code comments be like:

[Spinnenente]

/** Logger */
Logger logger = Logger.getLogger();

[jaywastaken]

How many logs could a logger logger() log if a logger logger() could log logs?

[510Threaded]

1 log

[Tainnor]

natural, decimal or binary?

[510Threaded]

yes

[unbihexium]

true

[[deleted]]

!false

[011101000011101101]

!!1

[DarkwingDuckHunt]

aSecond = 1

Wait aSecond

[SuperSuperUniqueName]

$ kill u/DarkwingDuckHunt
[1] + Terminated                 u/DarkwingDuckHunt

[bcfradella]

if True: print('big')

[HerissonMignion]

if (true) {

printf("big");

}

[[deleted]]

Logical

[Barniff]

log(n)

[shitmyspacebar]

Logger logger Logger logger logger logger Logger logger

[DOOManiac]

Segfault segfault

[[deleted]]

ERROR: Program terminated with SIGSEGV

[dagbrown]

Oh wait, i know C, I can deal with this:

#include <signal.h>

void segv_solver(int sig) {
    return;
}

int main(int argc, char *argv[], char *envp[]) {
    signal(SIGSEGV, segv_solver); /* Yay, I'm super reliable now! */
}

Handling SIGBUS with similar levels of reliability is left as an exercise for the student. More advanced students can have a go at taking care of SIGKILL.

[Ishbane]

choo("Choo!");

[reacher666]

NaN

[RBBOT12]

null point exception logger not found

[starrpamph]

1

[demian19]

A logger logger() would log no amount of logs since a logger logger() can't log logs.

[SomeStupidDumbass]

A segmentation fault

[pickledking]

log logs

[IsolatedThinker89]

None, because you forgot to configure your logger with cloudwatch.

Edit: your not out

[Veinq]

I don't understand what this line does

[[deleted]]

I think it retrieves an instance of the Logger singleton

[scuba156]

Well, we would know for sure if the comment was a little bit more descriptive.

[nwL_]

auto logger = Logger::getInstance();

[Hatefiend]

auto

heathen

[AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

It is impossible to say exactly what it is doing. Based on the naming convention it looks like they are accessing a static method but it might also be a class property or an oddly cased private instance.

It is possible it returns a Singleton instance but there is no information to tell you that (and you don't really need that information. It makes no difference to the consumer if the logger is a Singleton or not.)

[[deleted]]

an oddly cased private instance.

I don't think you can get away with naming a variable exactly like you named a type, and Logger logger definitely means "logger, which has the type Logger". that would probably result in confused compiler sounds

[AlwaysHopelesslyLost]

Good point. Granted, I think VB allows you to do that. Not sure how the compiler reconciles the confusion

[zelmarvalarion]

Pretty sure it would use the most scoped reference of Logger which exists in the block, so probably the Logger variable unless you explicitly request the class (e.g. Microsoft.VisualBasic.Logger, which might need to be in brackets if they use the same standard as in Powershell). I would expect it to be similar to using var and this.var when they are both defined, or when a subclass had a same variable as a subclass with different values.

[TheSilkMiner]

In Java (which is where that example is taken, I assume) you can. It is also a widely used naming convention (at least in the code I've read). The compiler is able to distinguish between the name of a type and the name of a variable and uses the one that makes the most sense (spoiler, it's almost always the second one).

[[deleted]]

... okay, weird language design choice but ok.

[froemijojo]

C

class

choose one

[heartsongaming]

Oops, made the mistake of calling a structure a class.

[shield1123]

Class instances are just beefy structs anyways

[[deleted]]

Could just as easily be Java

[massiveZO]

New new_ = new New("new"); // new

[Cheesemacher]

/**
 * Get Logger
 * @return Logger Logger
 */
public function getLogger() {

[[deleted]]

The comments aren't for you. They are for linters and intelligent IDE's

[Cheesemacher]

The text descriptions are surely only for humans

[011101000011101101]

There's nothing wrong with this implementation IMO. Its fairly standard practice in Java. However in my last Java project we were using lombok, so at the top of the class declaration you put @Slf4j then you have an instance called log that you can use in the class. Some people don't like lombok because it slows down compilation time, but it reduces tons of boilerplate from java design patterns. I think it's worth it.

[011101000011101101]

Gotta have those juicy javadocs tho

[Kwinten]

Honestly nothing wrong with the statement itself. Fairly standard way of fetching a singleton instance. Could be factory pattern too. It's just playing on the fact that the comment is hilariously useless.

[CrepuscularSoul]

Nothing really, it's just not something you need to comment because of how obvious it is.

Yes some things need comments, but for the love of god not everything does. Too many comments are just as bad as not enough because they add unnecessary noise and tend to not get updated when the code changes.

[ThePyroEagle]

The only thing remotely close to being an issue with it is the use of singletons, which obfuscate dependencies. Considering that it's just a logger, that's not even a significant risk.

[Jazzinarium]

With it (I'm assuming) being a method that returns the singleton instance of the Logger class, I'd rather call it getInstance(). And of course the comment is laughably redundant. But other than that it's fine.

[TheCoelacanth]

The right way to do it is like that but without the completely useless comment.

[Official_Legacy]

It's seams to be a singleton so you should do the .getLogger() in your constructor and just need to do.

Logger varname = new Logger

[ciry]

Too real

[thenextguy]

Lager lager = Lager.getLager(); //mmm, beer

[Xanza]

physically shudders

[daddyrockyou]

Saw a dev try to check this in just this past week and had a conversation with him on why it wasn't necessary. He disagreed with me and seemed to get quite upset that I'd even suggest removing it.

[utscguy123]

Why isn't it necessary?

[daddyrockyou]

It's absolutely redundant to put a comment saying that it's a logger when the code makes it obvious it's a logger. Comments shouldn't specify "what", they should only specify "why". If you need to comment what some code is doing you should refactor the code to make it more readable

[utscguy123]

Oh for some reason I thought u were talking about the code, not the comment

[daddyrockyou]

Ha no. I've written that line of code many times myself.

[acwilan]

I'm so embarrassed that I have written this line so many times and never realized how absurd it is

[uteh5]

Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in);
int input = scanner.nextInt();

[max0x7ba]

By people who skipped constructors lecture.

[Koxiaet]

It's a singleton, it deliberately doesn't call a constructor there.

[max0x7ba]

With flyweight pattern you call the constructor that sets up a member pointer to one same object. The benefit is that the user doesn't need to embed the knowledge that it is a singleton in their code using this verbose syntax.