If you put in comments, people won't read the code as much. Then bugs don't get caught, and people don't understand the quirks, bottlenecks, etc. of the system. That's provided the comments are actually updated with code changes, which is of course totally unguaranteed.
Nothing like an opinionated idiot.
Next time when you are shopping for a book to read. Besure to read it cover to cover before you buy it. Otherwise you'll never know exactly if it's what you were looking to buy. That's basically what he's telling you to do.
He has made a few assumptions that are foolish.
- Reading the source code will provide you with the purist perspective of what it does.
- Comments pertain to the
scopeof the source code they are associated with.
That is his narrow perspective about comments, and as such he sees no value in them. Here are the limitations of not having comments.
- Source code is an instruction set for a computer. It does not expression concepts or ideas. Therefore, source code will never tell you what the programmers objectives were. Source code that compiles without errors and does not crash can still fail to meet the objectives. How will you know any different from the computer by reading the source code? The computer already does that, yet it could still fail to meet the objective.
- Source code does not explain the programmer's intent.
open window, prompt for depositdoes not explain that the programmer intended to communicate a warning to the user.
Next time you have a conversation with this guy and he asks why you are adding comments to your source code. Reply with this statement.
"I write source code to tell the computer what to do, and I write comments to tell people what to do."