🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1013@abvax.UUCP> jaz@calvin () writes:
>I just wanted to say that though I love the GNU stuff, I wish that the
>programs were commented. For the most part, the comments are strictly
>header copyleft statements. I feel that if the programs were commented
>better, there would be more user contribution of source code, fixes, etc.
>to the cause. There are a lot of journey-men/woman programmers out there
>that would be able to understand the programs if there were design documents
>and or source code commenting. Does anyone else share my view, or do most
>people not believe in commenting. I know that GNU resources are limited but
>it's a double edged sword, because with more comments, there would be more
>contributions.
>
>-jaz@calvin.icd.ab.com

	I agree with you completely on this point.  The lake of
reasonable internal comments in the GNU software has always made me wary
of working with it.  The version of EMACS I support now was originally a
small, very basic version written by Dave Conroy.  While it had very
little in the way of features, the grace and style and copious internal
documentation made it a joy to work with.  Today I get a large volume of
suggested changes, fixes and enhancements for MicroEMACS because jsut
about anyone can look at its code and hack away.

	Going back and adding code after the fact (which is what the CS
courses here seem to be encouraging in their students) is NOT a
reasonable way to end up with a good result.  I learned long ago to
write the comments as I was writting the code. Writing the comment at
the top of each few lines of code helps me sort out just what I am
trying to do with the code, and lets everyone else know the intent of it
as well.

			Daniel Lawrence  voice: (317) 742-5153
					  arpa:	dan@midas.mgmt.purdue.edu
				The Programmer's Room 
				Fido: 1:201/10 - (317) 742-5533