"Next dead-giveaway: non-typist code is... minimalist. They don't go the extra mile to comment things. If their typing skills are really bad, they may opt to comment the code in a second, optional pass."
>"Next dead-giveaway: non-typist code is... minimalist. They don't go the extra mile to comment things.
Is this why it seems that programmers never write comments these days? I feel like I'm the only one who uses a healthy amount of comments. But I'm also a very fast typist; I've been typing since I was 7 I think, and I can type fast both on QWERTY and Dvorak, and even switch seamlessly between the two layouts (I'm typing this comment in Dvorak). One of these days I want to try out Colemak to see how that compares; it'll probably be really easy for me to adopt it. So typing comments to me is very low-effort.
There are certainly other reasons. For example, I only comment as an admission of failure to express my self in code. Most of the time a better variable name or adding a function with a descriptive name will say the same thing as a comment
The comments that matter are the WHY comments. No amount of variable naming will solve that.
When I read your code three years from now, I can still figure out what it does. WHY you're doing the things you do is a different question. And few people leave them. Add them, and you're standing already heads and shoulders above your peers.
Every programmer I've worked with can type just fine. I think the reason we don't comment code is because we believe the meaning of the code is self-evident via names, conventions, and structure. I am happy to comment code when I think the "why" is unclear without having the whole project in one's head, but I'm often amazed later on how much I guessed wrong and failed to comment something that needed elaboration. When I fix bugs, I almost always end up adding comments and request the same in code reviews.
If you already know Dvorak I'd personally recommend Workman as a third as someone who was in the same position of already being competent with QWERTY and Dvorak.
I went and tried out both Workman and Colemak for a few minutes; I'll have to give Workman more time to try it out, but one thing I noticed about Workman and Colemak, and of course Qwerty, is that they all have the most-used punctuation at the bottom of the right hand. This is actually one thing I prefer about Dvorak: the punctuation symbols (period, comma, quote mark) are in the upper left-hand area, where it's a little easier to get to than anything on the bottom row. I use periods and commas a lot, which I think isn't unusual, so I always thought it was weird that other layouts relegate these to the 2nd-hardest to reach part of the keyboard (for a right-handed person).
What are your thoughts on Dvorak vs. these other layouts?
Personally, my biggest gripe with Dvorak is that it bunches up all the vowels on the left hand home row, and it puts A on the left pinky, while U is on the index finger and I requires a lateral stretch. I do like how Workman sticks the E on the strongest finger, the right-hand middle finger. But the punctuation bothers me, and I feel like both it and Colemak make some sacrifices in the interest of not deviating too far from familiar-old Qwerty. As someone who's already proficient with Dvorak, I really don't care if a layout is "alien" to Qwerty users.
Is this why it seems that programmers never write comments these days? I feel like I'm the only one who uses a healthy amount of comments. But I'm also a very fast typist; I've been typing since I was 7 I think, and I can type fast both on QWERTY and Dvorak, and even switch seamlessly between the two layouts (I'm typing this comment in Dvorak). One of these days I want to try out Colemak to see how that compares; it'll probably be really easy for me to adopt it. So typing comments to me is very low-effort.