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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Since I have started programming in VBA I have used
this website as basically my bible. However I don't see any mention of whether or not to comment my variables.
After doing a fair bit of research online I have been able to find very little regarding the topic at all. So I though I would see about getting your guys opinion on whether or not commenting variables is worth it. Any feedback is appreciated.
I tend to comment my variables when I think their purpose might be confusing. Generally, I try to create descriptive variable names so that I can tell at first glance to what they refer. However, with some calculations, and in some circumstances, it's difficult to determine just from the variable name its intended function. In these cases, I'd throw in a comment.
I'd say overall, it should be left to the user's discretion. Do you think it's difficult to understand what it does? If so, comment it.
Related
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 understand that Chisel is a HDL/HCL language to overcome some of Verilog/SystemVerilog restrictions by using higher abstraction level.
And it is open source as well.
It might be a bit naive and presumptuous, but still I would like to ask.
My question is that why do so many similar efforts are working in parallel, e.g. Blusspec, spinalHDL, Pyha etc?
I mean, is there any reason why the development community may not choose one of these and concentrate efforts on stabilizing or enhancing one of these.
That's exactly what is happening now, it just takes a while to choose.
Although the past does not show that the best technology wins, let us hope it does this time.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
A couple of years ago (2011/2012) I remember stumbling across a paper or a webpage which talked about how in pure functional languages, you can tell a lot about what a function will do just by examining its type signature. Unfortunately after much Googling I haven't stumbled across it again. (Partly because I don't know what search terms to use)
My question is: How much information about a function can you deduce from its type signature?
For massive brownie points: Provide some links to external resources which discuss this or related issues
An example of what I'm looking for: If I remember correctly, a function with the type signature a -> a has to be the identity function.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
When it comes to programming what is the difference between concept and construct for describing "patterns" used in multiple languages?
e.g. are "immutable data structures" or "pattern matching" concepts or constructs?
To start off, concepts are ways to explain something that we observe and that we try to explain. Construct is a little bit created in the opposite order. We "construct" a concept to be able to work with a situation and explain somethings that are not directly observed or deduced.
Immutable data structures is a concept since it qualifies something that is "tangible" or actually invisible with your eye but have a precise mechanic in the computer. "Pattern matching" is a concept of really specific procedures.
Now I guess that when you think about "construct" you also refer to programming "constructs" like operators (like +, -, *). In this case they are also concepts called "constructs" but shouldn't be considered to be the equivalent to "construct"/"concepts" concepts ;).
Hopefully, this helped you sort those words out.
Dan
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
It's been a while I posted a question. Maybe this one belongs to Programmers or Meta, not sure.
Right now, I'm at university in my first year civil engineer. We have some programming courses where we learn Java in order to acquire the basic concepts of programming and train algorithmic thinking. Almost all my fellow students are unfamiliar with programming. I'm experienced and people do ask questions from time to time to me about their programming problems. While explaining their problem or while asking for solutions, they really often use the word "command". I noticed that, in most cases, they are referring to what we call statements. My problem is that the word command really sounds bad and is in my opinion wrong as well, in this context. So, my question is: how do I explain them not to use commands, but rather something like instructions, statements, expressions, declarations, operations? How to explain that you do not program commands?
Sentences I hear frequently:
Which commands do I need?
What does this command do?
Or am I the only one that thinks command is wrong? If so, please explain.
You could ask them to be more specific for sake of professionalism.
A car is not a truck or not a van - and there are also bikes and bicycles and other things you could drive...
I would ask for being more specific EVERY time until they change their behaviour. You can lead them to the specific expression, but they should make the step to say it from their own. Otherwise they don't make an effort, because they count on you to help them.
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Upon reading a blog post about a minimalist story-generating python program, I was asking myself - and you - which are the most successful attempts at such programs. I remember seeing something using generating grammars, for instance. And which are the best attempts that, like this one, are extremely compact, either self-contained or able to read, say, the Web or an independent textual corpus (but not simply a file with a large number of story chunks)?
Search for Talespin for some famous ground breaking work. (Example: Micro-Talespin in Common Lisp by Warren Sack.)
I actually like Turner's "Minstrel: A Computer Model of Creativity and Storytelling" better :
ftp://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/tech-report/1992-reports/920057.pdf
Talespin is, in my opinion, blind in it's algorithm to everything but planning. So the author goals are given very little consideration (if at all). Minstrel is better that way.