sourcelessindex about contact
The Documentation Triangle (or, why code isn't self documenting)
At some point in your coding career, you've probably heard something like:
"My code is self documenting"
"Code IS documentation"
These statements can be hard to argue against, especially if they come from someone who is more experienced than you. A lot of the trouble is that they are not wrong – well, they're not completely wrong.
The goal of documentation
Why do we document things? If the code was enough, we would never need tutorials, API documentation, or anything of the sort, right? What user need is being fulfilled by having more than just code to communicate what our programs and services do?
It sounds obvious, but documentation exists so that code can be easily used.
This is incredibly easy to forget when the program is all in your head and you have an intuitive understanding – but to fresh eyes, is your code really all that easy to approach?
What, Why, How: The Documentation Triangle
What /\ / \ / \ / \ / \ /__________\ Why How
Here's a rule of thumb I've seen repeated in a few places regarding how to ensure that your documentation is up to scratch.
Why a triangle? Well, triangles are a strong shape, and any missing side renders it entirely structurally unsound - just as missing out vital documentation can make your code as good as unusable to others.
This is generally what people are going for when they say "my code is self documenting". Clear, concise, and well-written code is a form of documentation in itself.
It is the most honest account of what actually happens when you run the code, what the most important data structures are, and what interfaces you'll be able to interact with. Some languages are better than this for others, and supplementary information such as type signatures can be incredibly helpful in understanding some code that's new to you. However, there are some things this alone leaves out...
Every program has a history - whether in the very mundane sense of having a history in version control, or a long and detailed history of changes it has undergone to meet various challenges.
It's this latter case that is the most crucial to note why certain pieces of code exist in their current state.
Comments are most often the vehicle for these sort of margin notes. Noting that this thing was done in this way for optimization reasons, or another thing was a dirty hack leaves signposts for the next maintainer to know what compromises have been made in building this software.
Maintaining (legacy) code without any comments is less like being a mechanic, and much more like being an archaeologist.
The last side of the triangle is often the most neglected. It might live in docstrings, or in confluence, be automatically generated, or be in a carefully crafted README, but it's all information on the context in which the code will be executed.
No program exists in a vacuum. There is always some environment, some organisation, some process that it lives in or serves, and taken out of said context, it is entirely useless.
Failing to recognise this is the number one leading cause of new users and junior devs being unable to do 'this simple task' (don't quote me on this, I have no data).
There's a great litmus test for this. Take the new process or pipeline or whatever that you've implemented (be it setting up a repo, running a job, etc.) and find yourself someone that's technically competent but unfamiliar with what you're working on. Plonk them in front of it and shut the fuck up. Watch them struggle through it and only help them if they are genuinely, truly stumped. This will very quickly tell you where you need to spend effort on documentation.
Heck - make it part of your code review.
Discussion of this article on Hacker News
← Getting github pages to work with my custom site generator Relearning to Learn →