I'm a bit leery of the "marking guide" checklist approach
you've suggested: it strikes me as unnecessarily inflexible.
The commenting thing is a good example: it started off as a
reasonable guideline ("-1 for too few comments, +1 for many
comments, etc"), but it's certainly plausible that "too few"
comments might be just right (if the code is elegantly
written and short enough to grasp easily, for instance). So
the "must comment" rule got modified to something a bit more
vague: "effective use of comments". The same thing happened
with modules: "use CGI.pm" went to "use applicable core
modules appropriately".
Giving points based on a definite scheme is sometimes
appropriate for assignments in a course, where you have to
quantify how well students do in order to give them a final
mark (and credits), but here I don't really think it's a
good fit. Instead, you might use a checklist like this as
a guideline for code reviews, but give a more subjective
rating (as well as a small list of pros and cons).
--
:wq
-
Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
-
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big>
<blockquote> <br /> <dd>
<dl> <dt> <em> <font>
<h1> <h2> <h3> <h4>
<h5> <h6> <hr /> <i>
<li> <nbsp> <ol> <p>
<small> <strike> <strong>
<sub> <sup> <table>
<td> <th> <tr> <tt>
<u> <ul>
-
Snippets of code should be wrapped in
<code> tags not
<pre> tags. In fact, <pre>
tags should generally be avoided. If they must
be used, extreme care should be
taken to ensure that their contents do not
have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent
horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor
intervention).
-
Want more info? How to link
or How to display code and escape characters
are good places to start.
|
