On Dec 4, 12:07 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > LOL > > next time bring it up on the developers list. > > I do not mind explaining how things work inside and perhaps we will > find out there is a better way to implement it. ;-)
This is not a joke; not funny - comments will serve _you_ as well as others. In the case of languages.py, clear abstraction would have made it clear what the representation should be in the code - but more to the point, good comments would have made it easier for the community to review this and SPOT it before a user reported the bug. Comments are important, and but ONE (the lowest) rung in the needed ladder of appropriate abstraction w.r.t. design. If you can "describe" it, then you can comment it. If you want to explain something on the developers list (which seems inactive), discuss HOW you came to a particular abstraction, and if it fits well (e.g. "give a man a fish - feed him for a day; teach a man to fish - feed him for a lifetime"). Comments are so basic, and so low level - but necessary to even talk about anything higher level, more useful. It's a missing link. - Yarko > > Massimo > > On Dec 4, 11:45 am, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote: > > > > > There are many parts of gluon that I look at and go... wtf. > > > And read it again, and go... wtf. > > > Only to find out the wtf comes from another module that has another > > wtf in it that comes from another module.. > > > If the chain of cohesion was commented, gluon would be much much > > easier to learn. > > > -Thadeus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en.
