3 ms·

Obviously there are many people on HN that consider that to be a good thing. I personally agree, this is the typical comment got. Only obviously blinded people

Obviously there are many people on HN that consider that to be a good thing. I personally agree, this is the typical comment got. Only obviously blinded people wouldn't see this.

boomlinde 8y ago
I don't think that anyone here believes that comment rot is a good thing, or that they are particularly "blinded". I just think that the fact that the comments lie is a compelling argument against the prose comment-heavy style used in this file. In this case it was not a big one because it's trivial to determine that the comment is not true, but in general I think that no comment is better than the wrong comment. I have not cared to read the file much further so I can't comment on whether comment rot is really prevalent. Actual "space shuttle code" is AFAIK built to satisfy a specification, not to serve as a specification in itself. When you find that the specification is lacking or somehow faulty, you get the people responsible for it to revise it, wait for the new revision and adjust the code to match. The key is that they are two separate processes. Someone responsible for the specification doesn't need to be concerned with the exact details of the implementation, and those responsible for the implementation only need to be concerned with satisfying the specification. When the specification and implementation is all mixed up as prose and code in the same file you don't get to enjoy the benefits of separating those concerns. Changing the spec is the same process as changing the code, and the order of change is indistinguishable. You can change some code, but then you have to find all the references to the code you changed in the prose and adjust that too. You can change the prose, but then you have to adjust the code accordingly and any prose that assumed that the code worked as before. You'll be relying on tests and reviews (reviewers suffering the same drawbacks as the submitter) to enforce this, which IMO isn't not necessarily a bad thing, but not exactly rigorous enough to give a "space shuttle" stamp.

Obviously there are many people on HN that consider that to be a good thing. I personally agree, this is the typical comment got. Only obviously blinded people wouldn't see this.

boomlinde 8y ago

I don't think that anyone here believes that comment rot is a good thing, or that they are particularly "blinded". I just think that the fact that the comments lie is a compelling argument against the prose comment-heavy style used in this file. In this case it was not a big one because it's trivial to determine that the comment is not true, but in general I think that no comment is better than the wrong comment. I have not cared to read the file much further so I can't comment on whether comment rot is really prevalent. Actual "space shuttle code" is AFAIK built to satisfy a specification, not to serve as a specification in itself. When you find that the specification is lacking or somehow faulty, you get the people responsible for it to revise it, wait for the new revision and adjust the code to match. The key is that they are two separate processes. Someone responsible for the specification doesn't need to be concerned with the exact details of the implementation, and those responsible for the implementation only need to be concerned with satisfying the specification. When the specification and implementation is all mixed up as prose and code in the same file you don't get to enjoy the benefits of separating those concerns. Changing the spec is the same process as changing the code, and the order of change is indistinguishable. You can change some code, but then you have to find all the references to the code you changed in the prose and adjust that too. You can change the prose, but then you have to adjust the code accordingly and any prose that assumed that the code worked as before. You'll be relying on tests and reviews (reviewers suffering the same drawbacks as the submitter) to enforce this, which IMO isn't not necessarily a bad thing, but not exactly rigorous enough to give a "space shuttle" stamp.