On 7/25/11 1:13 AM, Torsten Curdt wrote: >> Here's the problem as I see it. Code with no javadoc is bad, bad, >> bad. > Good code needs little javadocs. > > http://vafer.org/blog/20050323095453/ > > Good docs and good code over noise - any time.
Umm....no. Without method javadoc, library code is *worthless* The javadoc we maintain in our components represents our contract with users. Same is true for any code that is ever going to be used by anyone other than the original author or a small group hacking directly on the sources. When code reuse devolves into cut and paste only or random hacking on a shared hairball, the author above is correct - everyone can just look at the code. Reusable components and durable code need real javadoc. Vague hand-wavy stuff at the class level or "revealing names" do not cut it. The key point is that a good component is reusable *without looking at the sources*. Imagine if the JDK were developed without javadoc. Would you really want to have to go look at the source every time you used a JDK class? Phil > > cheers, > Torsten > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
