I don't like to strenuously object anything in general, but I'll make an exception this time: this advice makes me burst a vessel every time I hear it, because

I don't like to strenuously object anything in general, but I'll make an exception this time: this advice makes me burst a vessel every time I hear it, because I must confess that the number of code bases I've seen that are chronically over-commented with incorrect information that do more harm than good approach zero. Most commonly, I think this sentiment is partially wishful thinking, partially frustration of incorrect documentation, and partially with code that is more convoluted than otherwise ideally realized (submit the patch, if one can). Such pleas are always accompanied by some example in a vacuum which requires no justification for why a piece of code exists, including tricky branches that required careful reasoning to catch corner cases that might go without detection when breezing through doing maintenance or changing things. If nothing else, comments provide a nice breathing space between even short chapters of a function to help the eye track the code...much better than cramming stuff into a symbol name and relying on guesswork. Does this mean that the post contains bad information? No, not necessarily, but for me, the headline and thesis do not follow from the otherwise reasonable techniques detailed.