Re: Python

On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Michael F. Stemper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 18/12/2025 12.00, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> Peter Flass <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> I comment *A LOT*. When I had to go back and revisit some very old
>>>>> code, I wished I had commented more. I've almost never looked at a
>>>>> program and said "I wish it had fewer comments."
>>>>
>>>> Regrettably, I’ve encountered plenty of comments that don’t actually
>>>> reflect the code (for a variety of reasons).
>>>>
>>>> If the code is wrong and the comment is right then that’s great, you
>>>> have a nice hint about how to fix the code, assuming you realize 
>>>> there’s
>>>> a problem at all.
>>>>
>>>> However if the code is right but the comment is wrong then the comment
>>>> is worse than nothing. The code would be improved by removing it
>>>> (although almost certainly improved even more by correcting it).
>>>
>>> I encountered a perverse version of that. My (US) employer was purchased
>>> by a German firm. We began adapting their code base for NAFTA market
>>> requirements. The good news was that every comment was written twice:
>>> once in German and once in English.
>>>
>>> The bad news? I knew enough German to be able to tell that the two 
>>> paired
>>> comments sometimes disagreed on what was being done or how it was done.
>>>
>>
>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is never
>> quite sure...
> 
> Experimental science would not agree.
>

You would need at least three.

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman3//lists/python-list.python.org