[OJFord]

Is it deliberate that your comment itself is like an instance of the methodology you describe? Small separate stand-alone thoughts vs. a well-understood description (harder to write, to consume) in longer form commentary?

That's not a criticism at all by the way, I just found it striking.

[samsquire]

It was accident and not deliberate but you may reveal how I think. Thank you for this insight.

In hindsight if you focus on three questions: is it good? Is it right? Is it true? You'll head toward a good direction

Synthesis of ideas is really important and the building blocks of understanding are fascinating. Programming and mathematics is taught as building blocks and then deliberate practice.

I really enjoy reading plain descriptions of things, especially of other people's code.

If you understand the core insight, difficult things can be easier to understand and apply for you.

I really want to understand how tracing compilers work and LuaJIT, JVM and V8 but I found the code a bit too hard to understand as I jumped into the wrong locations.

There has been two instances where Wikipedia was enough for me to understand and write an algorithm that implemented the description. Wikipedia doesn't have pseudocode for multiversion concurrency control but it does have an accurate if subtle description. I did the same for btrees but I did read some other people's implementations to get a feel. I of course wrote mine completely differently.

I want people to document their code enough so that the core principles or idea behind their code could be reimplemented by someone else just by reading the description of how it works.

Rpython and Pypy documentation is good but I still don't understand it enough to implement what it does. Which means I'm missing some detail or core insight.