• linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    tre dagar sedan

    basically how it feel when a professor requires u comment every single line of code u write to explain it. I know people tend to drop out of real engineering to do programing but an entire 4 years of this bullshit as opposed to just a couple classes sounds way worse than calc 3 or differential equations.

    • Urist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      tre dagar sedan

      The only problem with courses like calc 3 and differential equations (in my experience, as a mathematician) is that they are cheating somewhat. By cheating I mean relying on inadequate, flawed or entirely omitted proofs. How can the students truly understand something if they are not presented the whole story (or at least reference)?

      The good thing about these courses are that there are usually no shortage of relevant exercises!

      • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        två dagar sedan

        u could be right calc 3 was alright, pretty fun actually but differential equations i still dont get at all, maybe i should try learn it on my own now with more time and no pressure.

  • GooberEar@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    fyra dagar sedan

    I know some folks are joking about and dunking on this, but in modern times, I have justification. Call me lazy, but I have found myself writing out these comments and then letting the AI take over to at least give me a sketch of an implementation. Works reasonably well and saves me a lot of time and effort. Mostly I don’t bother to remove them, though I usually edit them a bit.

    On the other hand, there are factions within my colleagues who steadfastly insist that commenting is unnecessary and to some degree even potentially harmful, and that if you feel the need to comment your code, it means your code should be improved so that it’s obvious what it is doing without the need for comments.

    • parpol@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      fyra dagar sedan

      At least docblocking a summary above every method is always good. You can automatically generate documentation this way.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      fyra dagar sedan

      And your colleagues are probably correct with respect to this sort of «what it does» commenting. That can be counterproductive because if the code changes and the comment isn’t updated accordingly, it can be ambiguous. Better have the code be the singular source of truth. However, «why it does it» comments are another story and usually accepted by most as helpful.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        fyra dagar sedan

        if the code changes and the comment isn’t updated accordingly, it can be ambiguous.

        People always site this as a reason comments are bad. In 30+ years as a developer I have seen (and participated in) a lot of failed software projects, but not once has a mismatch between comments and code been the actual cause of the failure. Moreover, the same logic could be applied to the names of methods and variables (“if the code changes and the method and variable names aren’t updated accordingly, it can be ambiguous”) but nobody ever suggests getting rid of that. At the end of the day, comments are useful for imparting information about the code to future developers (or yourself) that is too complicated to be adequately communicated by a method name.

        • theherk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          fyra dagar sedan

          I didn’t say the source of failure. I said a source of ambiguity. And having also been in the industry for decades, I have encountered it many times, where a junior programmer or somebody new to a project read some documentation and assumed a behavior which in fact did not match the current implementation. So you may have been fortunate, but your experience is certainly not ubiquitous.

          With respect to variable names, I’d suggest those too should absolutely be updated too if the name is given in a way that adds ambiguity.

          I’m not saying comments are bad; rather that bad comments are bad, and sometimes worse than no comment.

      • Overshoot2648@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        fyra dagar sedan

        I’ll add that you should have a comment anytime you are using some sort of algorithm to explain what it is and the expected result when it’s not intuitive or a complex math operation that isn’t immediately clear. Ex// I’m using Newton’s Method to approximate a solution to speed up the inverse square root

    • Benjaben@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      fyra dagar sedan

      Would you mind sharing a bit more about the workflow you’re describing? I’m on a “ask people how they’re using AI to help them dev” kick.

      Sounds like you’re using an agent integrated with your IDE, would you be willing to give specifics? And you’re talking about writing some comments that describe some code you haven’t yet written, letting the AI take a stab at writing the code based on your comments, and then working from there? Did I get that right?

      Happy for literally any elaboration you feel like giving :)

      • GooberEar@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        tre dagar sedan

        I use VS Code and GitHub Co-pilot and develop in a variety of different languages and frameworks. I’ve got lots of experience with some, but I’m less knowledgeable on others.

        So, having the AI assist with languages I am very familiar with is basically a way to save time and preserve my mental energy. For languages and frameworks I’m less experienced with, it speeds things up because I’m not having to constantly search how-tos and forums for guidance. And for languages/frameworks I have limited or no experience with, it can be a helpful learning tool that speeds up how long it takes to get ramped up.

        With this set-up, if I start writing a line of code and then pause for a moment, co-pilot kicks in and tries to autocomplete that line, sometimes even suggests the entire block of code. It’s really good at recognizing simple patterns and common boilerplate stuff. It’s less good at figuring out more complex stuff, though.

        However, I find that if I start out by writing a comment that explains what I’m trying to accomplish, and to some degree how to accomplish it before I start writing one of those more complex blocks/lines, the AI has a much higher success rate in returning helpful, functioning code. So, basically yes, I write the comment to describe code I haven’t written, and I’ll let the AI take over from there.

        This works for code, raw database queries, configuration files, and even for writing tests. I’m not an expert at building out Docker configurations for local development or configuring auto-deployment on whatever random system is being used for a project, but I can often get those things up and running just by describing in comments what I need and what I’m trying to accomplish.

        The VS Code co-pilot extension also has some context menu items that let you ask questions and/or ask for suggestions, which comes in handy for some things, but for me, typing out my intentions in comments and then letting the auto-complete kick in as I’m starting a line of code is faster, more efficient, and seems to work better.

        Granted, co-pilot also likes to try to auto-complete comments, so that’s sometimes funny just to read what it “thinks” I’m trying to do. And most of the time, I do remove my comments that were specifically to guide co-pilot on what I wanted it to do if they’re super redundant. And, at the end of the day, not everything co-pilot suggests is production-worthy, functional, nor does what I actually described. In fact, a lot of it is not, so you should expect to go back and fine tune things at a minimum. It’s just that overall, it’s good enough that even with all the supervision and revisions I have to make, it’s still a net positive, for now.

  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    fyra dagar sedan

    My comments are just the code that didn’t work but I don’t want to delete yet because I might make it work except I never will be cause I already rewrote it so it does.

    • darkpanda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      fyra dagar sedan

      The code directly below:

      function getPathToUploadDirectory() {
        return config.tmp_path
      }
      
  • Sparky@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    fyra dagar sedan

    Hey thanks for reminding me I made a clock squared in blender about 2 years ago

    yes there is an error in the image, and no I’m not telling you where it is

    • cmhe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      tre dagar sedan

      An interesting concept would be if all hand on the 12 clocks would work, but the hands of the clock in the middle are stuck at 12 position, this way the hands in the middle would point to the clock showing the correct time.

    • flora_explora@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      fyra dagar sedan

      What a fun idea!

      Is it on purpose that all clocks in this are coupled at the 3 o’clock position? I assume all the clocks go the same speed. Then the large clock and all the smaller clocks at the 3 o’clock position (there are 13 of them) would show the same time. E.g. in one hour, the 12 o’clock position would show 1 o’clock, but the large clock and all the clocks on the 3 o’clock position would show 4 o’clock.

      Oh and why is it a clock squared if you have three layers of clocks? Isn’t it cubed then?

      • Sparky@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        fyra dagar sedan

        I was mainly thinking of making some recursion hence why all the subclocks mirror the parent clock (for that given hour). Also I called it clock squared because I didn’t think the resolution would be high enough for people to actually notice the 3rd level of clocks.

        You might notice that some dials don’t really align with the hours they’re supposed to show. That’s because I had to place a bunch of clocks at varying hours with a viewport rendering the parent clock at an angle that probably made it difficult to spot the errors. I rendered it once and didn’t bother re-rendering it once I saw the errors :)

        • flora_explora@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          fyra dagar sedan

          Haha yes, recursion is always fun!

          Although I’m still confused on what the clock would show in an hour. Because if the subclocks mirror the parent clock at the given time, then they would all be stuck to the hour they are positioned on? Or if they can move then the sublcocks are coupled to 3 o’clock of the main clock. But well, it is all hypothetical anyways :D