[jeremiep]

It should be pointed out that with inlining, both versions are exactly the same at runtime.

Descriptive function names never lie, comments often do.

[masklinn]

> Descriptive function names never lie

Beg pardon[0]?

    function _utf8Encode(&$arr){ 
      for($i=0;$i<(count($arr['parameters']));$i++){ 
        $arr['parameters'][$i]= $arr['parameters'][$i]; 
      } 
    } 
    function _utf8Decode(&$arr){ 
      for($i=0;$i<count($arr['parameters']);$i++){ 
        $arr['parameters'][$i]= $arr['parameters'][$i]; 
      } 
    }

Or[1]

    public static string ReturnEmptyStringIfNullElseValue(string value) {
        if (value == null) {
            return "";
        } else {
            return value.ToString().Trim();
        }
    }

[0] http://thedailywtf.com/Comments/There-and-Back-Again.aspx

[1] http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Common-Functions,-not-Common...

[jeremiep]

I stand corrected. Thank god I never have to deal with such code!

[wschroed]

> Descriptive function names never lie, comments often do.

Description function names lie just as much as comments. For example, I have run into cases in the wild where things like "get_item()" create database entries before returning a value. Yes, side effects are evil, etc etc, but the point is that at some point, somebody maintained the code and did not update every use of get_item() to now be get_and_or_create_items_if_it_is_sunday(). In rare cases, I have seen them at least update the local documentation.

[collyw]

What's to say a function gets "fixed" without updating the name, in the same way that comments will not get updated? I see it would be less likely in a function, but not impossible.