Yeah, I figured you''d say that.

Fine, using your definition, manipulation is necessary for success, at least definition 2.a. From context, it seems obvious that he was not using definition 2.a, but instead was implying at least detriment, if not dishonesty.

He talks about somehow manipulating the boss to be annoyed at your coworkers; I find that detrimental to all involved and implicating dishonest or, by your definition, insidious means.

If he says he was using manipulation in an helpful and honest manner, I will appoligize for the blatent miscommunication on my end.

As for objective, a well formed arguemnt examines both sides, only to (attempt to) argue against it. And I''m using Paul Cunningham''s definition of argment
ar+gu+ment n. A discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate.
What he made was obviously an argument and not an objective discussion. As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as an objective argument.

Alright, I think I''ve made a fool of myself enough for right now.



Mike

quote:
Could it be that context is important? I, for one, need my documentation/comments in close proximity to the code. Whether that means liberal commenting in the code itself, or code snippets in the documentation, it helps me not to have to go back and forth.

I actually think this is quite insightful. It is one thing to see a good piece of documentation for an algorithm, but I find that well written (and therefore commented) code or pseudo code is almost essential for full understanding of the algorithm/implementation.

for the most part, the code should be self documenting, as umpteen people have already said, through use of sensible variable names and function names. But sometimes you might have to do something completely weird, for the sake of optimisation or whatever - a comment can reassure someone else looking at your code that you are doing what you intended to do, and that there wasnt a typo in your code. Commenting broadly what a block of code does and why it does it takes very little time to do, and it can save someone else hours of grief when he takes over your code. Steadfastly refusing to comment ''because it wastes time'' and ''any half decent coder should be able to figure it out'' is selfish and arrogant in my opinion. The amount of time and effort you put into ''manipulating'' your co-workers and explaining to them what a piece of code does almost certainly exceeds the effort required to put the comments in in the first place.

*lets out a gigantic yawn*

hehe... :D

I stopped reading in the middle of page 3 or somewhere...

daveb has made many many valid points. I could never see myself reading code (EFFICIENTLY) without comments.

Currently, I work for a product/consultant company. I''m coding a game in my off time. I have potentially thousands of people look at my code. Our code is modular. Our code uses good names for functions and variables that describe what they are (ie - to get a description of an MQ connection the function would be called GetMQConnectionInfo()....)

However, those thousands of people rely HEAVILY on comments in code. Are comments necessary? No. Probably not. But if you want maximum efficiency then you definitely need comments.

You may counter that a good user''s guide is preferred. I strongly disagree. Many coders have a very arrogant approach (much like what I see here...) towards reading a user''s manual or any documentation other than code. I get freaking support calls non-stop from people on the field who practically view reading documentation with disgust. You may think it''s the best way to go but you''re breaking standards. I''m sorry. It is often easier to break a twig then to bend it.

E.D.

As for objective, a well formed arguemnt examines both sides, only to (attempt to) argue against it. And I''m using Paul Cunningham''s definition of argment
ar+gu+ment n. A discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate.
What he made was obviously an argument and not an objective discussion. As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as an objective argument.

------------------------------------------

I said that about 2-3 pages ago.

-----------------------------

A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."

The Micro$haft BSOD T-Shirt