Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Let's take the function browse_draw_mtime() and start picking nits :-)

Let’s…not? I don’t see why you would read “this code is nice and well commented” and immediately comb the code to try to find dubious “bugs” with it? It might have been mildly relevant if you responded with “no, I don’t think the code is actually that readable, for example look at this part” but to jump in when nobody made any assertions of correctness or safety and then bring up minor problems is just strange. If someone says “I think she is very pretty” do you respond with “let’s look at her parallel parking skills, shall we? Eh, I’ve seen better”?




When I see “this code is nice and well commented”, I open the first file that comes up to see how good it is, how an example it can be. Then what I see there is functions without any comment, with single-letter variables, with little error checking, with hardcoded yet repeated literal values, and with a few mistakes (with or without consequences but that requires some investigation to be assessed). Then I open a second file and I find a mistake there too. That's in less than 3 minutes, in a review that's just a quickly oversight picking and peaking random excerpts.

So should I have said, "baaaah, this sucks!"? As it nevertheless far from being the worst code ever, I'd rather warn that what I am going to do amounts to nit-picking, and put a smiley to show that I don't want to disparage the work presented to me.


> Then what I see there is functions without any comment, with single-letter variables, with little error checking, with hardcoded yet repeated literal values

Well, you didn't really talk about those things the first time, you tried to find bugs instead…




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: