@DaleGribble88@programming.dev
@DaleGribble88@programming.dev avatar

DaleGribble88

@DaleGribble88@programming.dev

College Prof in the US, focus areas are Human-Computer Interaction, Cybersecurity, and Machine Learning

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

DaleGribble88,
@DaleGribble88@programming.dev avatar

Granted there were no other cars on the road at the time, I did the same thing as a young adult. I took my 1985 Pontiac Fiero GT iceskating on a 3 lane highway with about 0.5-1.5 inch of snow and ice buildup

DaleGribble88,
@DaleGribble88@programming.dev avatar

Obligatory “Silent but deadly” joke

DaleGribble88,
@DaleGribble88@programming.dev avatar

Tangential fun fact: the guy from “Shadiversity” and the guy from “Drawing with Jazza” are brothers. This is incredibly odd to me because I don’t think that they look or act alike at all.

DaleGribble88,
@DaleGribble88@programming.dev avatar

I’m just a random guy stumbling across this thread hours after the fact. I want to say that after reading many of these comments. I feel like I’m starting to get a handle on what your position is. You aren’t wrong, but you are communicating your idea horribly.
Your position seems to be “Thankfully, many crimes do leave behind lasting visual cues, so you can still do a binary search for those situations if you are clever about what to look for.”
What you’ve actually been communicating is that “If there really was no lasting visual cue, then just find a lasting visual cue anyway, then do a binary search on that and it’ll work!” - It’s all about how you choose to present, order, and emphasize your comments. Your message is more than just the words you type. I hope this message helps clarify the debate and confusion for you and anyone else who stumbles upon this long chain.

DaleGribble88, (edited )
@DaleGribble88@programming.dev avatar

I have such a love-hate relationship with that video. On the whole, I think that video is bad and should be taken down. The creator is arguing against a very specific type of commenting but is harassing comments in all forms. It even addresses as such with a 20 second blurb 2/3 of the way into video distinguishing between “documentation comments” - but doesn’t really provide any examples of what a good documentation comment is. Just a blurred mention of “something something Java Doc something something better code leads to better documentation” but doesn’t elaborate why.
It’s a very devious problem in that I don’t feel like any particular claim in the video is wrong, but taken within the context of the average viewer, (I teach intro. comp. sci courses and students LOVE to send this video and similar articles to me for why they shouldn’t have to comment their spaghettified monstrosities), and the inconsistent use of comments vs. code duplication vs. documentation, the video seems problematic if not half-baked.
In fairness, it is great advice for someone who has been working in the industry for 15 years and still applies for junior positions within the same company - but I can’t imagine that was the target audience for this video. In my experience, anyone who has been programming on a large-ish project for more than 6 months can reach the same conclusions as this video.

DaleGribble88,
@DaleGribble88@programming.dev avatar

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
Also, good enough is good enough. And if it’s not, well then, it wasn’t good enough then, was it?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • localhost
  • All magazines
    •
    Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #