Related
I have good knowledge of C++ but never dwell into STL. What part of STL I must learn to improve productivity and reduce defects in my work?
Thanks.
I have good knowledge of C++
With all due respect, but no – you don’t. The standard library, or at least large parts of it (especially the subset known as “STL”) is a fundamental part of C++. Without knowledge of it you don’t know very much about C++ at all.
In fact, much of the modern design of C++ (essentially everything since the 98 version) was guided by design considerations stemming from the standard library, and much of the changes in the language since then are changes to the standard library. If you take a look at the official C++ language description a good part of the document is concerned with the library.
Usually the first reaction (at least in my opinion, of course) for people who have not worked with the STL before is to get upset with all the template code. So I would start by studying a little bit on this subject.
In the case you already know template fundamentals I would recommend taking a brief look over an STL design document. This is actually the second stage of hassle for people not yet familiar with it. The reason for this is that the STL is not designed under a typical object oriented paradigm, but under the generic programming paradigm.
With this in mind, a good start could be this introductory article. The terms used throughout the STL components are explained there. Please notice that is a relatively old text focused on the SGI implementation (which predates the C++ standard and incorrectly mentions, for example, the hash based containers as part of it). However, the theory is still valid.
Well, if you already know most things I've said up to this point, just jump directly to the topcis the others provided.
You mention about improving your productivity and reduce defects. There are general guidelines that you can use for this. I assume c++11, and I mention a bit more than stl (smart pointers):
Use containers, they will manage memory for you. You get rid of new for C arrays and later having to delete them, for example.
For dynamic arrays, use std::vector. You also have hashtables in std::unordered_map and balanced trees with std::map. There are more containers, take a look here.
Use std::array instead of plain C arrays whenever you can: they never decay to pointers when passing as arguments to functions, which can avoid very disgusting bugs.
Use smart pointers and forget forever for a naked new and its matching delete in code.
This can reduce errors far more than you would expect, especially in the presence of exceptions.
Use std::make_shared when possible. You can use it to allocate a shared_ptr directly as an argument to a function that takes a std::shared_ptr. With a naked new this is not possible.
Use algorithms instead of hand-coded loops. The code will be far more readable and usually more performant.
With this advice your code should look closer (but not necessarily equal or semantically equivalent) to C# or Java, in which manual memory management disappears. This is even better than garbage collection in many scenarios, since you have deterministic guarantees for when a resource will be freed.
I'd say the algorithms from <algorithm> will really clean up your code and at the same time make your code more concise.
Obviously, knowledge of all the containers will help you to optimize the bottlenecks of your code caused by a certain choice of container which is not optimal (but be sure to profile first).
These are pretty much the basics and they will help you a lot to make more robust code.
After that you can delve into smart pointers like std::shared_ptr which are almost always better than regular pointers (in my case, at least).
I think can start with containers(vector, list) and alghorithms(binary search, sort).
And as Jesse Emond wrote, the more you know, the better you live)))
While thinking about software-engineering in general I came across the question why we don't see any improvements in the way we write/document code.
Think about it: There has not been a revolutionary improvement since we've moved from punch cards to text editing. The last improvement I've seen is syntax highlighting and context sensitive help (e.g. Intellisense or ctags). Not something I would call revolutionary.
That makes me wonder: Why is it so?
I'll start with something I miss badly:
Lots of my code deals with geometry.
For documentation describing geometric relationships always ends up in a big heap of hard to read mathematical stuff (due to the lack of proper equation type-setting in ASCII). However, if I could embed a little drawing or scribble into the code everything would be much easier, neater and better to be understood.
What can you think up that would make your coding/text editing/documention tasks easier?
I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned No Silver Bullet. In 1986 (!), Frederick Brooks predicted that:
There is no single development, in either technology or management technique, which by itself promises even one order-of-magnitude [tenfold] improvement within a decade in productivity, in reliability, in simplicity. [...] We cannot expect ever to see two-fold gains every two years."
And in 23 years, he's been proven right. We've come up with a number of things such as syntax highlighting and Intellisense which have improved productivity significantly, but certainly not by an order of magnitude. As time marches on, we'll continue to make several incremental improvements, but the fact is there is no silver bullet: there's not going to be some magical revelation in the way we write code that will improve productivity by an order of magnitude.
I'm suprised that no one seems to have mentioned Donald Knuth's seminal Literate Programming - write your code as if it were a book or a scientific paper.
There has not been a revolutionary improvement since we've moved from punch cards to text editing
Never used a line editor, have you?
But seriously, text (especially in the representations chosen for modern languages) is
easily processed
fairly easy to specify
information dense
precise
Anything that comes along to replace it has to be a net win across all four of those properties. Not easy.
I disagree. We do have changes, small, but changes.
How common is the "for each" construct? Compare it to 20 years ago. How about the Domain Specific Languages movement? What about the idea that we should code in layers? How about Behavior Driven Development? Coding by complying to a specification... which writes a nice document as output when all runs fine. How about the standarization of regular expressions? PCRE. What about Alan Kay's group's DSL related work on "Moore's Law for Software", which explored a more advanced implementation of Cairo and generated TCP/IP code using diagrams from RFCs?
Documentation is a two way dialog. Both as code being more understandable and people learning this special language. You wouldn't say that German needs documentation if you know German. I know natural languages are very far away from computer languages, but there's a movement to make code more expressive. It's not about the new tools, it's about how we are coding.
One thing I've done recently in some of the more math-heavy sections of my application is to include the LaTeX markup for the particular equation as a comment/docstring. Right now, I just copy-paste into an online equation editor, but it would be very helpful to see the formula itself (with things like Greek letters and sub/superscripts) rather than a bunch of ASCII code.
Source Code In Database. In a nutshell, source code is parsed and put into a database. You'd then need an integrated IDE to view and edit the code, but at this point, syntax is decoupled from format. YOUR IDE could show you a program in a way that's completely different from someone else's, tuned to the task you're working on. I'd list some specific examples, but that article covers pretty much everything.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned it - javadoc is basically HTML, so there's nothing preventing you from embedding images (or anything else) in code. Simple, effective and ubiquitous, it's one of the things Java did right.
DrScheme let's you do these things. Here's the things you can insert from the PLT website:
http://docs.plt-scheme.org/drscheme/Menus.html#(part._.Insert)
3.1.6 Insert
Insert Comment Box : Inserts a box that is ignored by DrScheme; use it to write comments for people who read your program.
Insert Image... : Opens a find-file dialog for selecting an image file in GIF, BMP, XBM, XPM, PNG, or JPG format. The image is treated as a value.
Insert Fraction... : Opens a dialog for a mixed-notation fraction, and inserts the given fraction into the current editor.
Insert Large Letters... : Opens a dialog for a line of text, and inserts a large version of the text (using semicolons and spaces).
Insert λ : Inserts the symbol λ (as a Unicode character) into the program. The λ symbol is normally bound the same as lambda.
Insert Java Comment Box : Inserts a box that is ignored by DrScheme. Unlike the Insert Comment Box menu item, this is designed for the ProfessorJ language levels. See ProfessorJ.
Insert Java Interactions Box : Inserts a box that will allows Java expressions and statements within Scheme programs. The result of the box is a Scheme value corresponding to the result(s) of the Java expressions. At this time, Scheme values cannot enter the box. The box will accept one Java statement or expression per line.
Insert XML Box : Inserts an XML; see XML Boxes and Scheme Boxes for more information.
Insert Scheme Box : Inserts a box to contain Scheme code, typically used inside an XML box; see XML Boxes and Scheme Boxes.
Insert Scheme Splice Box : Inserts a box to contain Scheme code, typically used inside an XML box; see also XML Boxes and Scheme Boxes.
Insert Pict Box : Creates a box for generating a Slideshow picture. Inside the pict box, insert and arrange Scheme boxes that produce picture values.
You also insert your unit tests with the code that you're testing. Pretty neat stuff.
I think integrated IDEs with semantic highlighting and **semantically-constrained suggestions* (a la IDEA or Eclipse) are a huge advancement.
But that happened 8-10 years ago.
Template-based programming feels useful never seems to catch on. Recently I was impressed with a demo of the Meta-programming system, which leverages the interactive nature of the IDE to simplify the task of writing templates and what are (essentially) type-aware macros.
Meta-programming might help you define geometry-based macros that would substitute for a number of lines of code. I could imagine something that let you embed a more-readable 'math language' inside Java, and then parses its contents into something machine-readable.
I'd say version control was a pretty huge leap in how we work. The ability to keep a full record of every change anyone has made to the codebase, and to revert changes where necessary, has made a big difference.
I certainly respect Fred Brooks' argument No Silver Bullet, but I think the way we write code is nowhere near optimal, so there is lots more room for improvement. I tried to explain this in my book.
We're all familiar with "code golf", where you compete relentlessly to minimize something. That is a good way to approach the minimum possible value of that something.
What's great about this is that you are allowed, even encouraged, to break from traditions, prior conceptions, accepted wisdom, in the quest for winning. In short, you learn new things.
If the measure to be minimized is wall-clock execution time, you can do aggressive optimization.
If the measure is source code size (lines or characters) you get "code golf".
The measure I like best is "edit count". That is, given a code base, suppose a new requirement comes along. That requirement is implemented, completely, by editing the code base. Then a "diff" is done from old to new code base. The number of differences found is the edit count. Averaged over the set of likely new functional requirements, that is the measure to minimize.
If this is done aggressively, being free to contradict all conventional wisdom, the code base approaches a state I would call a domain-specific language (DSL). In this language, concepts expressed in code are in nearly 1-1 correspondence with problem-oriented concepts. In this state, it is not easy for the source code to be self-inconsistent (i.e. have bugs) because the fewer edits that have to be made to the source code, the fewer chances there are to make a mistake. It's also the case that such code tends to be short. But unlike "code golf" it tends to be very clear, because it maps the problem concepts so clearly.
So, tools and techniques that help in minimizing edit count can, in my opinion, be considered "silver bullets". DSL is one such. Code generation is another. My favorite optimization technique is another. For coding dynamically changing UIs there is differential execution. There are bound to be more, waiting to be discovered. Of course, everything depends on the training and experience of the "marksman" (the coder).
I think there are lots of new ideas to be discovered. The trick is to tell the difference between the ones that move us forward, versus the ones that hold us back.
I think this is where Doxygen and other documentation systems help. If we can embed small, discrete comments that link to other information such as:
/* help: fooimg.png */
And then have an external documentation system do that, then great.
Even better would be allowing our text-editor to treat those things as hyperlinks to external documentation.
I would reference a drawing as a reference in the code documentation. I see no reason why you can't have footnotes in code.
The ability to make a section of code read-only is something I've wanted
It sounds like you might be interested in Jonathan Edward's research. See, for example:
"The Summer of Code"
"What's next?"
"The future of programming"
Diffing and searching pictures is hard. Diff and search are very important to programmers. Using pictures instead of text is only a marginal improvement in many situations, it has some drawbacks, and it requires general acceptance before it's really worth doing (since you don't make things more understandable if your reader doesn't grok what you've done).
Plus, programmers have a million little tricks that make their lives easier, based on text representations of code, that they'd lose if you gave them code to read that was expressed in anything other than text. Sure, they might replace or re-implement those tricks over time, but in the short term they're gone.
You don't see lawyers switching from English to little back-of-a-napkin diagrams in contracts, either (the Creative Commons licenses try, but cannot make the picture be the formal representation of the contract). Probably for similar reasons.
If someone comes up with a programming language and IDE that, on balance, beats text-based ones; and successfully markets it; then you'll see the start of a revolutionary shift from text to a new format. If nobody comes up with any such thing, then we're not missing out. If someone comes up with something that is more productive but it doesn't gain traction because of independent advantages of other technologies, then that loss is the price we pay for free-market capitalism. Perhaps the ideas will be recycled eventually...
That said, integration between code and documentation could clearly be improved, and there are many efforts underway to do so, using various techniques with varying success. Again, the problem is that any particular cunning plan can in practice only really be implemented in one or a few languages and development environments at a time, and so has difficulty proving that it really is better. Embedding documentation in code is possibly the only universal advance since the invention of the API...
I think there's still a lot that can be done with text, though. For example, debugger technology makes a big difference to programmer productivity in certain common circumstances (namely: when a test fails or something else unexpected happens, but it's not obvious what the faulty assumption is in the code you're looking at). There may be lower-hanging fruit in terms of making programming better, than the actual business of expressing the program.
The last improvement I've seen is
syntax highlighting and context
sensitive help
Then you haven't looked much. Modern IDEs can do far, FAR more than that, namely show you the semantic structure of code (e.g. inheritance hierarchies) and even manipulate it (automatic refactoring) or enrich it with external data (such as who last changed a particular line of code).
I've used emacs, I like text macros. But, what I really want is parse macros. I'd like my editor to expose the machinery behind refactoring in such a way that I can write my transformations on the parse tree of the language itself.
For example, Python added += at one point when my code was littered with x = x + 1 lines. If I could have written a search and replace command that worked on the parse tree, I could have quickly cleaned up large amounts of my source code.
So, I want standard search and replace, but I want it at the level where the structure of my code has meaning, at the abstract syntax tree.
If you've ever used ReSharper, each of its refactorings and recommendations are written in the manner I describe, they find a pattern in the parse tree and suggest a replacement, or for a refactoring, apply a known replacement. I want access to that machinery for my own tasks!
Have you used Doxygen or similar for documenting your code? You can add links to images, and other file types (often stored in same directory as source code) that will get sucked into the generated documentation. I realize that this is one step removed from seeing the detail directly in you favorite editor but it definitely improves how we document our code.
Programming languages are a specialized form of mathematical notation, since you can express a programming language mathematically. Notation changes slowly, and so we don't get fast progress in our languages. Mostly, we advance when we come up with a new thing to fit into the notation, like using i to refer to the square root of negative one.
There are documentation schemes that allow you to embed things other than text. There was at least one programming scheme, Donald Knuth's Web, that allowed you to have a presentation and an execution version of a program (unfortunately, the base source code, the stuff you'd actually hack, was rather messy).
You could easily have a text editor that could treat comments as HTML, provided of course it could recognize comments as it saw them.
I've been thinking a lot about how to make coding faster and more efficient for the past years, always trying to keep it realistic and doing minimalistic implementations. Those are not revolutionary ideas, but since the original poster talked about the punching card to code typing transition, I thought of talking about other ways of communicating to the computer what we want to program.
My ideas are visual or vocal programming. The motivation behind is that there are only a number of ways a loop can be efficiently programmed, and an aware IDE could make some smart code substitution decisions depending on inputs other than typed lines of code.
Visual programming vs Coding: encapsulate (literally) code into "boxes" which have inputs and outputs, and connect them together across a horizontal timeline. This is a high-level concept that would be intrinsically interesting for multithreading development since you can have multiple lines or threads happening at the same time. Every process can be divided into a "box", no matter how you see it. Sending an e-mail in its most basic form is a box which takes an email as input and outputs a success/fail signal. Since the boxes and the lines are distributed across a timeline, the notion of time and event chronology isn't lost and feedback lines are possible.
Vocal programming vs Coding: The effectiveness of this technique would revolve around the effectiveness of the vocal syntax decided to create code and move the cursor. For example, you can say to the microphone "for variable zero to 10" and the system will automatically generate the following code placing the cursor inside:
for (x=0;x<10;x++){
// Cursor would be there after after the call
}
In terms of usability, you would need to be in a relatively silent room to minimize other sounds that might harm the voice recognition so this technology could be used in specialized environments mostly.
This is the result of my extensive programming experience using a wide range of hardware and programming languages. Let me know what you guys think, I'd love having a constructive discussion about that.
A few weeks back the "Intentional Software" created quite a buzz about their new language. I've yet to watch the presentation, but here is a quote from a review by Martin Fowler:
They started worryingly, with the
usual unrevealing Powerpoints, but
then they switched to showing the
workbench and the curtain finally
opened. To gauge the reaction, take a
look at Twitter.
#pandemonial Quite impressed! This is sweet! Multiple domains, multiple
langs, no question is going unanswered
#csells OK, watching a live electrical circuit rendered and
working in a C# file is pretty damn
cool.
#jolson Two words to say about the Electronics demo for Intentional
Software: HOLY CRAPOLA. That's it, my
brain has finally exploded.
#gblock This is not about snazzy demos, this is about completely
changing the world we know it.
#twleung ok, the intellisense for the actuarial formulas is just awesome
#lobrien This is like seeing a 100-mpg carburetor : OMG someone is
going to buy this and put it in a
vault!
Two quotes come instantly to mind:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
"Use the best tool for the job."
Of course, although the core code is still written as text, alll the tools and libraries have changed massively since the days of punched cards.
This has been touched on by others, and it wouldn't revolutionise programming, but anyway...
I think it would be nice if code editors moved slightly beyond plain text editors. Even with syntax highlighting and code completion (which I think are incredibly good things), the editors of today (at least, the ones I use) still display exactly the same ASCII text (or whatever encoding is used) that is in the source files. I would be interested to see how well it would work if editors displayed, for example (some examples are more adventurous than others):
Comments in a text box with a light-blue background and no // or /* ... */ visible
Javadoc comments could have semi-rich text editing support (for those who do HTML Javadoc comments) (seriously, I would appreciate it if code editors rendered Javadoc comments as HTML because they're not the easiest to skim over when their HTML as plain text)
Functions in text boxes that could be collapsed to show only the signature (the collapsing can be done by current editors) and can be dragged around as boxes
Lines between function boxes to indicate how functions are connected
Zooming out so that rather than seeing a single source file (class in many languages) you can see multiple files and the way connect to each other (this would essentially be building UML-like diagramming directly into the code editor)
I think this (in my mind at least) would work without requiring additional markup in the source files so users of plain text editors wouldn't be disadvantaged by having all this extra markup cluttering the files.
Part of the problem might stem from the fact that when you don't code we don't call it programming: Assembling modular components using a GUI for instance.
You might be interested in these alternative programming "languages".
[Ladder][1], designed to mimic the way relay-logic-schemes work. Horrible IMO, but easy to understand for the old guys who did logic with sticks and stones. [http://www.amci.com/tutorials/images/ladder-diagram.gif][2]
[SFC, Sequential function chart][3], designed to simplify parallell programming. Code is written into boxes and these boxes can be placed paralell to each other and will thus execute simultaneously. By connecting the end of several boxes you can syncronize events. Very common for automation applications.
[Mathematica][5]!!!, Might not be the best programming language but the syntax highlighting(if you can call it that) is awesome! For example you can input a matrix by seeing the matrix nicly aligned instead of a huge double[][]. Graphs can be inserted in the code and the formatting of mathematical expressions looks like it does when you write on a paper. No more paranthesis-madness or long Math.PI expressions that really only need one character. And best of all, the files are just plain text even if it is rendered nicely in the editor!
Debuggers is also an area where lots of improvement has been done. Debuggers with replay are starting to come and also visual debuggers where data can be modified in real time. Edit and continiue is also a feature i wouldn't want to live withot.
WTF "new users can only post a maximum of one hyperlink", you will have to google the stuff i originally added to this post >:(
A brain-to-computer translator. Typing is the real
bottleneck. It really just needs to derive the algorithms I
think up and convert that to machine code.
I would say a lot of the newer languages are pretty great at
quickly creating algorithms. The improvements aren't so much
revolutionary now as they are evolutionary.
Dare I say it might actually be a new development language (perhaps even a new paradigm) to take us through such revolution;
I think you might want to take a look at Leo. This is one guys attempt at answering what you're asking about. I still can't wrap my VIM head around it personally, but others take to it quickly. It's not just a programming IDE, but more of an information organizer. It's written in Python, but I don't see why you can't code in other languages with it. The power of Leo is not so much the language, but the ability to express your thoughts and organize them whether it be in code, diagrams, images, or diagrams. Look over the tutorial and examples to get a feel for it. You might like it.
Automated semantic source code transformations, where a program can be reliably examined and manipulated by using an abstract interface/frontend to it that is aware of the underlying semantics.
So that source code can be queried and dealt with pretty much like a SQL database.
Allowing you to do static analysis of source code and refactor even complex source code by doing something along the lines of:
FIND CALLERS OF FUNCTION "foo" WHERE SIGNATURE("int","int","char*") AND RETURN_TYPE("bool");
...
RENAME MACRO "max" TO "maximum" IN FILE "macros.hxx";
RENAME NAMESPACE "prj" TO "project";
RENAME SYMBOL "OLDFOO" IN NAMESPACE "project";
RENAME FUNCTION "log" TO "show_log";
RENAME CLASS "FOO" TO "OLDFOO";
RENAME METHOD "FOO::inc" TO "FOO::increment";
...
CHANGE SIGNATURE IN FUNCTION "foo" WHERE SIGNATURE("int","int") TO SIGNATURE("double","double");
CHANGE SIGNATURE IN METHOD "myClass::handle" WHERE SIGNATURE("char") TO SIGNATURE("unsigned char")
MOVE FUNCTION "foo" in FILE "stuff.cc" TO "foo_funcs.cc";
So, I'm looking at using Smalltalk/Squeak for a couple of hobby/academic interest projects, and while trying to read up on the language I came across this nice article. However, this paragraph had me a bit dumbfounded:
"Unfortunately, there is a complete lack of standardization for providing or dealing with modules/packages in Smalltalk. Some dialects provide very strong, comprehensive support for modules/packages (including versioning and distributed access by programming teams,) and other dialects provide little or nothing in this regard. Some dialects provide a robust implementation of multiple, shareable namespaces, others don't. The only commonality is that, when either modules/packages or namespaces are provided, they are implemented as reified objects, in the same way that classes and methods are implemented as reified objects."
So, I have tried googling for it, and this shows up on the Squeak wiki: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/734. Does anyone know if this (or something similar) is now part of the standard distribution?
As Mue says, it is not perceived as a big problem in the Squeak community. Prefixing is "good enough". A while back I tried hard to do something better and still maintain the unique feeling of Smalltalk:
http://swiki.krampe.se/gohu/32
...but even though lots of people thought it was nice it didn't catch on. Code more or less works though, but there are several other approaches too - unfortunately most of them just copy some stupid approach from a lesser language thus destroying the feeling of Smalltalk.
Namespaces are not part of Squeak today. But it's a common agreement to prefix all classes of the own project with two or three letters. That's not as save as real namespaces, but it's leightweighted, simple, and works. +smile+
The Google Summer of Code supported a namespace project called Environments. Chris Cunnington is currently investigating it, but he says it looks promising.
Not necessariy related except by name, Squeak 4.5 has a taken another run at the problem, with Colin Putney's Environments package.
Sounds like you should check out Newspeak.
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 2 years ago.
Improve this question
After some stupid musings about Klingon languages, that came from this post I began a silly hobby project creating a Klingon programming language that compiles to Lua byte-code. During the initial language design phase I looked up information about Klingon programmers, and found out about this Klingon programming rule:
A TRUE Klingon Warrior does not comment his code!
So I decided my language would not support commenting, as any good Klingon would never use them.
Now many of the Klingon ways don't seem reasonable to us Human programmers, however while dabbling with the design and implementation of my hobby language I came to realize that this Klingon rule about commenting is indeed very reasonable, if not great.
Removing the ability to comment from a programming language meant I HAVE to write literate code, no exceptions.
So it got me wondering if there are any languages out there that don't support comments?
Is there are any really good arguments to not remove commenting from a language?
Edit: Any good examples of comments required?
P.S.> My hobby language above is partially silly anyways, so don't focus too much on my implementation, as much as the concept of comments required in general
Do not comment WHAT you are doing, but WHY you are doing it.
The WHAT is taken care of by clean, readable and simple code with proper choice of variable names to support it. Comments show a higher level structure to the code that can't be (or is hard to) show by the code itself.
I am not sure I agree with the "Have" in the statement "Removing the ability to comment from a programming language meant I HAVE to write literate code, no exceptions", since it is not as if all code is documented. My guess is that most people would write unreadable code.
More to the point, I personally do not believe in the reality of the self-explanatory program or API in the practical world.
My experience from manually analyzing the documentation of entire APIs for my dissertation suggests that all too often you would have to carry more information than you could convey in the signature alone. If you eliminate interface comments from your language, what are the alternatives? No documentation is not an option. External documentation is less likely to be read.
As for internal documentation, I can see your point in wanting to reduce documentation to convince people to write better. However, comments serve many collaboration and coordination purposes and are meant to raise awareness of things. By banishing these details to extenral locations, you are reducing the chances that they come to a future reader's awareness, unless your tooling is great.
Ugh, not being able to quickly comment out a line (or lines) during testing sounds annoying to me, especially when scripting.
In general comments are a wart that indicates poor design, especially long rambling comments where its clear the developer didn't have a clue what the heck they where doing and tried to make up for it by writing a comment.
Places where comments are useful:
Leaving a ticket number next to a fix so future programmers can understand business requirements
Explaining a particularly tricky hack
Commentary on business logic for a piece of code
Terse descriptions in API docs so a third-party can use your API
In all circumstances programmers should endeavor to write code that is descriptive and NOT write comments that describe poorly written code. That being said I think there are plenty of valid reasons that languages should and must support comments.
Your code has two distinct audiences:
The compiler
Human beings like us
If you choose to remove comments altogether, the assumption you are taking is that you will be catering only to the compiler, and to nothing else.
Of course you, being Klingon, may not need comments because you are not human. Perhaps you could clearly demonstrate to us your ability by speaking in IL instead?
You don't need a single assertion in your code because, in release mode, they're all gone. But when C++ didn't have assertions built-in, someone wrote the assert macro to replace it.
Of course you don't need comments, either, for more or less the same reason. But if you design a language without comments, people will start doing things like:
HelperFunctionDoesNothing("This is a comment! Blah Blah Blah...");
I'm curious. How do you stop someone from declaring a static string containing a comment and then ignoring the variable for the rest of the func/method/procedure/battle/whatever?
var useless_comment = "Can we destroy our enemies?"
if (phasers on full) return Qapla'
Languages need comments. At least 95% of comments can be replaced by clearer code but there are still assumptions you need to document and you absolutely need to document if there's some external problem you are working around.
I never write a comment without first considering if I can change the code to eliminate the need for it but sometimes you can't.
While all source code is copyrighted by default. It is often nice to:
remind the person reading the source code that it is subject to copyright
tell people what the licensing terms are for that source code file
tell them whether or not they are looking at a protected trade secret
Unfortunately, without comments, it is difficult to do this.
Am I the only one who comments out a couple of lines code for a number of purposes?
It's going to be harder than you think to make a language where comments are impossible.
if (false) {
print("This is a comment. Chew on that, Klingons!")
}
While it's true that humans need to be able to comment code, it is not absolutely necessary that the language directly support commenting: for most languages, it would be trivial to write a script that deletes one line comments (for example, all lines beginning with '#' or some other character) then runs the compiler.
Actually, though, I am surprised and disappointed to learn that even my favorite esoteric programming languages support comments: Brainf**k and Whitespace. These languages are meant to be hard to read, so it seems like they shouldn't support commenting. (As opposed to my other favorite esoteric language: LOLCode, which is meant to be self-documenting, in lolcats-speech)
I would dissent from the other answerers on this point: I say, be true to your vision of a Klingon programming language, and do not support comments!
A point against comments is that they tend to often fall out of date with the code. Any time you add a redundancy, you're risking this sort of inconsistency.
There's actually some interesting research that I've seen when a group used NLP to analyze locking comments in some large system and then compare them to the results of static analysis and were able to fix a few bugs that way.
Isn't literate programming as much comment as it is code? Certainly, much of what I've seen of literate programming has as much explanation as code, if not more comment.
You might think that developers writing in your language will make an extra effort to write clear code but the onus will actually be on you to design a language that's so expressive that it doesn't need to be commented. Hell, not even English is like that (we still parenthesize!). If your language isn't so designed it may very well be as usable as Brainfuck and enjoy the popularity and respect of Brainfuck.
Should I add links or are links considered commentlike?
Besides, people will find ways to add comments if they need to by highjacking strings and misusing variable names (that do nothing other than stand in for comments). Have you read Godel Escher Bach?
It will be a bad idea to remove the commenting facility altogether. Surely developers must learn to write code with minimum comments i.e. to write self documenting code but there a lot of cases where one has to explain why something is being done the way it is. Consider the following cases:
a new developer might start maintaining the code and the original dev has left/ out of the project
a change in specification or market requirement leads to something that is counter intuitive
copy right notice especially if open source (some open source libs require you to do this)
It is also my experience that new programmers tend to comment more and as they develop expertise their code tends to become self documenting and concise. In general comments should be about WHY and not HOW or WHAT.
NO -- there is not a single programming language out there that requires comments.
The language is for the computer. The comments are for the humans. You can write a program with 0% comments. It'll execute, rightly or wrongly. You can't write a program with 100% comments. It'll either not compile -- no main(), etc. -- or, for scripting languages, do exactly nothing.
And, besides, real programmers don't comment their code. Just like Klingons.
While I agree with Uri's responses, I too have made a language with no comments. (ichbins.) The language was to be as simple as possible while still being able to express its own compiler cleanly; since you can do that without comments, they got jettisoned.
I'm working off and on on a revision that does support commentary, but a bit differently: literate-programming style with code nested in text instead of comments embedded in code. It might also get examples/test-cases later as a first-class language feature.
Good luck with the Klingon hacking. :-)
I can't tell you how thankful I am for Javadoc - which is really simple to set up within comments. So that's at least one sense in which comments are useful.
No, of course a language doesn't have to have commenting. But a (useful) program does have to have comments... I don't agree with your idea that literate code lacks comments. Some very good code is easily comprehensible with comments, but only with difficulty without.
I think the comments are required in many situations.
For instance, think of the algorithmic ones. Suppose there is a function written in C which solves the Traveling Salesperson Problem, there are wide range of techniques that can be used to deal with this problem. And the codes are usually cryptic by its nature.
Without explicitly describing the parameters and the algorithm used, by using comments, it is almost impossible to reuse this piece of code.
Can we live without comments on code? Sure, but that won't make live easier.
Comments are useful because they reassure the person reading your code - probably the "future you" - that you've thought about her welfare.
I think the question may become how self-contained would the language without comments be? If for example, it compiles down to DLLs that get used within other code, then how does one know anything beyond the function signature in terms of what it requires, changes and returns? I wouldn't want to have function names being dozens of characters to try to express what may be very easily done with comments above the function that can be used as documentation within something like the Object Browser within Visual Studio for example.
Of course!!
The main reason is novice developers. Not everyone knows how to write literate code. Actually there are millions out there don't get a NullPointerException when they see one.
We all start at some point.
But if you're targeting to "expert" developers only, why bother in the language in first place. You should be using butterflies !!! That's what real developer use!
Comments is a must, try to make it harder if you wish ( like using #//##/ sequence to create a comment or something like that ) but don't leave it out.
:)
I agree with you that nicely written code does not need any comments as "Code is only good documentation available to programmer. However this is very ideal condition, not everyone writes good code all time.
So to make poorly written code good in future comments are required.
I once wrote a VB app (a silly board game inspired by Monopoly) without any comments. But I did that just to piss off my teacher, who had told us comments were for "whatever we found relevant, so we could remember it later".
Perfect code needs zero comments. It should be simple, and understandible by complete novices.
Any code needs comments, I try to explain the reason for and workings of every function I write in 1 or 2 lines.
Code that explains itself only exists in a perfect world, there is always some weird hack or a reason to do something quick-n-dirty instead of the propper way.
The best thing to remember is to comment WHY code does what it does, good code explains WHAT it does 99% of the time.
Write something simple, like a piece of code that can solve a Sudoku puzzle (3 reasonably simple while loops) and try reading that 3 months later. You will immidiatly find something that isn't exactly clear.
Code is written once, but read many times over the course of its lifetime; thus it pays to optimize for readability. Clear and consistent naming of everything from constants to classes is necessary, but may or may not be sufficient to achieve this objective. If not, fill in the gaps with comments, and maintain them as you would the code.
What's the penetration of design patterns in the real world? Do you use them in your day to day job - discussing how and where to apply them with your coworkers - or do they remain more of an academic concept?
Do they actually provide actual value to your job? Or are they just something that people talk about to sound smart?
Note: For the purpose of this question ignore 'simple' design patterns like Singleton. I'm talking about designing your code so you can take advantage of Model View Controller, etc.
Any large program that is well written will use design patterns, even if they aren't named or recognized as such. That's what design patterns are, designs that repeatedly and naturally occur. If you're interfacing with an ugly API, you'll likely find yourself implementing a Facade to clean it up. If you've got messaging between components that you need to decouple, you may find yourself using Observer. If you've got several interchangeable algorithms, you might end up using Strategy.
It's worth knowing the design patterns because you're more likely to recognize them and then converge on a clean solution more quickly. However, even if you don't know them at all, you'll end up creating them eventually (if you are a decent programmer).
And of course, if you are using a modern language, you'll probably be forced to use them for some things, because they're baked into the standard libraries.
In my opinion, the question: "Do you use design pattern?", alone is a little flawed because the answer is universally YES.
Let me explain, we, programmers and designers, all use design patterns... we just don't always realise it. I know this sounds cliché, but you don't go to patterns, patterns come to you. You design stuff, it might look like an existing pattern, you name it that way so everyone understand what you are talking about and the rationale behind your design decision is stronger, knowing it has been discussed ad nauseum before.
I personally use patterns as a communication tool. That's it. They are not design solutions, they are not best practices, they are not tools in a toolbox.
Don't get me wrong, if you are a beginner, books on patterns will show you how a solution is best solved "using" their patterns rather than another flawed design. You will probably learn from the exercise. However, you have to realise that this doesn't mean that every situation needs a corresponding pattern to solve it. Every situation has a quirk here and there that will require you to think about alternatives and take a difficult decision with no perfect answer. That's design.
Anti-pattern however are on a totally different class. You actually want to actively avoid anti-patterns. That's why the name anti-pattern is so controversial.
To get back to your original question:
"Do I use design patterns?", Yes!
"Do I actively lean toward design patterns?", No.
Yes. Design patterns can be wonderful when used appropriately. As you mentioned, I am now using Model-View-Controller (MVC) for all of my web projects. It is a very common pattern in the web space which makes server-side code much cleaner and well-organized.
Beyond that, here are some other patterns that may be useful:
MVVM (Model-View-ViewModel): a similar pattern to MVC; used for WPF and Silverlight applications.
Composition: Great for when you need to use a hierarchy of objects.
Singleton: More elegant than using globals for storing items that truly need a single instance. As you mentioned, a simple pattern but it does have its uses.
It is worth noting a design pattern can also highlight a lack of language features and/or deficiencies in a language. For example, iterators are now built in as part of newer languages.
In general design patterns are quite useful but you should not use them everywhere; just where they are a good fit for your needs.
I try to, yes. They do indeed help maintainability and readability of your code. However, there are people who do abuse them, usually (from what I've seen) by forcing a system into a pattern that doesn't exist.
I try to use patterns if they are applicable. I think it's kind of sad seeing developers implement design patterns in code just for the sake of it. For the right task though, design patterns can be very useful and powerful.
There are many design patterns beyond the simple that are used in "real world". Good example Stackoverflow uses the Model View Controller Pattern. I have used Class Factories multiple times in projects for my employer, and I have seen many already written projects using them as well.
I am not saying every design pattern is being used but many are.
Yes we do, it usually happens when we start designing something and then someone notices that it resembles an existing pattern. We then take a look at it and see how it would help us achieve our goal.
We also use patterns that are not documented but that emerge from designing a lot.
Mind you, we don't use them a lot.
Yes, Factory, Chain of Responsibility, Command, Proxy, Visitor, and Observer, among others, are in use in a codebase I work with daily. As far as MVC goes, this site seems to use it quite well, and the devs couldn't say enough good things in the latest podcast.
Yes, I use a lot of well known design patterns, but I also end up building some software that I later find out uses a 'named' design pattern. Most elegant, reusable designs could be called a 'pattern'. It's a lot like dance moves. We all know the waltz, and the 2-step, but not everyone has a name for the 'bump and scoot' although most of us do it.
MVC is very well known so yes we use design patterns quite a lot. Now if your asking about the Gang of Four patterns, there are several that I use because other maintainers will know the design and what we are working towards in the code. There are several though that remain fairly obscure for what we do, so if I use one I don't get the full benefits of using a pattern.
Are they important, yes because it gives you a method of talking about software design in a quick efficient and generally accepted way. Can you do better custom solutions, well yes (sorta)?
The original GoF patterns were pulled from production code, so they catalogued what was already being used in the wild. They aren't purely or even mostly an academic thing.
I find the MVC pattern really useful to isolate your model logic, which can than be reused or worked on without too much trouble. It also helps de-coupling your classes and makes unit testing easier. I wrote about it recently (yes, shameless plug here...)
Also, I've recently used a factory pattern from a base class to generate and return the proper DataContext class that I needed on the fly, using LINQ.
Bridges are used when trying when trying to glue together two different technologies (like Cocoa and Ruby on the Mac, for example)
I find, however, that whenever I implement a pattern, it's because I knew about it before hand. Some extra thought generally goes into it as I find I must modify the original pattern slightly to accommodate my needs.
You just need to be careful not to become and architecture astronaut!
Yes, design patterns are largely used in the real world - and daily by many of the people I work with.
In my opinion the biggest value provided by design patterns is that they provide a universal, high level language for you to convey software design to other programmers.
For instance instead of describing your new class as a "utility that creates one of several other classes based on some combination of input criteria", you can simply say it's an "abstract factory" and everyone instantly understands what you're talking about.
Yes, design patterns or abstractly patterns are part of my life, where I look, I begin to see them. Therefore, I am surrounded by them. But, as you know, little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Therefore, I strongly recommend you to read GoF book.
One of the main problems about design patterns, most developers just do not get the idea, or do not believe in them. And most of the time they argue about the variables, loops, or switches. But, I strongly believe that if you do not speak the pattern language, your software will not go far and you will find yourselves in a maintenance nightmare.
As you know, anti-pattern is also dangerous thing and it happens when you have little expertise on design patterns. And refactoring anti-patterns is much more harder. As a recommended book about this problem please read "AntiPatterns: Refactoring Software, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis".
Yes.
We are even using them in my current job: Mainframe coding with COBOL and PL/I.
So far I have seen Adaptor, Visitor, Facade, Module, Observer and something very close to Composite and Iterator. Due to the nature of the languages it's mostly strutural patterns that are used. Also, I'm not always sure that the people who use them do so conciously :D
I absolutely use design patterns. At this point I take MVC for granted as a design pattern. My primary reason for using them is that I am humble enough to know that I am likely not the first person to encounter a particular problem. I rarely start a piece of code knowing which pattern I am going to use; I constantly watch the code to see if it naturally develops into an existing pattern.
I am also very fond of Martin Fowler's Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture. When a problem or task presents itself, I flip to related section (it's mostly a reference book) and read a few overviews of the patterns. Once I have a better idea of the general problem and the existing solutions, I begin to see the long term path my code will likely take via the experience of others. I end up making much better decisions.
Design patterns definitely play a big role in all of my "for the future" ideas.