Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes:
I comment *A LOT*. When I had to go back and revisit some very old
code, I wished I had commented more. I've almost never looked at a
program and said "I wish it had fewer comments."
Regrettably, I?ve encountered plenty of comments that don?t actually
reflect the code (for a variety of reasons).
If the code is wrong and the comment is right then that?s great, you
have a nice hint about how to fix the code, assuming you realize there?s
a problem at all.
However if the code is right but the comment is wrong then the comment
is worse than nothing. The code would be improved by removing it
(although almost certainly improved even more by correcting it).
In article <10o9mre$327a7$3@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/12/2025 12.00, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes:
I comment *A LOT*. When I had to go back and revisit some very old
code, I wished I had commented more. I've almost never looked at a
program and said "I wish it had fewer comments."
Regrettably, I?ve encountered plenty of comments that don?t actually
reflect the code (for a variety of reasons).
If the code is wrong and the comment is right then that?s great, you
have a nice hint about how to fix the code, assuming you realize there?s >>> a problem at all.
However if the code is right but the comment is wrong then the comment
is worse than nothing. The code would be improved by removing it
(although almost certainly improved even more by correcting it).
I encountered a perverse version of that. My (US) employer was purchased
by a German firm. We began adapting their code base for NAFTA market
requirements. The good news was that every comment was written twice:
once in German and once in English.
The bad news? I knew enough German to be able to tell that the two paired
comments sometimes disagreed on what was being done or how it was done.
A man with one clock knows what time it is. A man with two is never
quite sure...
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <10o9mre$327a7$3@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
I encountered a perverse version of that. My (US) employer was
purchased by a German firm. We began adapting their code base for
NAFTA market requirements. The good news was that every comment
was written twice: once in German and once in English.
The bad news? I knew enough German to be able to tell that the two
paired comments sometimes disagreed on what was being done or how
it was done.
A man with one clock knows what time it is. A man with two is never
quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <10o9mre$327a7$3@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/12/2025 12.00, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes:
I comment *A LOT*. When I had to go back and revisit some very old
code, I wished I had commented more. I've almost never looked at a
program and said "I wish it had fewer comments."
Regrettably, I?ve encountered plenty of comments that don?t actually
reflect the code (for a variety of reasons).
If the code is wrong and the comment is right then that?s great, you
have a nice hint about how to fix the code, assuming you realize
there?s
a problem at all.
However if the code is right but the comment is wrong then the comment >>>> is worse than nothing. The code would be improved by removing it
(although almost certainly improved even more by correcting it).
I encountered a perverse version of that. My (US) employer was purchased >>> by a German firm. We began adapting their code base for NAFTA market
requirements. The good news was that every comment was written twice:
once in German and once in English.
The bad news? I knew enough German to be able to tell that the two
paired
comments sometimes disagreed on what was being done or how it was done.
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is never
quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is never
quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
On 04/03/2026 21.29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
[...]
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is never
quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
Well, experimental science would *exactly* agree...
That's why it provides "uncertainty", together
with the experimental results.
bye,
On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
.
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is
never quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
You would need at least three.
On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
.
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is
never quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
You would need at least three.
Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
with an error estimate on the measurement.
On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
.
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is
never quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
You would need at least three.
Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
with an error estimate on the measurement.
On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is never
quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
You would need at least three.
On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
.
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is
never quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
You would need at least three.
Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
with an error estimate on the measurement.
On 3/4/26 15:35, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
.
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is
never quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
You would need at least three.
Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come
up with an error estimate on the measurement.
No, because if two don't agree, one could be just plain wrong. The
Space Shuttle system had three processors run the same computation
as a check.
On 2026-03-04, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is
never quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
You would need at least three.
Hence the old mariners' saying that I once heard: Never put to sea
with two chronometers. Always take one or three.
On 3/4/26 15:35, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
.
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is
never quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
You would need at least three.
Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
with an error estimate on the measurement.
No, because if two don't agree, one could be just plain wrong. The Space Shuttle system had three processors run the same computation as a check.
On 2026-03-05, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:
On 3/4/26 15:35, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
.
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is
never quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
You would need at least three.
Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
with an error estimate on the measurement.
No, because if two don't agree, one could be just plain wrong. The Space
Shuttle system had three processors run the same computation as a check.
And, IIRC, the third one was built and programmed by a different outfit.
On 2026-03-05 18:42, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2026-03-05, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:
On 3/4/26 15:35, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
.
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is
never quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
You would need at least three.
Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
with an error estimate on the measurement.
No, because if two don't agree, one could be just plain wrong. The Space >>> Shuttle system had three processors run the same computation as a check.
And, IIRC, the third one was built and programmed by a different outfit.
Different software? That one I did not know.
On 2026-03-05 18:42, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On 2026-03-05, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:
On 3/4/26 15:35, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
.
A man with one clock knows what time it is.ÿ A man with two is
never quite sure...
Experimental science would not agree.
You would need at least three.
Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
with an error estimate on the measurement.
No, because if two don't agree, one could be just plain wrong. The Space >>> Shuttle system had three processors run the same computation as a check.
And, IIRC, the third one was built and programmed by a different outfit.
Different software? That one I did not know.
Five computers, not three. General Purpose Computers, GPCs. Was it "IBM AP-101/S"? Four of them run the Primary Avionics Software System, PASS.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 09:32:35 |
| Calls: | 207 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 83,874 |