Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-16 12:09:15

Richard Newman <richard_at_[hidden]> writes:

<snip XP philosophy>

> IMHO, proper detailed documentation is simply readable
> code.

This is part of the reason I have such a hard time with XP.

The first problem is that the author of a piece of code almost
invariably overestimates its readability. It's common that even the
original author can't understand what he was doing after 6 months go

The second problem is that you can't determine the correctness of code
by looking at it without a specification. The redundancy provided by
documentation is important.

> At some degree, having the code clearly reflect the algorithms
> involved, such that a layperson can assess what product does, allows
> these translation layers to be reduced.

You're seriously suggesting that the layperson can read the code and
assess what the product does?

> Finally, please note that I would not advocate writing code such that
> C++ operators and the like are rewritten into pseudo-English (or
> whichever).

> For instance, the tertiary operation

ternary [ie. "?:"] operator?

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at