On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> wrote: > In real world projects as opposed to toy ones(*), you do get > mismatching code and javadoc, and you can't assume that deleting and > rewriting the code is the right approach as you're not privvy to all > the decisions that went into it. Your best bet is to assume the code > works and is correct until you find out the opposite, as chances are > it does work and is correct unless it's in an unused part of the > codebase or you're working on something that flat out doesn't work at > all. > > (*) I'm not sure whether you're willy-waving there but it can > certainly be read as such. /Your company must be tiny if you need to > willy-wave on newsgroups/ :) >
I do wonder if you take a volt meter to every outlet in your house. I realize software is highly unique here, as there is really no such thing as "within bounds" for the type of things most of us are dealing with. I still can't shake the idea that ultimately what is "advertised" for something should be well within the realms of what it does. If they differ, the answer should be to fix the documentation, not attempt to fix the implementation. (Well, in most cases I can think of. Look up the drama over memcpy changes breaking flash a while back.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
