code review resit

code review resit

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+1. Comments and Documentation
+There are no comments in the code
+It’s hard to understand what’s happening without carefully reading each line
+Add a short explanation at the top and comments throughout all code to describe key steps
+
+2. Error Handling
+The code does not check if the file path is correct/if file exists
+If the user enters the wrong file name, the program crashes
+Adding basic error messages and checks could help the user
+
+3. Variable Names
+Most variable names are single letters like z, q, a, which are not meaningful or that relevant
+This makes the code hard to read or maintain
+Use full, clear names like filePath, wordCounts, etc.
+
+4. Code Structure
+All code is inside the Main method
+It would be better to break the work into smaller parts (e.g., file reading, cleaning, counting) using methods
+
+5. File Handling Assumptions
+The program assumes the file always exists and contains data
+It doesn’t check for empty files or handle missing ones
+Could check if the file exists and providing feedback if something goes wrong.
+
+6. Output Format
+The output works, but it could be displayed in a clearer, more professional way
+For example, avoid terms like "uniquez" — use "total unique words" instead
+
+7. OOP Principles
+The program is written in a very basic, procedural way
+No object-oriented programming (OOP) features like classes or methods are used
+Consider creating a class to handle the text processing tasks to improve structure and reusability