Re:Reducing technical debt by valuing comments as much as code
by lmm on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @10:06PM
(#34605807)
You don't need 100% to be better than comments.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Reducing technical debt by valuing comments as much as code
by vkou on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @11:00PM
(#34606176)
You don't need to be at 100% to be better than some comments.
Mind you, no serious project is anywhere close to 100% coverage. It may have 100% unit-test coverage, but that is a far cry from 100% coverage.
And the valuable comments are the ones that describe integration interactions.
Re:Reducing technical debt by valuing comments as much as code
by lmm on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @11:47PM
(#34606497)
No serious project is anywhere close to "100% comment coverage" either.
Re:Reducing technical debt by valuing comments as much as code
by vkou on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @01:20AM
(#34607137)
I'm not pitching comments as a replacement for all tests, like some are pitching tests as a replacement for all comments.
I'm pitching comments as a compromise when the test that encodes their meaning is impractical.
Re:Reducing technical debt by valuing comments as much as code
by lmm on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @01:46AM
(#34607285)
Combining tests and comments is still not going to get you to 100% coverage though. So for comments to be worthwhile the marginal gain from using them has to outweigh the cost. IME it's usually better to put that effort into better tests/tooling/etc..