[Info-vax] Long uptime cut short by Hurricane Sandy

[David Froble]

Paul Sture wrote:
> In article <an0jjrFduj7U1 at mid.individual.net>,
>  billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> 
>> I've seen more comments in COBOL than in Ada.  Does that make COBOL a
>> better language for writing an F16 Flight Control System?
> 
> The problem I always found with COBOL is that you cannot put comments at 
> the end of a line of code.  Devoting whole lines to comments can split 
> code which logically lies together.
> 
> Or you write an essay at the beginning of the code.  There are times 
> when a couple of words at the end of a line need a whole sentence to 
> describe when the comment is in a separate place.
> 

For a long time now I've gravitated toward the "essay" approach.

For a programmer intending to perform maintenance, I'd expect the code 
to be adequate, once the purpose has been declared.

For someone attempting to understand what the code does, the comments 
are all that need be read.

That said, there are always instances where a comment on a particular 
line can be very appropriate.

My problem with comments at the end of a line is that many times there 
isn't adequate space for a decent explanation, and some coders might 
shorten a comment to the point it can be worthless.

As an example of both:

(this will probably wrap and be ugly)

130     !************************************************
         !             Create Connection Socket
         !************************************************

         SOCKOPT::Protocol% = TCPIP$C_TCP                !  Socket 
characteristic
s
         SOCKOPT::Typ$ = CHR$(TCPIP$C_STREAM)
         SOCKOPT::AF$ = CHR$(TCPIP$C_AF_INET)

         Stat% = SYS$QIOW(       ,                       !  Event flag &
                                 Ch% By Value,           !  VMS channel &
                                 IO$_SETMODE By Value,   !  Operation &
                                 IOSB::Stat%,            !  I/O status 
block &
                                 ,                       !  AST routine &
                                 ,                       !  AST parameter &
                                 SOCKOPT::Protocol%,     !  P1 &
                                 ,                       !  P2 &
                                 ,                       !  P3 &
                                 ,                       !  P4 &
                                 ,                       !  P5 &
                                 )                       !  P6

The (brief in this case) essay declares what's to happen, and the 
comments on the QIOW might preclude the next reader of the code to need 
to go to the doc to figure out the 12 parameters.  Without the general 
comment, such code might appear to be (can I say it?) cryptic ..

But that's just me ...