char*M,A,Z,E=40,J[40],T[40];main(C){for(*J=A=scanf(M="%d",&C);
-- E; J[ E] =T
[E ]= E) printf("._"); for(;(A-=Z=!Z) || (printf("\n|"
) , A = 39 ,C --
) ; Z || printf (M ))M[Z]=Z[A-(E =A[J-Z])&&!C
& A == T[ A]
|6<<27<rand()||!C&!Z?J[T[E]=T[A]]=E,J[T[A]=A-Z]=A,"_.":" |"];}
If, like me, you're trying to compile it, don't forget to set the
-std=gnu89
gcc -std=gnu89 -w -o maze maze.c
echo 10 | ./maze M[Z] = ... char fmt[] = "%d"; scanf(M=fmt,&C);
char*M,A,Z,E=40,J[40],T[40];main(C){char fmt[]="%d";for(*J=A=scanf(M=fmt,&C);
-- E; J[ E] =T
[E ]= E) printf("._"); for(;(A-=Z=!Z) || (printf("\n|"
) , A = 39 ,C --
) ; Z || printf (M ))M[Z]=Z[A-(E =A[J-Z])&&!C
& A == T[ A]
|6<<27<rand()||!C&!Z?J[T[E]=T[A]]=E,J[T[A]=A-Z]=A,"_.":" |"];}> In code, comments are our signposts
No. Naming and good architecture are. Intuitive folder trees. Concise docs. Clear separation of concerns such that naming can suffice.
The more comments you need to ‘map’ your code, the worse of a job you’ve done.
As others have said, you didn't always build the maze. Or you built a lovely intuitive path and then were hit with an unexpected new requirement that forced you to add twisty little passages. Or, like me, you're not a perfect being and had to compromise based on some complication you didn't expect.
You don’t choose what your forebears have written, though.
And the more you put in procrastination encouraging half solutions, the worse your code base gets.
Unless I tell them not to, LLMs lean on slapping verbose comments of the worst kind - describing the code instead of the reasons for putting it there.
I ask them to write comments in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, but all I really get from that is tersness.
Also the other day I stumbled upon a huge pile of documentation and I'm still trying to figure out if it's human or machine written. I stopped reading it half way through as I figured that perhaps it wasn't written for humans to read.
Edit: changed the LLMs pronoun to it.
Your english is really good, except for that little mistake.
I wonder if that's actually useful for an LLM though. It's additional context that should steer the LLM not to change the code to do something else.
Well, my LLMs are "smarter" than yours. They'll describe why the code is there. They'll even try to keep these comments in sync with code as it makes changes.
This includes describing the "why" behind the change even on code affected only accidentally, e.g. by reformat or reindent. And, if it wrote some code and then later learned half of it is wrong, it'll remove the offending parts and leave comments telling what used to be there, and why it isn't anymore.
Same for commit/PR messages.
May or may not be related to a recent tendency in Opus/Fable models I noticed, to eagerly turn user feedback into rules, self-correct by adding more rules, and then when some rule fails, correct it by adding a counter-steering rule - accumulating rules until eventually getting lost in them.
Disagree. Personally that sounds like a massive barrier to reading the comment to me. Limited width column text is generally regarded as easier to read, make your comments easier to read. Especially as I probably have the code open in a limited width window, as that's what I expect from code.
there are also extensions for vscode that do this, vim plugins, etc
Personally, I would have hoped by 2026 we had better IDE's and tools for managing code in text files such that developers with different preferences for a number of characters in a column or things like how you display comments can be accommodated. Yet still teams end up arguing about what standard to use.
This is a bit like vim vs Emacs - everyone should be able to use their favorite setup, and the formatting should not get in the way of the engineer's preferences.
There are also a couple of 'pointless' statements in the article itself:
> "Use a combination of in-line and standalone comments, depending on the situation"
isn't that just every kind of comment?
The point of that statement was to run counter to the standards of "always us X type of comments" that some teams adopt. My suggestion is that there isn't a "correct" type of comment that you should always use, but rather that it's highly situational.
It's really a parallel to grammar in any other kind of language - there isn't a singular 'correct' way to structure a piece of writing into paragraphs, but it's also typically incorrect to treat each sentence as a paragraph or to avoid paragraphs entirely and write everything as a single block of text.
It's unthinkable that a team of writers would ever try to standardise on "never use paragraphs" or "every line is a paragraph", but some programming teams do exactly the equivalent of that!
I do make some suggestions on how to approach those things, but they're simply suggestions based on my own experience, I'm not trying to assert any kind of absolute correct approach.