misread Simonyi's original paper.
Unfortunately, System HN was propagated by Petzold and others to become the more dominant abortion that it is rightfully recognised as today.
Read Joel's excellent article about the intent of the original Apps Hungarian Notation and be sorry for what got lost in the rush.
If what you've got is App's Hungarian you will probably want to keep it after reading both the original Charles Simonyi article and the Joel article.
If you've landed in a steaming pile of System Hungarian?
All bets are off!
Whew! (said while holding nose) (-:
if you're feeling lucky and just want the Hungarian to go away, isolate the Hungarian prefixes that are used and try a search and replace in file to replace them with nothing, then do a clean and rebuild. If the number of errors is small, just fix it. If the number of errors is huge, go back and break it up into logical (by domain) classes first, then rename individually (the IDE will help)
I used to use it religiously back in the VB6 days, but stopped when VB.NET came out because that's what the new VB guidelines said. Other developers didn't. So, we’ve got a lot of old code with it. When I do maintenance on code I remove the notation from the functions/methods/sub I touch. I wouldn't remove it all at once unless you've got really good unit tests for everything and can run them to prove that nothing's broken.
How much are you going to break by doing this? That's an important question to ask yourself. If there are a lot of other pieces of code that use that library, then you might just be creating work for folks (maybe you) by going through the renaming exercise.
I'd put it on the list of things to do when refactoring. At least then everyone expects you to be breaking the library (temporarily).
That said, I totally get frustrated with poorly named methods and variables, so I can relate.
I wouldn't make a project out of it. I'd use the refactoring tools in VS (actually, I'd use Resharper's, but VS's work just fine) and fix all the variables in any method I was called upon to modify. Or if I had to make larger-scale changes, I'd refactor the variable names in any method I was called upon to understand.
If you have a legitimate need to remove and change it I would use either the built in refactoring tools, or something like Resharper.
However, I would agree with Chris Conway to a certain standpoint and ask you WHY, yes, it is annoying, but at the same time, a lot of the time the "if it aint't broke done't fix it" method is really the best way to go!
Only change it when you directly use it. And make sure you have a testbench ready to apply to ensure it still works.
I agree that the best way to phase out hungarian notation is to refactor code as you modify it. The greatest benefit of doing this kind of refactoring is that you should be writing unit tests around the code you're modifying so that you have a safety net instead of crossing your fingers and hoping that you don't break existing functionality. Once you have these unit tests in place, you are free to change the code to your heart's content.
I'd say a bigger problem is that you have a single class with 200(!) methods!
If this is a much depended on / much changed class then it might be worth refactoring to make it more usable.
In this, Resharper is an absolute must (you could use the built in refactoring stuff, but Resharper is way better).
Start finding a group of related methods, and then refactor these out into a nice small cohesive class. Update to conform to your latest code standards.
Compile & run your test suite.
Have energy for more? Extract another class.
Worn out - no trouble; come back and do some more tomorrow. In just a few days you'll have conquered the beast.
I agree with #Booji -- do it manually, on a per-routine basis when you're already visiting the code for some other good reason. Then, you'll get the most common ones out of the way, and who cares about the rest.
I was thinking of asking a similar question, only in my case, the offending code is my own. I have a very old habit of using "the bad kind" of Hungarian from my FoxPro days (which had weak typing and unusual scoping) — a habit I've only recently kicked.
It's hard — it means accepting an inconsistent style in your code base. It was only a week ago I finally said "screw it" and began a parameter name without the letter "p". The cognitive dissonance I initially felt has given way to a feeling of liberty. The world did not come to an end.
The way I've been going about this problem is changing one variable at a time as I come across them, then perform more sweeping changes when you come back to do more in-depth changes. If you're anything like me, the different nomenclature of your variables will drive you bat-shiat crazy for a while, but you'll slowly become used to it. The key is to chip away at it a little bit at a time until you have everything to where it needs to be.
Alternatively, you could jettison your variables altogether and just have every function return 42.
It sounds to me like the bigger problem is that 200-method God Object class. I'd suggest that refactoring just to remove the Hungarian notation is a low-value, high-risk activity in of itself. Unless there's a copious set of automated unit tests around that class to give you some confidence in your refactoring, I think you should leave it well and truly alone.
I guess it's unlikely that such a set of tests exists, because a developer following TDD practices would (hopefully) have naturally avoided building a god object in the first place - it would be very difficult to write comprehensive tests for.
Eliminating the god object and getting a unit test base in place is of higher value, however. My advice would be to look for opportunities to refactor the class itself - perhaps when a suitable business requirement/change comes along that necessitates a change to that code (and thus hopefully comes with some system & regression testing bought and paid for). You might not be able to justify the effort of refactoring the whole thing in one go, but you can do it piece by piece as the opportunity comes along, and test-drive the changes. In this way you can slowly convert the spaghetti code into a cleaner code base with comprehensive unit tests, bit by bit.
And you can eliminate the Hungarian as you go, if you like.
I am actually doing the same thing here for an application extension. My approach has been to use VIM mappings to search for specific Hungarian notation prefixes and then delete them and fix capitalization as appropriate.
Examples (goes in vimrc):
"" Hungarian notation conversion helpers
"" get rid of str prefixes and fix caps e.g. strName -> name
map ,bs /\Wstr[A-Z]^Ml3x~
map ,bi /\Wint[A-Z]^Ml3x~
"" little more complex to clean up m_p type class variables
map ,bm /\Wm_p\?[A-Z]^M:.s/\(\W\)m_p\?/\1_/^M/\W_[A-Z]^Mll~
map ,bp /\Wp[A-Z]^Mlx~
If you're gonna break code just for the sake of refactoring, I would seriously consider leaving i alone, specially, if you are going to affect other people in your team who may be depending on that code.
If your team is OK with this refactoring, and investing your time in doing this (which may be a time-saver in the future, if it means the code is more readable/maintainable), use Visual Studio (or whatever IDE you are using) to help you refactor the code.
However, if a big change like this is not a risk your team/boss is willing to take, I would suggest a somewhat unorthodox, half-way approach. Instead of doing all your refactoring in a single sweep, why not refactor sections of code (more specifically, functions) that need to be touched during normal maintenance? Over time, this slow refactoring will bring the code up to a cleaner state, at which point you can finish the refactoring process with a final sweep.
Use this java tool to remove HN:
Or just use "replace"/"replace all" with regex like below to replace "c_strX" to "x":
I love Hungarian notation. Don't understand why you would want to get rid of it.
I just refactored some code that was in a different section of the class I was working on because it was a series of nested conditional operators (?:) that was made a ton clearer by a fairly simple switch statement (C#).
When will you touch code that isn't directly what you are working on to make it more clear?
I once was refactoring and came across something like this code:
string strMyString;
try
{
strMyString = Session["MySessionVar"].ToString();
}
catch
{
strMyString = "";
}
Resharper pointed out that the .ToString() was redundant, so I took it out. Unfortunately, that ended up breaking the code. Whenever MySessionVar was null, it wasn't causing the NullReferenceException that the code relied on to bump it down to the catch block. I know, this was some sad code. But I did learn a good lesson from it. Don't rapidly go through old code relying on a tool to help you do the refactoring - think it through yourself.
I did end up refactoring it as follows:
string strMyString = Session["MySessionVar"] ?? "";
Update: Since this post is being upvoted and technically doesn't contain an answer to the question, I figured I should actually answer the question. (Ok, it was bothering me to the point that I was actually dreaming about it.)
Personally I ask myself a few questions before refactoring.
1) Is the system under source control? If so, go ahead and refactor because you can always roll back if something breaks.
2) Do unit tests exist for the functionality I am altering? If so, great! Refactor. The danger here is that the existence of unit tests don't indicate the accuracy and scope of said unit tests. Good unit tests should pick up any breaking changes.
3) Do I thoroughly understand the code I am refactoring? If there's no source control and no tests and I don't really understand the code I am changing, that's a red flag. I'd need to get more comfortable with the code before refactoring.
In case #3 I would probably spend the time to actually track all of the code that is currently using the method I am refactoring. Depending on the scope of the code this could be easy or impossible (ie. if it's a public API). If it comes down to being a public API then you really need to understand the original intent of the code from a business perspective.
I only refactor it if tests are already in place. If not, it's usually not worth my time to write tests for and refactor presumably working code.
This is a small, minor antipattern but it so irritates me that whenever I find it, I expunge it immediately. In C (or C++ or Java)
if (p)
return true;
else
return false;
becomes
return p;
In Scheme,
(if p #t #f)
becomes
p
and in ML
if p then true else false
becomes
p
I see this antipattern almost exclusively in code written by undergraduate students. I am definitely not making this up!!
Whenever I come across it and I don't think changing it will cause problems (e.g. I can understand it enough that I know what it does. e.g. the level of voodoo is low).
I only bother to change it if there is some other reason I'm modifying the code.
How far I'm willing to take it depends on how confident I am that I won't break anything and how extensive my own changes to the code are going to be.
This is a great situation to show off the benefits of unit tests.
If unit tests are in place, developers can bravely and aggressively refactor oddly written code they might come across. If it passes the unit tests and you've increased readability, then you've done your good deed for the day and can move on.
Without unit tests, simplifying complex code that's filled with voodoo presents a great risk of breaking the code and not even knowing you've introduced a new bug! So most developers will take the cautious route and move on.
For simple refactoring I try to clean up deeply nested control structures and really long functions (more than one screen worth of text). However its not a great idea to refactor code without a good reason (especially in a big team of developers). In general, unless the refactoring will make a big improvement in the code or fix an egregious sin I try to leave well enough alone.
Not refactoring per-say but just as a matter of general housekeeping I generally do this stuff when I start work on a module:
Remove stupid comments
Comments that say nothing more than the function signature already says
Comments that are pure idiocy like "just what it looks like"
Changelogs at the top of the file (we have version control for a reason)
Any API docs that are clearly out-of-sync with the code
Remove commented-out chunks of code
Add version control tags like $Id$ if they are missing
Fix whitespace issues (this can be annoying to others though because your name shows up for a lot of lines in a diff even if all you did was change whitespace)
Remove whitespace at the end of the lines
Change tabs->spaces (for that is our convention where I work)
If the refactor makes the code much easier to read, the most common for me would be duplicate code, e.g. an if/else that only differs by the first/last commands.
if($something) {
load_data($something);
} else {
load_data($something);
echo "Loaded";
do_something_else();
}
More than (arguably) three or four lines of duplicate code always makes me think about refactoring. Also, I tend to move code around a lot, extracting the code I predict to be used more frequently into a separate place - a class with its own well-defined purpose and responsibilites, or a static method of a static class (usually placed in my Utils.* namespace).
But, to answer your question, yes, there are lot of cases when making the code shorter does not necessarily mean making it well structued and readable. Using the ?? operator in C# is another example. What you also have to think about are the new features in your language of choice - e.g. LINQ can be used to do some stuff in a very elegant manner but also can make a very simple thing very unreadable and overly complex. You need to weigh these two thing very carefully, in the end it all boils down to your personal taste and, mostly, experience.
Well, this is another "it depends" answer, but I am afraid it has to be.
I almost always break >2 similar conditionals into a switch... most often with regards to enums. I will short a return instead of a long statement.
ex:
if (condition) {
//lots of code
//returns value
} else {
return null;
}
becomes:
if (!condition)
return null;
//lots of code..
//return value
breaking out early reduces extra indents, and reduces long bits of code... also as a general rule I don't like methods with more than 10-15 lines of code. I like methods to have a singular purpose, even if creating more private methods internally.
Usually I don't refactor the code if I'm just browsing it, not actively working on it.
But sometimes ReSharper points out some stuff I just can't resist to Alt+Enter. :)
I tend to refactor very long functions and methods if I understand the set of inputs and outputs to a block.
This helps readability no end.
I would only refactor the code that I come across and am not actively working on after going through the following steps:
Speak with the author of the code (not always possible) to figure out what that piece of code does. Even if it is obvious to me as to what the piece of code is doing, it always helps to understand the rationale behind why the author may have decided to do something in a certain way. Spending a couple of minutes talking about it would not only help the original author understand your point of view, it also builds trust within the team.
Know or find out what that piece of code is doing in order to test it after re-factoring (A build process with unit tests is very helpful here. It makes the whole thing quick and easy). Run the unit tests before and after the change and ensure nothing is breaking due to your changes.
Send out a heads up to the team (if working with others) and let them know of the upcoming change so nobody is surprised when the change actually occurs
Refactoring for the sake of it is one of the roots of all evil. Please don't ever do it. (Unit tests do somewhat mitigate this).
Is vast swaths of commented out code an antipattern? While not code specifically, (it's comments) I see a lot of this kind of behaviour with people who don't understand how to use source control, and who want to keep the old code around for later so they can more easily go back if a bug was introduced. Whenever I see vast swaths of code that are commented out, I almost always remove them in their entirety.
I try to refactor based on following factors:
Do I understand enough to know whats happening?
Can I easily revert back if this change breaks the code.
Will I have enough time to revert the change back if it breaks the build.
And sometimes, if I have enough time, I refactor to learn. As in, I know my change may break the code, but I dont know where and how. So I change it anyways to find out where its breaking and why. That way I learn more about the code.
My domain has been mobile software (cell phones) where most of the code resides on my PC and wont impact others. Since I also maintain the CI build system for my company I can run a complete product build (for all phones) on the refactored code to ensure it doesnt break anything else. But thats my personal luxury which you may not have.
I tend to refactor global constants and enumerations quite a bit if they can be deemed a low refactor risk. Maybe it's just be, but something like a ClientAccountStatus enum should be in or close to the ClientAccount class rather than being in a GlobalConstAndEnum class.
Deletion/updating of comments which are clearly wrong or clearly pointless.
Removing them is:
safe
version control means you can find them again
improves the quality of the code to others and yourself
It is about the only 100% risk free refactoring I know.
Note that doing this in structured comments like javadoc comments is a different matter. Changing these is not risk free, as such they are very likely to be fixed/removed but not dead certain guaranteed fixes as standard incorrect code comments would be.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 5 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Is it a good practice to comment code that is removed? For example:
// Code to do {task} was removed by Ajahn on 10/10/08 because {reason}.
Someone in my developer group during a peer review made a note that we should comment the lines of code to be removed. I thought this was a terrible suggestion, since it clutters the code with useless comments. Which one of us is right?
Generally, code that is removed should not be commented, precisely because it clutters the codebase (and, why would one comment on something that doesn't exist?).
Your defect tracking system or source control management tools are where such comments belong.
There are some (rare) situations when commenting code out (instead of deleting) is a good idea. Here's one.
I had a line of code that seemed good and necessary. Later I realized that it is unnecessary and harmful. Instead of deleting the line, I commented it out, adding another comment: "The line below is wrong for such and such reason". Why?
Because I am sure next reader of the code will first think that not having this line is an error and will try to add it back. (Even if the reader is me two years from now.) I don't expect him to consult source control first. I need to add comment to warn him of this tricky situation; and having wrong line and the reason why it is wrong happened to be the best way to do so.
I agree that it is not a good idea to leave code removed in comments.
Code history should be viewed through a version control system, which is where old code can be found, as well as the reason it was removed.
You should delete the code always.
As for being able to see old/removed code, that's what revision control is.
Depends on the reason for removal.
I think of comments as hints for people maintaining the code in the future, if the information that the code was there but was removed can be helpful to someone maintaining the code (maybe as a "don't do that" sign) then it should be there.
Otherwise adding detailed comments with names and dates on every code change just make the whole thing unreadable.
I think it's pretty useless and make the code less readable. Just think what it will be like after some monthes....
// removed because of this and that
/*
removed this stuff because my left leg...
*/
doSomething();
// this piece of has been removed, we don't need it...
You'll spend half an hour to find out what's going on
The question is, why do you remove code?
Is it useless? Was it a mistake to put it there in the first place?
No comments needed from my point of view.
It's useful when debugging, but there's no reason to check in code that way. The whole point of source control is being able to recover old versions without cluttering up the code with commented-out code.
I would suggest that, yes it's good practice to comment on code that has been removed but not in the code itself.
To further clarify this position, you should be using a source code control system (SCCS) that allows some form of check-in comment. That is where you should place the comments about why code was removed. The SCCS will provide the full contextual history of what has happened to the code, including what has been removed. By adding check-in comments you further clarify that history.
Adding comments in the code directly simply leads to clutter.
The recent consensus (from other discussions on here) is that the code should just be removed.
I personally will comment out code and tag it with a date or a reason. If it's old/stale and I'm passing through the file, then I strip it out. Version control makes going back easy, but not as easy as uncommenting...
It sounds like you are trying to get around versioning your code. In theory, it sounds like a great idea, but in practice it can get very confusing very quickly.
I highly recommend commenting code out for debugging or running other tests, but after the final decision has been made remove it from the file completely!
Get a good versioning system in place and I think you'll find that the practice of commenting out changes is messy.
Nobody here has written much about why you shouldn't leave commented-out code, other than that it looks messy. I think the biggest reason is that the code is likely to stop working. Nobody's compiling it. Nobody's running it through unit tests. When people refactor the rest of the code, they're not refactoring it. So pretty soon, it's going to become useless. Or worse than useless -- someone might uncomment it, blindly trusting that it works.
There are times when I'll comment out code, if we're still doing heavy design/development on a project. At this stage, I'm usually trying out several different designs, looking for the right approach. And sometimes the right approach is one I had already attempted earlier. So it's nice if that code isn't lost in the depths of source control. But once the design has been settled, I'll get rid of the old code.
In general I tend to comment very sparsely. I believe good code should be easy to read without much commenting.
I also version my code. I suppose I could do diffs over the last twenty checkins to see if a particular line has changed for a particular reason. But that would be a huge waste of my time for most changes.
So I try comment my code smartly. If some code is being deleted for a fairly obvious reason, I won't bother to comment the deletion. But if a piece of code is being deleted for a subtle reason (for example it performed a function that is now being handled by a different thread) I will comment-out or delete the code and add a banner comment why:
// this is now handled by the heartbeat thread
// m_data.resort(m_ascending);
Or:
// don't re-sort here, as it is now handled by the heartbeat thread
Just last month, I encountered a piece of code that I had changed a year ago to fix a particular issue, but didn't add a comment explaining why. Here is the original code:
cutoff = m_previous_cutofftime;
And here is the code as it was initially fixed to use a correct cutoff time when resuming an interrupted state:
cutoff = (!ok_during) ? m_previous_cutofftime : 0;
Of course another unrelated issue came up, which happened to touch the same line of code, in this case reverting it back to its original state. So the new issue was now fixed, but the old issue suddenly became rebroken. D'oh!
So now the checked-in code looks like this:
// this works for overlong events but not resuming
// cutoff = m_previous_cutofftime;
// this works for resuming but not overlong events
// cutoff = (!ok_during) ? m_previous_cutofftime : 0;
// this works for both
cutoff = (!resuming || !ok_during) ? m_previous_cutofftime : 0;
Of course, YMMV.
As the lone dissenting voice, I will say that there is a place for commenting out code in special circumstances. Sometimes, you'll have data that continues to exist that was run through that old code and the clearest thing to do is to leave that old code in with source. In such a case I'd probably leave little note indicating why the old code was simply commented out. Any programmers coming along after would be able to understand the still extant data, without having to psychically detect the need to check old versions.
Usually though, I find commented out code completely odious and I often delete it when I come across it.
If you are removing code. You should not comment it that you removed it. This is the entire purpose of source control (You are using source control? Right?), and as you state the comment just clutters up the code.
I agree that it's a terrible suggestion. That's why you have Source Control that has revisions. If you need to go back and see what was changed between two revisions, diff the two revisions.
I hate seeing code that's cluttered with commented out code. Delete the code and write a commit message that says why it was removed. You do use source control, don't you?
Don't litter active code with dead code.
I'll add my voice to the consensus: put the comments on why code was deleted in the source control repository, not in the code.
This is one of those "broken" windows thinkgs like compiler hints/warnings left unaddressed. it will hurt you one day and it promotes sloppiness in the team.
The check in comment in version control can track what/why this code was removed - if the developer didnt leave a note, track them down and throttle them.
A little anecdote, for fun: I was in a company, some years ago, knowing nothing of source code version control (they got such tool later...).
So they had a rule, in our C sources: "when you make a change, disable the old code with preprocessor macros":
#ifdef OLD /* PL - 11/10/1989 */
void Buggy()
{
// ...
}
#else
void Good()
{
// ...
}
#end
No need to say, our sources quickly became unreadable! It was a nightmare to maintain...
That's why I added to SciTE the capacity to jump between nested #ifdef / #else / #end and such... It can be still useful in more regular cases.
Later, I wrote a Visual Studio macro to happily get rid of old code, once we got our VCS!
Now, like buti-oxa, sometime I felt the need to indicate why I removed some code. For the same reason, or because I remove old code which I feel is no longer needed, but I am not too sure (legacy, legacy...). Obviously not in all cases!
I don't leave such comment, actually, but I can understand the need.
At worse, I would comment out in one version, and remove everything in the next version...
At my current work, for important local changes, we leave the old code but can reactivate it by properties, in case of emergency. After testing it some time in production, we eventually remove the old code.
Of course, VCS comments are the best option, but when the change is a few lines in a big file with other changes, referencing the little removal can be hard...
If you are in the middle of major changes, and need to make a fix to existing functionality, commenting out the future code is a reasonable thing to do, provided you remark that this is future functionality, at least until we have futures friendly source control systems.
I comment unnused code because you never know when will you have to fallback on the ancient code, and maybe the old code will help other people to understand it, if it was simpler back then.
I agree with you Andrew; IMO this is why you use version control. With good checkin/commit comments and a diff tool you can always find out why lines were removed.
If you are using any form of Source Control then this approach is somewhat redundant (as long as descriptive log messages are used)
I also think it's a terrible suggestion :)
You should use source control and if you remove some code you can add a comment when you commit. So you still have the code history if you want...
There's a general "clean code" practice that says that one should never keep removed code around as commented out since it clutters and since your CVS/SVN would archive it anyway.
While I do agree with the principle I do not think that it is an acceptable approach for all development situations. In my experience very few people keep track of all the changes in the code and every check-in. as a result, if there is no commented out code, they may never be aware that it has ever existed.
Commenting code out like that could be a way of offering a general warning that it is about to be removed, but of course, there are no guarantees that interested parties would ever see that warning (though if they frequently work with that file, they will see it).
I personally believe that the correct approach is to factor that code out to another private method, and then contact relevant stakeholders and notify them of the pending removal before actually getting rid of the function.
Where I am at we comment out old code for one release cycle and then remove the comments after that. (It gives us quick fix ability if some of the new code is problematic and needs to be replaced with the old code.)
In almost all cases old code should of course be removed and tracked in your RCS.
Like all things though, I think that making the statement 'All deleted code will ALWAYS be removed' is an incorrect approach.
The old code might want to be left in for a miriad of reasons. The prime reason to leave the code in is when you want any developer who is working in that section of code in the future to see the old code.
Relying on source tracking obviously does not give this.
So, I believe the correct answer is:
-Delete old code unless leaving it in provides crucial information that the next developer in the code would require. Ie, remove it 99% of the time but don't make a draconian rule that would remove your ability to provide much needed documentation to the next developer when circumstances warrant it.