Leo Simons wrote:
That is somewhat more understandable. I think it is also wrong....getting an analogy right is real difficult :D It is important to write docs this way though; it forces you to be real clear about the contracts imposed, the assumptions made. If the code cannot be explained, the code is bad code :DI don't necessarily agree with that, because very frequently I find myself in the same position. When you're deeply involved in abstract concepts, then you're the wrong person to explain it to a layman. You need to explain it to someone moderately competent and he has to translate it "down the food chain".
The big problem is always to find someone, who is sufficiently interested in the topic, so that he delves into it and becomes the moderately competent person.
So, the code that can't be explained is not necessarily bad. But it might not solve a universally relevant problem, because otherwise there would be moderately competent translators :)
Ulrich
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
