• pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.frOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Let’s rephrase my opinion, so that we can (hopefully) agree on something : What I’m arguing against is the “ChatGPT-style” (or “tutorial-style”) comments that I’ve seen all over juniors’ code, even before LLMs got widespread

    • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      “Adds a and b”?

      Sure, not useful. Thats a what, not a why.

      “Combined value needed for these outputs”

      The “why”. Useful. Shows the purpose, and explains the context it may be used in.

      Assuming the “why” is known is the mistake - and one I see from junior and mid level, I dont care what language it is, its the same. Using refactoring code as an example, without context - the why - can cause problems. What may be more efficient for one resulting value being presented can cause issues for others (let’s say precision as an example of why it could be a problem). Failing to include why something is being done is usually what introduces these problems, someone misses a different context than what they are looking at, and that belongs in a comment.

      A comment on “why” isn’t just important - for any block of code - it is, IMO, a requirement. I have and will continue to respond with “add comments as to why and resubmit”.