Not really, it's quite a well chosen name and it describes Fang perfectly.Quote:
By the way, where do you get this shitty names? Project Ippiki-Ookami? SOUNDS LIKE CRAP and it's in fact, crap :D
Thanks for your opinion, and I was aware of that when I started that message... but it's either that I look like an indecisive kid or an attention loving smart-ass. I know you're not saying that I am bragging, but I know what it looks like. Just to re-establish my position, I'm just a student publicizing his project because that's what the community wanted.Quote:
Now what I wanted to say, it does look like you're simply bragging about being great and stuff.
Nice GUI btw.
I would if that property existed. "Socket.RemoteEndPoint.Address" doesn't exist because it's not an ip end point, it's just an abstract end point. I can use "IPAddress = (socket.RemoteEndPoint as IPEndPoint).Address.ToString();" though. I use comments to the right of things because that's a universal programming style. Having things in summary like that everywhere is too excessive and messy, even for my excessive documentation. There's a a point to where documentation harms the readability of your code.Quote:
Why not just do Socket.RemoteEndPoint.Address.ToString() instead calling String.Split?
And why do you use comments as summary? Wouldn't it make more sense to actually use summaries there so when you were calling the instance of ex. the client you'd get the summary instead of navigating to the variable.
Yeah that's what I meant.Quote:
No it's not universal. Summaries exists for a reason. You right side comment code functions (ex. a method etc.) not variables. You use summaries there unless you're working in languages that does not support such things ex. C++Quote:
Just because you can put a summary on a property doesn't mean you should on normal variables; it ruins readability. The way I have it shows groups of data and the documentation to the right confirms their relationships and purposes. If I stacked it vertically with summaries, I'd have separated groups everywhere and it'd be just a huge block of code. I appreciate your feedback, but no thank you.Quote:
No it's not universal. Summaries exists for a reason. You right side comment code functions (ex. a method etc.) not variables. You use summaries there unless you're working in languages that does not support such things ex. C++
This commenting harms the reading more than summaries though.
Just my opinion.
Comments are different then documentation (summaries in C#). And, eh, without the summaries, the .NET Framework wouldn't have any documentation when using methods/classes/variables. It would be really bad. Documentation must be used. Not in private things as people shouldn't use them, comments will do the job. But, for public/exposed things, you must document them with summaries. Any company will request that. Someone who use your classes will have all the info without checking the source code. Like for the .NET Framework. With some tools, you can generate HTML documentation based on the summaries. It way more better than simpler comments.Quote:
I still absolutely disagree with that. That would look absolutely hideous. Readability would be out the window. Until I meet a company that requires that form me, if someone wants to read the documentation about a variable, they should read about how it relates to other variables as well in the same group. Otherwise, it could be easily misinterpreted, even with summaries. "Go to definition" works perfectly fine and programmers in every other language without summaries do it like this. Summaries are an excuse for having dumb variable names like num1 as a public calculation constant. I'm no longer accepting suggestions about my commenting. I follow universal programming styles.Quote:
No you don't.Quote:
So you're saying my entire college, UCI, all of the books I've read on different programming langauges, and all of the people I've met so far in industry have no idea what they're talking about? I am not changing my documentation style. It's excessive as it is. I'm not going to argue about ridiculous things like this.Quote:
Yes I'm saying that. Your college is not necessary correct just because it's a college. Programming styles are different from language to language, so you should not follow a "global programming style", but a "C# programming style", because you're programming C#.Quote:
Hopefully, not all the people who are coding have the same mentality than the people around you :rolleyes: As I said, you're not documenting, you are commenting your code. And it's totally different. The C# language offers a powerful tools for documentation: summaries. Java offers a powerful tools for documentation: javadoc. Languages like C++ don't have documentation, but only comments, so, people made some tools like dOxygen. Oh, but they loose their time as it is so useless to use documentation... After all, there is the « Go to definition » option in some IDE. Sorry, but I don't want to go throughout all the header files, or all the source files to understand how to use the API. Anything public must be documented.Quote:
Documenting Document header files using dOxygen. Favor the @command format to the \command one