I'm in the process of translating a Open Source project from Chinese to English, and I've used i18n (in this case babel) to separate the code from both English and Chinese translations.
Everything's done, except for a rather large number of inline comments in the code.
Obviously, babel can't translate comments inline (and it would be rather obnoxious if it did, anyway. Since code would not be unique across languages and therefore less easily verifiable.)
The way I see it, there are a number of options:
Leave comments in -
Pro: Helps original author, etc.
Con: Makes it distracting for ongoing translation and anyone who doesn't speak the language
Strip out all the comments -
Pro: Code is native-language-agnostic, so it makes sense. Who needs comments anyway? Use the source, Luke!
Con: Goes against SE principles. Could lose something important in understanding how the code works - maybe something's been done to avoid a security risk, etc.
Place English comments near Chinese comments
(Possibly moved to lines above and prefixed with "EN" and "ZH", for example).
Pro: Best of both worlds, comments kept close to code
Con: Not conducive to dictionary-style translation. Can get bulky with more languages.
Create a comment dictionary / notes
Pro: Keeps the comments in a separate file for easy translation.
Con: Difficult to keep synced with code. Not intuitive to remember to update comments related to code when changing coe.
Use a different preprocessor for i18n before/after each development cycle.
Pro: Comments et al would be in your language. Could link this to git pull/push so you only ever see the code in your language.
Con: Bulky, non-obvious process. Could result in code-verification or even compilation errors.
None of these seem like really great solutions.
If you do alot of this, and the code is shared publicly between developers who don't share a native tongue, is there a recommended way to handle translating (or not) comments in the code itself?
I am not sure I understand... You say you separated the code from the languages part. So now you should have code (with comments) + English resources + Chinese resources (i used resources for whatever your programming language use to store localizable content)
Translators only see the resources, not the code, nor the comments. The comments stay untranslated, for the developers.
Short Answer
It seems to be a mixture of:
Strip out all the comments, and
Place English comments near Chinese comments.
Inline comments are almost always trivial - Strip them
Functional comments are not as intrusive - Translate them (possibly with a i18n prefix e.g. "[cn]:" or "[en]:").
Explanation
My meagre amount of research tends to suggest that larger projects make strong attempts to reduce comments and let the code explain itself, instead focusing on code quality which reduces the need for comments.
e.g. From the Linux Kernel Coding guidelines:
NEVER try to explain HOW your code works in a comment: it's much
better to write the code so that the working is obvious, and it's
a waste of time to explain badly written code.
...and from the MySQL coding standards:
Comment your code when you do something that someone else may think is
not trivial.
Both of these standards (and others) recommend minimal function descriptions also, so that's not as obtrusive to understanding the code, and, since function descriptions are generally multi-lined and above the code itself, multiple languages can be included as necessary.
Maybe someone, somewhere has built an interface that can isolate comments into the readers language, but I couldn't (yet) find any that do so.
I always think that API comments exported in the project and private comments in open source projects should be internationalized, which is very convenient for developers in other countries.
On Github, there are actually many developers who use their own national language to comment on some well-known open source projects and some of their own annotations. Most of the reason is that if they do not translate, the efficiency of developers reading comments very low.
Similar to .d.ts in TypeScript, I think function annotation translation can also take a similar form, which is more convenient for the community to feedback translation content, because in fact many developers are willing to do so.
Hello, i want to start running some microbenchmarks on Apples Swift-language.
However i feel it is hard to find proper documentation for the different options in regards of compiler optimization.
I have read a lot of questions and articles about other peoples microbenchmarks of the language, however it would be nice to have some firm documentation on the subject.
In the latest beta, the ones to use seems to be:
-Onone
No optimizations
-O
Safe optimizations?
-Ounchecked (Replaced -Ofast)
Unsafe optimizations, (No checks for integer overflow, array out of bounds etc)
My question is, are these all my possible options? And does anybody have some resource that documents this?
EDIT:
I have found similar documention to the one i need about objective-c with gcc here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-2.95.3/gcc_2.html section 2.8. This is what i need for Swift..
I used to have a nice set of coding standards I could print for coldfusion that was almost a framework but much looser with some code examples. Like teh use of createObject, more cfscript, error and message integration, Application.cfc usage and examples. Also seperation of buisness (actions) and display using cfincludes to make an index.cfm page 'a generator' of many actions leveraginf cfswitch/cfcase...etc. I am looking for some doucmentation or anything that I can print our and sit on my desk and refer to so my coding stays clean. Any help from the community would be very much appreciated.
Although rather dated, You may find what you are looking for among the many posts listed under the "Coding Guidelines" section on the "Articles" page of the MDCFUG - Mayryland ColdFusion User's Group website.
Here are some other options:
Univ. of Maryland ColdFusion Programming Standards
Sample Applications Methodology Guidelines provided by Adobe.com
SBA ColdFusion Programming Standards contains 126 pages of coding standard written for the U.S. Small Business Administration to insure security, promote code re-use, easy readability, and easy maintenance.
Oregon Health & Science University - Coding Guidelines which contains a number of GOOD versus BAD coding examples.
I'm unaware of any "official" Coldfusion specific coding standards. Where I work we collectively came up with our own based on many years of experience working with the language. A simple one for example is to use camel case. From what I've seen camelCase is preferred over snake case in Coldfusion, so as a rule we have:
In general, for files use lowerCamelCase starting with a lower-case letter, except for CFCs which should start with an upper-case letter as they represent a class in ColdFusion.
We have other standards broken up under headings such as:
Variable Naming
Operators
Scopes
Functions
ColdFusion Native
Functions
Indentation
......
I am looking for some doucmentation or anything that I can print our
and sit on my desk and refer to so my coding stays clean.
In addition to this I recommend you create a set of generic code snippets, such as you can use in Eclipse, that conform to any standard you decide to go with. These can then be easily distributed among team members, helping to keep things consistent as well as saving typing time.
I realise this is quite an old post now, but thought it would be worth mentioning http://wiki.coldbox.org/wiki/DevelopmentBestPractices.cfm. I think this is a good set of standards for writing CFML.
I m in process of understanding and building a static code analysis tool for a proprietary language from a big company. Reason for doing this , I have to review a rather large code base , and a static code analysis would help a lot and they do not have one for the language so far.
I would like to know how does one go about building a static code analysis tool , for e.g. Lint or SpLint for C.
Any books, articles , blogs , sites..etc would help.
Thanks.
I know this is an old post, but the answers don't really seem that satisfactory. This article is a pretty good introduction to the technology behind the static analysis tools, and has several links to examples.
A good book is "Secure Programming with Static Analysis" by Brian Chest and Jacob West.
You need good infrastructrure, such as a parser, a tree builder, tree analyzers, symbol table builders, flow analyzers, and then to get on with your specific task you need to code specific checks for the specific problems of interest to you, using all the infrastructure machinery.
Building all that foundation machinery is actually pretty hard, and it doesn't help you do your specific task. People don't write the operating system for every application they code; why should you build all the infrastructure? Like an OS, it is better if you simply acquire good infrastructure.
People will tell you to lex and yacc. That's kind of like suggesting you use the real time keneral part of the OS; useful, but far from all the infrastructure you really need.
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit provides all the necessary infracture. It has been used to define many language front ends as well as
many tools for such languages.
Such infrastructure would allow you to define your specific nonstandard language relatively quickly, and then get on with your task of coding your special checks.
There is a blog by DeepSource that covers everything one needs to know to build an understanding of static code analysis and equip you with the basic theory and the right tools so that you can write analyzers on your own.
Here’s the link: https://deepsource.io/blog/introduction-static-code-analysis/
Obviously you need a parser for the language. A good high level AST is useful.
You need to enumerate a set of "mistakes" in the language. Without knowing more about the language in question, we can't help here. Examples: unallocated pointers in C, etc.
Combine the AST with the mistakes in #2.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I've worked on a couple of projects where we spent a great deal of time discussing and writing elaborate coding standards covering everything from syntax layout to actual best practices. However, I have also found that these are rarely followed to the full extent. Many developers seem to hesitate to reject a code review based on coding standard violations alone. I.e. violations are committed to the repository on a regular basis.
My questions are: Do you have coding standards? What do they cover? Are they followed by everyone? And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standards?
I'm aware that there is a similar question here, but my concern is not so much how you could do it, but how you are actually going about it and what are the perceived benefits?
I've worked in places with barely-followed coding practices, and others where they're close to being enforced - or at least easily checked.
A few suggestions:
The most important thing is to get buy-in to the idea that consistency trumps your personal preferred style. There should be discussion of the coding standard both before and after it's instituted, but no-one should be allowed to just opt out of it.
Code reviews should be mandatory, with the checkin comment including the username of the reviewer. If you're using a suitably powerful SCM, consider not allowing checkins which don't have a valid reviewer name.
There should be a document which everyone knows about laying out the coding standards. With enough detail, you shouldn't get too much in the way of arguments.
Where possible, automate checking of the conventions (via Lint, CheckStyle, FXCop etc) so it's easy for both the committer and the reviewer to get a quick check of things like ordering import/using directives, whitespace etc.
The benefits are:
Primarily consistency - if you make it so that anyone can feel "at home" in any part of the codebase at any time, it gives you more flexibility.
Spreading best practice - if you ban public fields, mutable structs etc then no-one can accidentally plant a time bomb in your code. (At least, not a time bomb that's covered by the standard. There's no coding standard for perfect code, of course :)
EDIT: I should point out that coding standards are probably most important when working in large companies. I believe they help even in small companies, but there's probably less need of process around the standard at that point. It helps when all the developers know each other personally and are all co-located.
Do you have coding standards?
Yes, differs from project to project.
What does it cover?
Code(class, variable, method, constant), SQL naming and formatting convention
Is it being followed by everyone?
Yes, every new entrant in project could be asked to create a demo project following organization coding convention then it gets reviewed. This exercise makes developer feel at ease before starting real job.
And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standard?
Use StyleCop and FxCop to ensure they are religiously followed. It would show up as warning/error if code fails to comply with organization coding convention.
Visual Studio Team system has nice code anlysis and check-In policies which would prevent developers checking in code that does not comply
Hope, it helps
Thanks,
Maulik Modi
We take use of the Eclipse's save actions and formatters. We do have a suggested standard, but nobody is actually enforcing it, so there are some variations on what is actually formatted, and how.
This is something of a nuisance (for me), as various whitespace variations are committed as updates to the SVN repository...
StyleCop does a good job of enforcing coding layout practices and you can write custom rules for it if something isn't covered in the base rules that is important to you.
I think coding standards are very important. There is nothing more frustrating than trying to find the differences between two revisions of a file only to find that the whole file has been changed by someone who reformatted it all. And I know someone is going to say that that sort of practice should be stamped out, but most IDEs have a 'reformat file' feature (Ctrl-K Ctrl-D in Visual Studio, for example), which makes keeping your code layed out nicely much easier.
I've seen projects fail through lack of coding standards - the curly-brace wars at my last company were contributary to a breakdown in the team.
I've found the best coding standards are not the standards made up by someone in the team. I implemented the standards created by iDesign (click here) in our team, which gets you away from any kind of resentment you might get if you try to implement your own 'standard'.
A quick mention of Code Style Enforcer (click here) which is pretty good for highlighting non-compliance in Visual Studio.
I have a combination of personal and company coding standards that are still evolving to some extent. They cover code structure, testing, and various documents describing various bits of functionality.
As it evolves, it is being adopted and interpreted by the rest of my team. Part of what will happen ultimately is that if there is concensus on some parts then those will hold up while other parts may just remain code that isn't necessarily going to be up to snuff.
I think there may be some respect or professional admiration that act as a way of getting people to follow the coding standards where some parts of it become clear after it is applied, e.g. refactoring a function to be more readable or adding tests to some form, with various "light bulb moments" to borrow a phrase from Oprah.
Another part of the benefit is to see how well do others work, what kinds of tips and techniques do they have and how can one improve over time to be a better developer.
I think the best way to look at coding standards is in terms of what you hope to achieve by applying, and the damage that they can cause if mis-applied. For example, I see the following as quite good;
Document and provide unit tests that illustrate all typical scenarios for usage of a given interface to a given routine or module.
Where possible use the following container classes libraries, etc...
Use asserts to validate incoming parameters and results returned (C & C++)
Minimise scope of all variables
Access object members through methods
Use new and delete over malloc and free
Use the prescribed naming conventions
I don't think that enforcing style beyond this is a great idea, as different programmers are efficient using differing styles. Forcing programmers to change style can be counter productive and lead to lost time and reduced quality. Standards should be kept short and easy to understand.
Oh yes, I'm the coding standard police :) I just wrote a simple script to periodically check and fix the code (my coding standard is simple enough to implement that.) I hope people will get the message after seeing all these "coding convention cleanups" messages :)
We have a kind of 'loose' standard. Maybe because of our inability to have agreement upon some of those 'how many spaces to put there and there', 'where to put my open brace, after the statement or on the next line'.
However, as we have main developers for each of the dedicated modules or components, and some additional developers that may work in those modules, we have the following main rule:
"Uphold the style used by the main developer"
So if he wants to do 3 space-indentation, do it yourself also.
It's not ideal as it might require retune your editor settings, but it keeps the peace :-)
Do you have coding standards?
What does it cover?
Yes, it has naming conventions, mandatory braces after if, while ... , no warning allowed, recommendations for 32/64 bits alignment, no magic number, header guards, variables initialization and formatting rules that favor consistency for legacy code.
Is it being followed by everyone?
And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standard?
Mostly, getting the team agreement and a somewhat lightweight coding standard (less than 20 rules) helped us here.
How it is being enforced ?
Softly, we do not have coding standard cop.
Application of the standard is checked at review time
We have template files that provide the standard boilerplate
I have never seen a project fail because of lack of coding standards (or adherence to them), or even have any effect on productivity. If you are spending any time on enforcing them then you are wasting money. There are so many important things to worry about instead (like code quality).
Create a set of suggested standards for those who prefer to have something to follow, but leave it at that.
JTest by ParaSoft is decent for Java.
Our coding standards are listed in our Programmer's Manual so everyone can easily refer to them. They are effective simply because we have buy in from all team members, because people are not afraid to raise standards and style issues during code reviews, and because they allow a certain level of flexibility. If one programmer creates a new file, and she prefers to place the bracket on the same line as an if statement, that sets the standard for that file. Anyone modifying that file in the future must use the same style to keep things consistent.
I'll admit, when I first read the coding standards, I didn't agree with some of them. For instance, we use a certain style for function declarations that looks like this:
static // Scope
void // Type declaration
func(
char al, //IN: Description of al
intl6u hash_table_size, //IN/OUT: Description of hash_table_size
int8u s) //OUT: Description of s
{
<local declarations>
<statements>
}
I had never seen that before, so it seemed strange and foreign to me at first. My gut reaction was, "Well, that's dumb." Now that I've been here a while, I have adjusted to the style and appreciate how I can quickly comprehend the function declaration because everyone does it this way.