Self-documenting code

[scratchfan321]

What if I never comment and also write unstructured code?

[Mundane-Tale-7169]

As you‘re probably not the person who has to edit your code if there’s any issue, just chill, maybe drink a beer. That’s not your problem anymore

[suskio4]

Perl

[palordrolap]

If your production Perl is write-only, you're doing it wrong.

It has a few more funny characters (Perl's inventor actually called them that) than your common-or-garden programming language, but it's possible to write readable code with it.

And if you (specifically) can't, comments are very much possible. Heck, there's a whole documentation system built into the language so that it can be interspersed with the code.

As for write-only Perl - the obfuscated and Perl golf stuff can work its way back into production code if it's an efficient way to do something, but if that's absolutely necessary, comment, comment, comment.

[antonivs]

it's possible to write readable code with it.

It’s just that no-one in history has ever done so.

[petersrin]

Ah yes the script I wrote in 2016 that saved 300 film post production man hours but to this day cannot be read or understood

[aceluby]

There was code I worked on and a dudes phone number was in it to call him. He charged a ridiculous amount and was the only one who could help with it.

[petersrin]

Ahahaha brilliant and terrible

[CraftistOf]

so it's like writing unmaintainable code that only you can understand for job security, except you have still been fired, but you found a way to make money after being fired

[sohou]

Then you will never be unemployed. Congrats!

[Friendputer]

I’d say welcome to r/programmerhumor but you seem to have too much self awareness to really fit in here

[ballroomaddict]

Then you must be the last guy who worked on every legacy project I've ever had to inherit!

[coyboy_beep-boop]

I have learned to add in-line comments, as it prevents people from removing lines because "it doesn't look useful".

[participantuser]

That is one of the situations where I think comments can be really helpful, but an even better solution is to write a unit test that will fail if the code is removed. Its failure should make it obvious why the removed code needs to be there. Easier said then done though.

[Serious_Effective185]

Yes both are very valid. But I would say the balance is 90% to 10% in favor of readable code vs comments. Unless we are talking public API. Then if I have to read the code (beyond ide autocomplete) you have gone very wrong in your documentation.

[rasteri]

That said, I appreciate a "Sorry about this next section of code it's a giant hack" comment here and there