[incrudible]

> But you cannot expect everyone to have the same proficiency you do. Writing good code, also means writing code that a newbie can at least comprehend.

If you're writing example code or documentation, by all means, add this kind of comment.

Otherwise, if someone can't comprehend these particular two lines without reading the comment, they need to get back to the drawing board. You can't have noisy code like that in production at the off-chance that somebody with zero competence needs to read it. The expected case is that a competent developer needs to find "the thing", which means they need to be able to scan the code quickly without having to read everything twice. That's what you should optimize for.

The DRY principle also applies, this sort of error is not uncommon:

  // Add a vertical scroll bar
  hScrollBar = new JScrollBar(JScrollBar.HORIZONTAL);

[drran]

Books need no covers, because if a reader cannot comprehend a book title from the book content, then (s)he must go back to the school. /s

[ignoramous]

False equivalence.

That said, I agree with both OP and GP. I personally prefer clarity take precedence over whatever code-commenting or code-formatting guidelines one might have in place. It is all about common sense, I guess.

[wruza]

If a sense is discussed by camps with opposing opinions, it is far from common by definition.

A better analogy I think would be legal contracts with no headers and no numbered/bullet points. Headers in bold text have no value in a court, why not simply have a few pages of plain text that is self-explanatory? Also applies to comments to laws and religious texts.

I personally prefer clarity should take precedence over

Many programming interfaces are designed with no clarity in mind, sadly. Also many processes are not so straightforward and contain intermixed logic, like (0) get a raw request (1.a) get this, (2.a) get that, (3) log raw event with half-assed data for monitoring or debugging, ((1,2).b) check both and throw, (4) combine into a task, (5) log task, (6) proceed further. This creates zigzags in the code flow that you can’t reduce by abstracting things away, because it would blow up a complexity to insane levels.

I agree that on one hand micro commenting is dumb, but if your blocks are 3-4-line long it’s usually a sign of good structure, which is unrelated to commenting itself. A good structure is self-explanatory, but its flow may be complex (ask Brooks). Human attention-switching helpers seem useful to me, because they help seeing the flow. A short comment on what’s going on is like an inlined IIFE without accompanying visual/scope clutter.