• pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.frOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I’m not sure how we disagree. At least, I don’t disagree with you. My whole comment was talking about “what” comments. “Why” comments are a very good thing to have where they’re needed

    • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Not updating comments with code is what I’m talking about - that’s not a comment problem, thats a programmer problem.

      If they aren’t updating the “why”, that programmer is the problem, not comments.

        • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          That really depends.

          Especially for a function that may see use in a variety of scenarios.

          I’m going to be firmly against anyone suggesting against proper comments - which, I’m sorry, but you are by your own statement.

          Code will change for many, many, many reasons beyond just refactoring.

          Edit: and why it was refactored is important as well.

          There are just so many reasons, and yes, I will continue to be against this newer trend of “dont comment, make codes your comments”.

          All that is, is a great way to make your code harder to manage later. It doesnt take much effort to explain why you’re doing something.

          • pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.frOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            Let’s rephrase my opinion, so that we can (hopefully) agree on something : What I’m arguing against is the “ChatGPT-style” (or “tutorial-style”) comments that I’ve seen all over juniors’ code, even before LLMs got widespread