# code comments Code comments are extra text in source code that compilers or interpreters ignore, used to document and explain how code works. This is one page of public article previews, not the complete archive. Follow Next page to continue. Summaries are not the original full articles. ## Using LLMs to Evaluate Code Interpretability Instead of Maintaining Comments DevFeed: [Using LLMs to Evaluate Code Interpretability Instead of Maintaining Comments]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: Yegor Bugayenko (yegor256@gmail.com) Published: 2026-01-10T21:00:00Z Content type: opinion Language: en Sources: [Yegor Bugayenko]() Topics: [Large Language Model](), [code comments](), [Documentation](), [Software Engineering](), [trust]() Tags: [code-comments](), [code-documentation](), [code-interpretability](), [documentation](), [llm-code-analysis](), [llms](), [quality](), [self-documenting-code](), [software-engineering]() ### AI overview The article argues that manually maintained code comments can become unclear or outdated. It proposes using LLMs to explain code on demand and introducing a Code Interpretability Score that can fail the build when code is too difficult for the model to explain. ### Source excerpt Instead of writing code comments that decay and mislead, let LLMs generate documentation on-demand and fail the build when code is too obscure for them to explain. ## Generative AI and the Reverse Baltimore Phenomenon DevFeed: [Generative AI and the Reverse Baltimore Phenomenon]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: Peter Lawrey (noreply@blogger.com) Published: 2025-01-08T13:08:00Z Content type: opinion Language: en Sources: [Vanilla Java]() Topics: [Artificial Intelligence](), [Documentation](), [Generative AI](), [code comments](), [context]() Tags: [ai](), [code-comments](), [context](), [documentation](), [generative-ai](), [opinion]() ### AI overview The article introduces the Reverse Baltimore Phenomenon as an analogy for a tendency in generative AI-generated documentation and code comments. With limited context, AI may fill gaps with authoritative-sounding but unnecessary details, creating a misleading sense of completeness. The article argues that useful documentation should provide enough explanation without overwhelming readers. ### Source excerpt One of the first challenges developers might face is getting generative AI to produce accurate documentation. Once you are comfortable doing this, the next challenge is creating enough documentation to be helpful without overwhelming the reader. Until generative AI came along, it might have seemed like there could never be too much documentation. Now, the challenge is to provide just enough detail to give understanding without overwhelming the material with unnecessary details. I was exploring the best way to generate accurate documentation for a project as I was flying over Australia and saw Alice Springs on the map, and it reminded me of the Reverse Baltimore Phenomenon. Generating documentation can give a "sense of completeness" that will likely be a distraction rather than have practical value. The text produced by a generative AI system can superficially convincingly feel "whole", but much of it is fluff that isn't actually helpful to the reader or an AI using it as instructions. e.g. copilot or a chat app. The Reverse Baltimore Phenomenon describes how small but isolated towns (like Alice Springs) can appear on a zoomed-out map while much larger cities elsewhere remain unlabeled. They appear because, in a sparsely populated area, the cartographer (or map algorithm) has "room" for that single label--despite far bigger cities in denser regions that don't make it onto the map. Generative AI exhibits a similar dynamic with documentation and code comments: in an attempt to be thorough, it sometimes fills "empty space" with details that don't truly matter. Much like Alice Springs popping up on world maps simply because there's little else around, AI-generated documentation can insert seemingly authoritative but superfluous commentary simply because there's room to elaborate. Both phenomena stem from "filling a void": Sparse vs. Dense Spaces Cartography: Sparse regions allow tiny towns to receive disproportionate emphasis. AI Text Generation: Minimal context leads the ## Documentation Has Different Meanings and Requires Context-Specific Practices DevFeed: [Documentation Has Different Meanings and Requires Context-Specific Practices]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: Niklas Begley Published: 2023-10-17T07:00:00Z Content type: opinion Language: en Sources: [Doctave - Build beautiful developer portals with docs-as-code]() Topics: [Documentation](), [Development](), [code comments](), [API](), [Markdown](), [toolchain]() Tags: [api](), [best-practices](), [blog](), [code-comments](), [documentation](), [markdown](), [technical-documentation](), [toolchain]() ### AI overview The article argues that "documentation" can refer to different materials, from README files and code comments to developer portals, manuals, and API references. Because these forms serve different audiences and contexts, advice to reduce or replace documentation with automation cannot be applied universally. ### Source excerpt There was a post submitted to the Orange Website™ the other week with the title "Delete half your documentation" (HN thread here). The author talks about how documentation inherently has a cost, and how we should minimize the amount of documentation we need. It becomes outdated, requires maintenance, and "nobody reads it anyway". Instead, they argue, we should use type annotations, tested examples, and other methods to remove the requirement for manually maintaining documentation. Some of these arguments have some merits in the right context. But what really caught my eye in the post was this line: "When I say 'documentation', I mean all forms of it, including README, Markdown files, docstrings, and code comments." Hang on. This is not all forms of documentation! And we certainly cannot apply these rules universally. Documentation is in the eyes of the reader I recently Tweeted about the confusion that can happen when people use the word "documentation" to refer to different things. The word "documentation" has so many meanings depending on who you're talking to. To one person it's a single README file. To another, it's a full blown dev portal with guides and API references. Causes legitimate confusion sometimes -- Niklas Begley (@NiklasBegley) September 6, 2023 The post mentioned above is a great example of this phenomenon. The author clearly had the view that "documentation" means code documentation: docstrings, and other supplementing information you can include in or generate from raw source code. This is quite natural for software developers, since it's the kind of documentation they are used to producing themselves. And for their case, perhaps relying on automation over prose to ensure your documentation is in order is a good idea. But what about developer portals, manuals, or API references? Surely a technical writer documenting a complex developer toolchain should not apply the same thinking and "delete half their documentation"? An overloaded term Technical