Except In my opinion he gets it very wrong. His comment free code doesn't include the the string "Newton-Raphson" anywhere, making it non-trivial for anyone not familiar with the code to work out what is going on.
Secondly, and more importantly, he never explains why he is using Newton-Raphson to approximate the square root. If I was handed this in some code I was to maintain I would really really like to know that.
Note the he does say the following:
When you've rewritten, refactored, and rearchitected your code a dozen times to make it easy for your fellow developers to read and understand -- when you can't possibly imagine any conceivable way your code could be changed to become more straightforward and obvious -- then, and only then, should you feel compelled to add a comment explaining what your code does.
Comments
Except In my opinion he gets it very wrong. His comment free code doesn't include the the string "Newton-Raphson" anywhere, making it non-trivial for anyone not familiar with the code to work out what is going on.
Secondly, and more importantly, he never explains why he is using Newton-Raphson to approximate the square root. If I was handed this in some code I was to maintain I would really really like to know that.
Note the he does say the following: When you've rewritten, refactored, and rearchitected your code a dozen times to make it easy for your fellow developers to read and understand -- when you can't possibly imagine any conceivable way your code could be changed to become more straightforward and obvious -- then, and only then, should you feel compelled to add a comment explaining what your code does.
It does make sense.