>Enough digression - if considered carefully a comment about the
purpose of an object belongs in the object definition itself.
I use Pasdoc for that
On 07/12/2013 08:07 AM, vfclists . wrote:
On 11 July 2013 23:07, Benito van der Zander <ben...@benibela.de
<mailto:ben...@benibela.de>> wrote:
Annotations like in Java would be nice...
On 07/11/2013 10:22 PM, vfclists . wrote:
Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
I think they should. One for the design itself and one for
describing the usage at design or runtime.
Smalltalk has it.
Consider it a version of the Hint property but for the developer
--
Frank Church
=======================
http://devblog.brahmancreations.com
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
laza...@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
<mailto:laza...@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org>
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
laza...@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
<mailto:laza...@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org>
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
This attitude which exists in the Pascal community needs to end. I say
Pascal not FreePascal because when I examine a lot of free Delphi
libraries I see the same thing. Lots and lots of code and not a
comment in sight. It makes stuff needlessly difficult. The simple fact
is documentation is never going to happen because no one has time to
create it with separate tools, not even the people writing the code
themselves. Coding time is the best time for documentation because
that is when the intent of the code is clear and fresh in the
developers mind, and incurs minimal additional cost. After all it
takes barely a minute or two to describe a function, and the same
parsing tools compiling the code can pull out the comments and create
documentation stubs if there is a need to flesh them out further, eg
with examples etc
Even a lot of the funded open source libraries don't have the
resources to create proper documentation. If you take Delphi for
instance, since Turbo Pascal, Delphi 7 etc the quality of
documentation has gone down and these are companies that are well funded.
Instead of doing the simple thing a purist attitude has been adopted
which never does anyone any good.
It is time developers learn to treat other developers as consumers not
people who are supposed to RTFC or RTFM. Developers are people who are
supposed to put parts together just by examining the function
parameters and the function descriptions rather than wade through
loads of procedure definitions and sample code full of similar
sounding and confusing names.
Enough digression - if considered carefully a comment about the
purpose of an object belongs in the object definition itself. Why
should interrogation about an object's purpose be handled by a whole
subsystem of code which has precisely nothing to do with the object,
ie the operating system, a help displaying program, a filename which
is the help document, as well as a search string which is the object's
name? Multiply that by the variety of help displaying programs for
each operating system, then by the number of operating systems
available then you can see how ridiculous the whole concept is. Just
bureaucracy piled on bureaucracy and attachment to ill thought out
convention and tradition. There is never a direct link between an
object and the help display programs available on the operating system.
There is a totally insane disconnect here. The Smalltalk guys got it
right.
There can be an options to strip the comments out in the final
deliverable just like the debugging information.
--
Frank Church
=======================
http://devblog.brahmancreations.com
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
