@awead

Technical notes and explications of code

Grammar

It goes without saying, grammar counts. Take for example:

1
2
3
def display_message(msg)
  putt msg
end

Trying to use this:

> display_message("Hi!")
NoMethodError: undefined method `putt' for main:Object`

Programming languages loudly complain when we make grammatical, syntactical, or any other kind of -icle errors. But taking another example:

1
2
3
4
# Useing a putt to printing message
def display_message(msg)
  puts msg
end

Ruby’s totally fine with that. Too bad, I’m not. It would be nice if programming languages took the same approach to its own grammar as it did with other languages’ grammar. In my opinion, grammar counts in all languages, be it Ruby, Haskell, English or Dutch.

We as programmers can enable spell-check features in our editors, but that still puts in onus on us and even with that, it still compiles. Perhaps a rubocop extension that could fail your PRs for bad grammar or spelling? It’s easier said than done because an incorrect method name is definitive, whereas the Oxford comma is a little less so.

We don’t have to get into that level of enforcement, but the end result should be that comments or other non-code should be held to the same exacting standards as the actual code. Right now that’s on us. Just saying let’s all be more vigilant. After all, you never know who will be reading your comments!