Table of Contents
- A Line That Does Nothing... Except Keep Production Alive
- Some Code Can't Explain Itself
- The Code Knows What. Only You Know Why
- "Just Put It in the Commit Message"
- So What's the Worst That Can Happen?
- How Not to Write Comments
- Clean Gets You Halfway
A Line That Does Nothing... Except Keep Production Alive
Somewhere along the way, our industry decided that writing a comment means you've failed as an engineer and need to "git good" (don't try that in the terminal, it's not a git command). If your code needs explaining, the logic goes, your code isn't good enough.
I won't lie, I really like the idea. I'd love every codebase to be so clean that you open a file, read it once, and think "yep, got it." Everything logical, everything obvious.
But...
I'd also love roads so well designed they don't need signs. But even the most beautifully engineered mountain road has a "sharp bend ahead" sign, and not because the engineers failed. It's there because you can't see the bend until you're already in it.
So here's the quick reality check: not every function can explain what it's doing. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. There will always be code that:
Was never written with structure in mind, so nobody understands it.
Is written just beautifully, but solves a problem so complex that you still need five hours staring at one function to follow it.
Is simple, clean, and perfectly readable, yet does something for a reason that isn't visible anywhere in the code.
Some Code Can't Explain Itself
Here's a perfectly clean piece of C#:
public static partial class FlightNumbers
{
[GeneratedRegex(@"^([A-Z]{2}|[A-Z]\d|\d[A-Z])(\d{1,4})([A-Z]?)$")]
private static partial Regex FlightNumber();
public static bool IsValid(string input) =>
FlightNumber().IsMatch(input.Replace(" ", "").ToUpperInvariant());
}
Good names. Modern, source-generated regex. Nothing to refactor, nothing to rename.
Now, quick quiz. Which of these are valid?
FlightNumbers.IsValid("BA123");
FlightNumbers.IsValid("U21234");
FlightNumbers.IsValid("9W5A");
FlightNumbers.IsValid("99123");
Unless you're an aviation nerd like me, or someone who reads regex fluently (if you do, my goodness, more power to you), you have no idea what this method is actually checking.
Sure, you can look it up. Sure, you can read the documentation. And sure, there must be unit tests that describe exactly what's valid and what isn't. Right?!
Well, yes, on paper, however "on paper" and "actually" can be like the burger in the ad and the burger in the box.
Sometimes there's no documentation. Sometimes there are no unit tests. Sometimes there's just you, the regex, and a growing sense of dread.
But even when the docs and tests exist, why should you have to derail your train of thought, open three tabs, and go on a scavenger hunt, when a single comment could be sitting right there on top of the code, waiting for you?
Let me show you. Then tell me this isn't infinitely better:
// IATA flight number, e.g. "BA123", "U21234", "9W5A".
// Airline code is 2 chars: two letters, or a letter-digit mix (U2 = easyJet).
// Then a 1-4 digit flight number and an optional operational suffix letter.
// Uppercase only, no spaces: normalize input before matching.
[GeneratedRegex(@"^([A-Z]{2}|[A-Z]\d|\d[A-Z])(\d{1,4})([A-Z]?)$")]
private static partial Regex FlightNumber();
Plus, you also learn things the code could never tell you.
The Code Knows What. Only You Know Why
The regex was a translation problem: the code was correct, it just spoke a language most humans don't. But there's a second kind of comment, and it's arguably even more valuable, because it covers something the code can't express in any language.
private const int MaxConcurrentRequests = 47;
Clean. Named. A constant, not a magic number buried in a loop. Textbook.
And yet every developer who sees it has the same thought: why 47? It's not a round number. It's not a power of two. It looks like someone's lucky number, or a typo, or the result of a very long night. The provider's documentation says the limit is 50, so surely this is just a mistake.
So somebody changes it to 50. And a few weeks later, under real traffic, the provider starts rejecting requests at random, and nobody can reproduce it.
Here's what was missing:
// 47, not 50. The provider documents 50 requests per second, but their
// limiter measures bursts over a 1.2s window, so retries at 50 trip it.
// Recheck if they publish new limits.
private const int MaxConcurrentRequests = 47;
This is the part of the code that lives only in the head of whoever wrote it. The code records the decision. The comment records the reasoning. Lose the reasoning, and the decision looks like a bug.
So, in practice, a good comment does one of four jobs:
1. Translates
Dense code like a regex, a bit trick, or a math formula, where the what isn't obvious even when the code is perfect.
2. Explains
The reason behind a choice that looks wrong, arbitrary, or unnecessary.
3. Warns
What breaks if you change this, and how badly.
4. Records
A decision with an expiry date. What was tried, what didn't work, and when it's worth revisiting.
If a comment doesn't do one of those four jobs, it probably shouldn't exist. But if it does, deleting it for the sake of "clean code" isn't cleaning.
By the way, these are extremely simple examples, in practice, you'll come across much more complex scenarios.
"Just Put It in the Commit Message"
At this point, someone in the back raises their hand: the reasoning belongs in git history. Write a good commit message, keep the source clean. That's what version control is for.
Again, on paper, it sounds disciplined. But in practice, go run git log on any file that's older than a year. I'll wait.
...
a91f3c2 apply editorconfig
7d2e8b1 fix
3c4f9a0 fix again
e81b7d4 PR feedback
b02c6f5 final fix
f5a1e93 final fix (actually)
...
Somewhere in there is the reason MaxConcurrentRequests is 47. Good luck. Let me know when you find it.
And what if you don't? You're just going to sit and blame everything and everyone? Or just be pragmatic and write a short comment that'll solve problems for other developers and future you? Maybe if past you hasn't been so dogmatic you'd have been exponentially happier now? Have you thought about that?
And by the way even if your team writes beautiful commit messages, the approach still breaks down for a few boring, practical reasons.
Nobody runs git blame on code that looks fine
This is the big one. You don't go looking for a reason when you don't know there is one. A constant set to 47 looks like a typo, not like a mystery worth investigating. A comment interrupts you before you make the mistake. Git history only answers questions you already thought to ask.
Blame decays
One reformat, one rename, one file split, one squash merge, and the line now points to a commit titled "apply editorconfig." The original reason is still in there somewhere, buried under years of unrelated changes. Finding it is no longer a lookup. It's archaeology. Archaeology takes time and effort.
People leave
Sometimes the real documentation isn't the commit history at all. It's Bill. Bill knows why it's 47. Bill also left for a new company two years ago and won't pick up the phone, because he knows you're going to bother him with those questions.
Commit messages are great at explaining a change: what was different about this commit and why. They're terrible at explaining a current state, because the current state is the sum of dozens of changes, and nobody is going to reconstruct it by reading them in order.
The comment is the only place that describes the code as it is right now, right where you're looking at it.
So What's the Worst That Can Happen?
Let's flip the question. Say you write a comment. What's the worst-case scenario?
The most common argument I hear is this:
"if you change the code, you have to change the comment too."
And... so what?
Seriously. How hard is it? The comment is right there. Not in a wiki, not in a Confluence page nobody has opened since 2021, not in a separate repository. It's one line above the code you're already editing. If you can change 47 to 50, you can change the sentence directly on top of it. You're literally looking at it.
The argument assumes there's some rule that a change should touch only the code and leave everything around it untouched. There isn't. When you change a method's behavior, you update its tests. When you rename a parameter, you update its callers. Updating the comment that describes the thing you just changed is the same kind of work. It's not overhead. It's the job.
This is part of a bigger pattern: taking a good guideline and following it so strictly that it starts hurting the code it was supposed to help.
Take DRY. That's a topic for another episode of this series, but ask yourself honestly: does strictly following DRY always make your code better?
Nuh-uh.
Sometimes two pieces of code look similar, so someone extracts a shared function to avoid the "duplication." Then the two use cases drift apart a little, so the function grows a parameter. Then another. Then a couple of flags. And six months later you're reading this:
ProcessOrder(order, true, false, null, customer, true, 3, "legacy", false, skipValidation: true);
Congratulations, the code is DRY. The only downside is that nobody knows what it does. Not even future you, by the way.
Don't tell me you haven't seen, or better yet, written a function/method like this. I have, when I was junior/mid-level developer. And it made my life miserable.
Sometimes it's perfectly fine to repeat a few lines in two places, because keeping each piece readable on its own matters more than eliminating every repeated pattern. Duplication isn't automatically bad, and abstraction isn't automatically good. Everything is a tradeoff, and knowing which side to pick is exactly the kind of instinct that separates a good developer from someone following a checklist.
Comments work the same way. "Never write comments" and "comment everything" are both checklists. The right answer is to write the comment when it carries something the code can't, and to keep it updated the same way you keep everything else updated: because it's right there.
How Not to Write Comments
Now, before anyone runs off and starts commenting every line: none of this is permission to narrate your code. Bad comments are real, and they're a big part of why comments got a bad reputation in the first place. Here's the hall of shame.
The echo
// Increment the retry count
retryCount++;
The XML doc that says absolutely nothing
/// <summary>
/// Gets the user
/// </summary>
/// <param name="id">The id.</param>
/// <returns>The user</returns>
public User GetUser(int id)
Six lines of ceremony and zero information. Every .NET codebase has thousands of these, usually generated by a tool to make a warning go away. If you're going to write a doc comment, tell me something the signature doesn't.
The liar
// Retry up to 3 times
private const int MaxRetries = 5;
The eternal "temporary" fix.
// TODO: temporary workaround, remove later
Later when? Remove it how? Under what conditions? This comment was written in 2019 and it will outlive us all. If something is temporary, say what it's waiting for: a ticket, a version, a date.
The graveyard
// var result = await _legacyService.CalculateAsync(order);
// if (result.IsValid) { ... }
// var result2 = await _newService.CalculateAsync(order);
Commented-out code tells the reader nothing except that someone was scared to delete it. Delete it. If you ever need it again, you won't.
The novel
A thirty-line method with a three-paragraph comment on top explaining how it works. Sometimes that's necessary. Often it's a sign the code should be rewritten, and the comment is compensating. Try the refactor first. Then comment whatever complexity is left.
Clean Gets You Halfway
Clean code is a great goal. Good names, small methods, clear structure: keep doing all of it. But clean code answers one question, what does this do?, and a real codebase keeps asking more. Why is it like this? What happens if I change it? Is this weird thing a bug or a scar?
Those answers don't live in the syntax. They live in the head of whoever wrote the code, and heads are terrible storage. They change jobs, they go on vacation, and they forget things by Tuesday.
So here's the rule I actually follow, and it fits in one sentence:
If I had to stop and think before writing a line, I write down what I thought.
If the line was obvious, I leave it alone. No echoes, no ceremony, no dragons. But if there was a moment where I went "hmm, careful here," that moment goes into a comment, because the next reader is going to have the exact same "hmm," just without the answer.
Clean code tells the reader what you did. A good comment tells them what you knew. You need both.
Enjoyed this write-up? Let's stay connected!
I share more software engineering insights, projects, and experiments across these platforms:
Top comments (6)
"^([A-Z]{2}|[A-Z]\d|\d[A-Z])(\d{1,4})([A-Z]?)$"
Breakdown for people who wanna learn regex
[A-Z]{2}| - 2 letters
[A-Z]\d| - letter and a digit
\d[A-Z] - digit and a letter
() - represents a group.
([A-Z]{2}|[A-Z]\d|\d[A-Z]) - Group 1
(\d{1,4}) - Group 2 - 1-4 digits
([A-Z]?) - Group 3 - ? means optional, so an optional letter
So First 2 digits are either 2 letters, a letter and a digit, or a digit and a letter.
2nd set is either 1,2,3,4 digits
3rd set is optionally a letter.
"BA123" - 2 letters, 3 digits - so it passes
U21234" - letter digit, followed by 4 digits - so it passes
FlightNumbers.IsValid("9W5A"); - digit letter, 1 digit, letter - so it passes
FlightNumbers.IsValid("99123"); - No letter in first 2, so it fails the first group of the regex.
And now you understand Regex 😁
"And now you understand Regex" - I'm sure nobody in history has ever said that yet 😄
😂 99% of the time, these are all you really need. It's that last 1% where wildcards come in and anchors, which is usually where people mess up
I remember when LLMs first showed up, one of my first reactions were: "alright, so now I know who writes/reads regex now! (Not me)" 😄
Wow Really Really nice write-up!
Appreciate that! 🙏 I had something different planned, but I've been putting this article off for so long that it just didn't feel right to wait any longer. So, here it is, finally.🙂