this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
14 points (88.9% liked)

JavaScript

2008 readers
25 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm a bit split on this. I do think in general all functions and methods should have comments describing how they behave, but I also think the standard format of Javadoc or JSDoc can look a bit redundant and silly sometimes, at least wrt getters and setters. I often see things like

/**
 * Get the customer ID.
 *
 * @return the ID of the customer
 */
public getId(): string {
    // ...
}

Now sure, you could argue that this is more of a problem with the Java-esque way of abstracting away field access than with the documentation, but sometimes there just genuinely isn't anything meaningful to add that isn't already expressed by the method name and signature. In that case, these comments add visual noise to the class and no real value. As soon as there is more logic to it than that though, I completely agree that should be documented for any caller.

I'm not sure I like it better, but I do find Kotlin's approach to this quite interesting, where parameters and return values are referenced from the description text rather than always listed separately.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In your example, without the comment, I'd have no way of knowing it was a customer ID I'm getting, unless the only objects with IDs are customers.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I mean, the example kinda implies that this is on a Customer type. Otherwise you'd have a method getCustomerId instead.