> I think you read it completely wrongly. To be frank, I don't think I did, I think you are taking it to the other extreme :) Also, documentation extends beyo

> I think you read it completely wrongly. To be frank, I don't think I did, I think you are taking it to the other extreme :) Also, documentation extends beyond just your code. My issue is also that the alternatives given are not really alternatives for many organizations. Communicating more without an excess of meetings, overloading key individuals, etc. is extremely difficult to pull off. Finally, I strongly believe that outdated documentation is better than no documentation. At the very least, it provides capable people with a starting point. Where without documentation, the starting point is still zero. As I said in my earlier comment, it is much easier to communicate about something if your starting point is better defined. Besides, good documentation accounts for this: - If you know specifics will be subject to change, then simply mention that some specific aspect is subject to change. - If something is already covered by external documentation, link to that documentation. - When there are prerequisites someone reading the documentation might need, don't duplicate the documentation of those prerequisites but do make the reader aware of the documentation aware. The thing, I suspect anyway, is that good documentation is also good communication. Both of which people and organizations at large struggle with. I still firmly believe though that good documentation forms the best foundation for other ways of communicating.