[ckdot2]

it's not always as simple as that. what if you once implemented some facade method to get data from database like "findProductById" and you comment it with "finds a product from database by it's ID". later on, someone (maybe you) replaced some deeper logic here, so the product might be fetched from some other source, depending on some configuration. in case you didn't even touch the facade file, will you remember to update the comment? most developers will not. this risk is ALWAYS present if the comment explains more than the nearby code. so a comment is only safe if it contains the same degree of information like the nearby code. in that case though the comment is redundant. comments only make sense if they explain the -why-, not the -what- or -how-.

[IshKebab]

First of all you shouldn't comment "finds a product from database by it's ID" because that's just what the function name already says.

Second, you're (I think) arguing that we shouldn't use comments because they might go out of date, which I think is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

> comments only make sense if they explain the -why-, not the -what- or -how-

That is the wrong heuristic. Comments make sense if they provide useful information that isn't self-evident from the code. Often that is the "why", but it can also be the "what" or the "how". Think about something like the fast inverse square root. A comment explaining how it works is very valuable.

[gpderetta]

Besides, even function names can go out of date, yet we still give functions meaningful names.

[gpderetta]

That still valuable as it explain the original intent of the code, especially together with vcs history. When debugging strange issues even cryptic hints can be useful. Even merely the fact that someone thought that commenting a specific bit of code was required can be valuable.