3 ms·
> but if you can't understand what the code does even at a high level when you can't see any types then there's a problem anyway. Who says this implies you can
by dataflow 3y ago
> but if you can't understand what the code does even at a high level when you can't see any types then there's a problem anyway.
Who says this implies you can't understand what the code does at a high level? Often you know the high level behavior but need to figure out how it works so you can update the code. If anything, the high level behavior is often easier to understand, since you have the API documentation etc. available.
And in the cases where that is the case, what does "there's a problem anyway" mean? That the reader is too stupid to figure it out?
- fluoridation 3y agoNo, that the code is poorly documented, or that the names are poorly chosen.
- dataflow 3y agoSometimes, but not necessarily. Even when that's the case (and nobody always gets all the names perfect in the first iteration), you still face the problem of understanding it before you can fix that, so throwing your hands up is not a solution. Regardless, the rest of my comment stands.