2 ms·

I think “This way the code stays readable/debuggable by humans” is a proof by example (not that the generated comments are necessarily bad). If the human can r

• watwut 1mo ago
  > If the human can read/understand it well enough to comment it, then it is readable by humans. No, because the one who is writing the comment has context later reader dont. The writer knows what the requirements are, what he was trying to achieve and what he struggled to comprehend. Writer also presumably spent more time trying to understand it then the person coming later should.
  • Lutger 1mo ago
    It is not perfect, but the delta between 'cannot understand what agent wrote' and 'it makes sense to me right now' is already an improvement. That it may not be sufficient, doesn't mean it isn't a necessary condition. Besides, it has always been like this. I sometimes can't even understand some of the things I wrote myself a couple of months ago, because I forgot the context. Good comments and documentation will help you re-acquire the context you need, not completely eliminate it.
  • digitalPhonix 1mo ago
    I'm not sure what you're arguing? I'm responding to: >> This way, LLMs add a bunch of comments, but it doesn't affect your actual experience in trying to read the code by saying that at least reading the code and generating comments is forcing some understanding. Is there a disagreement in that? You're saying that it's not (necessarily) enough understanding, which may be true but beside the point.