News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Keep your source code SIMPLE by throwaway35784 on Sunday November 10, 2019 @12:01PM (#21498830)

  //increment i in for loop
  For (i=0;i++....

  Var x; //define variable x

  X=4; //give value of 4 to x
Everyone knows what that code does. The comments aren't necessary.
Re:Keep your source code SIMPLE by tchaffee on Sunday November 10, 2019 @01:11PM (#21499242)
That's a good concrete example of bad comments. I suppose you could throw that in the "over-commenting" category.
Re:Keep your source code SIMPLE by throwaway35784 on Sunday November 10, 2019 @05:05PM (#21500459)
And, strangely, it's the only response to the gp's request to define of over-commenting, yet it is downvoted to below definitions of good commenting.

So. Weird. The other responses didn't properly implement the requirement specification.

I am so confused.

Re:Keep your source code SIMPLE by lostgame on Sunday November 10, 2019 @02:50PM (#21499779)
This is what I’m saying by over-commenting. I stated comments at the beginning of functions - what are the arguments? - what does it return - or at the beginning of class names are the wise go.
Re:Keep your source code SIMPLE by throwaway35784 on Sunday November 10, 2019 @05:07PM (#21500471)
Yes it's an example of over commenting, which is exactly what the gp wanted.
Re:Keep your source code SIMPLE by loopz on Sunday November 10, 2019 @02:13PM (#21499590)
This is instructive to new coders, on how NOT to comment.
Re:Keep your source code SIMPLE by throwaway35784 on Sunday November 10, 2019 @05:09PM (#21500479)
That's what was asked for! Why on earth is the comment that properly delivers the expectation being discussed as though it's wrong?
Re:Keep your source code SIMPLE by loopz on Monday November 11, 2019 @06:30AM (#21503922)
I noticed the downvote and upvoted, plus acknowledged the anti-pattern. Sometimes intent is lost in text.