Matthias I did basic BASIC on Tandy Color Computer 2 many years ago. Never had the right opportunity to learn programming since.
Steve On Jul 10, 2013 11:31 PM, <users-requ...@racket-lang.org> wrote: > Send users mailing list submissions to > users@racket-lang.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/listinfo > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > users-requ...@racket-lang.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > users-ow...@racket-lang.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of users digest..." > > > [Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users] > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Why experienced programmers don?t use comments? > (Neil Van Dyke) > 2. Re: Why experienced programmers don?t use comments? > (Richard Cleis) > 3. Re: Why experienced programmers don?t use comments? (Ben Duan) > 4. define-generics #:defaults (Bert De Ketelaere) > 5. Newbie's Dilemma (Steve Lett) > 6. Re: Newbie's Dilemma (Matthias Felleisen) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:34:45 -0400 > From: Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> > To: users <users@racket-lang.org> > Subject: Re: [racket] Why experienced programmers don?t use comments? > Message-ID: <51dc3ba5.3040...@neilvandyke.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Five categories of comments I currently use in Racket (refined over the > years, and still sometimes refined further): > > 1. Comments prefixed with "TODO:", for things that either I know have to > be done, or that I might want to consider later. I often prefix the > former as "TODO: !!!", for historical reasons. I think that TODO > comments are more important than it seems most people think they are. > The funny thing with "TODO" comments is that they often persist in the > code much longer than you'd think they would. > > 2. Comments worded imperatively to give a higher-level description of > what is being done in the following lines of imperative code. In an a > bit of code with complicated branching, I'll sometimes start each block > with an imperative comment with a summary of conditions that got us > there, including contrastive emphasis, such as "Foo is *not* a bar, but > baz *is* null, so frob with the X factor." > > 3. Comments prefixed with "Note:" to give an aside that explains why we > are doing something the way we are doing it. Use this means of > conveying the info when it feels better than conveying the same info as > rationale in an imperative comment. > > 4. Disable code. Usually these should be removed eventually, although > occasionally I keep them in because certain code needs its unit tests > commented-out because the code normally can't depend on the unit test > framework. > > 5. Markers, such as simply ";;" for separating parts of a big list of > "require" forms (e.g., "for-syntax" vs. standard libraries vs. > non-standard libraries vs. modules that are part of the same library), > and sometimes ";;EOF". These aren't all that useful, and they're often > kinda ugly, but I still sometimes find reason to do them. > > The other day, I also used "TODO: !!!" all-caps comments as placeholders > for someone else, in some code for a client, who wanted me to make an > app, and then they would add in a few bits of code very specific to > something in which they were expert. Normally, I would put a > library/framework border there, but in this case, working on the same > code file and using placeholder comments made more sense. I don't > expect to do this very often, so I'm not giving this category a number. > > Note that descriptive identifiers and keywords can go a long way towards > readable code that does not need hardly any comments. I have written > some code (for which audit-ability was especially important) that reads > as close to English pseudocode, and most comments would be superfluous. > > Neil V. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 06:55:18 -1000 > From: Richard Cleis <rcl...@me.com> > To: Ben Duan <yfe...@gmail.com> > Cc: users@racket-lang.org > Subject: Re: [racket] Why experienced programmers don?t use comments? > Message-ID: <f8220fc8-03b0-4685-b992-bd2f89a3e...@me.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > We continue to edit, comment, and document code as if it will be printed > on paper and read from top to bottom. Instead, editors should manage > templates for comments and documentation that can instantly be controlled > (clutter switches, arguably). The software leads need a way of affecting > the requirements that these aids impose. > > I am an experienced programmer and believer in the teachings of HtDP, but > it is impractical to convince others of the benefits of taking the time to > (for example) describe inputs and outputs... as schedules are gradually > morphing into nonsense. Furthermore, changing arguments as code evolves > screws up whatever comments and documentation have already been made. > Development environments that aid programmers in maintaining such > non-compiled portions of programs have been attempted, but they are hardly > good enough or universally accepted. > > I suppose that was a long way of saying that it is too difficult maintain > thorough comments, so experienced programmers instead use their heads to > minimize them. > > rac > > > > On Jul 8, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Ben Duan wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > I have a question here. There?s an extensive use of comments in HtDP. > But there are few comments in experienced programmers? code, for example in > racket?s source code. Why is that? > > > > Thanks, > > Ben > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:34:16 +0800 > From: Ben Duan <yfe...@gmail.com> > To: users@racket-lang.org > Subject: Re: [racket] Why experienced programmers don?t use comments? > Message-ID: > < > canww-jkh61e-fjpmcwvq-qhpajcgbdtxirbqfnpvm6jhkpq...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Thank you all for your great insights. I've learned a lot through your > books, your documents and your discussions here. You have saved me a large > amount of time figuring out the better way for programming. > > Thanks again, > Ben > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Ben Duan <yfe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > I have a question here. There?s an extensive use of comments in HtDP. But > > there are few comments in experienced programmers? code, for example in > > racket?s source code. Why is that? > > > > Thanks, > > Ben > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20130710/7e5764a0/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:03:35 +0200 > From: Bert De Ketelaere <bed...@hotmail.com> > To: "users@racket-lang.org" <users@racket-lang.org> > Subject: [racket] define-generics #:defaults > Message-ID: <dub116-w943d5d0e25c5473fd168ccc7...@phx.gbl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Helo, > > in the documentation it is mentioned that the syntax for define-generics > #:defaults is the same as for struct #:methods: > > http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/struct-generics.html#%28form._%28%28lib._racket%2Fgeneric..rkt%29._define-generics%29%29 > and #:methods specifies that define/generic can be used to bind the > generic method: > > http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/define-struct.html#%28form._%28%28lib._racket%2Fprivate%2Fbase..rkt%29._struct%29%29 > > but unfortunately using define/generic in #:defaults is a syntax error. > Is it possible to access the generic method from inside #:defaults > definitions? > > Groeten, > Bert > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20130710/5d13deae/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:42:42 +1000 > From: Steve Lett <steve.lett...@gmail.com> > To: users@racket-lang.org > Subject: [racket] Newbie's Dilemma > Message-ID: > <CABg+j4tzyKOfwMH3rM39erdCgLu= > nwn_oz9f_ukfahh4aht...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I recently downloaded four things. Picturing Programs, How to Design > Programs, Realm of Racket, and Intro to Systematic Program Design, from > Coursera. > > My question is, in which order should I complete these? And why? > > Thanks, Steve > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20130710/65d6b53f/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:29:47 -0400 > From: Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> > To: Steve Lett <steve.lett...@gmail.com> > Cc: users@racket-lang.org > Subject: Re: [racket] Newbie's Dilemma > Message-ID: <cb50532f-a03b-4057-a9e9-81c55b750...@ccs.neu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > What is your (level of) programming experience? > > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Steve Lett <steve.lett...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I recently downloaded four things. Picturing Programs, How to Design > Programs, Realm of Racket, and Intro to Systematic Program Design, from > Coursera. > > > > My question is, in which order should I complete these? And why? > > > > Thanks, Steve > > > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > > > End of users Digest, Vol 95, Issue 22 > ************************************* >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
