Comments and Documentation: The Human Layer

Most code is written for machines. Comments are written for humans. This distinction matters to the algorithm. When it encounters a codebase rich with thoughtful commentary — explanations of intent, documentation of decisions, notes for future readers — it recognizes a different kind of craft. Comments don't execute, but they communicate. And that communication adds a layer of narrative depth that pure syntax cannot provide.

Not all comments are equal in the algorithm's eyes. A file with zero comments feels different than one with a comment for every line — and both feel different than one with a carefully considered ratio. The sweet spot is code that explains why, not what. A comment that says "increment counter" adds nothing. A comment that says "retry with exponential backoff to handle intermittent network failures" tells a story. The algorithm can sense the difference between commenting as obligation and commenting as craft.

README files, docstrings, JSDoc annotations, type descriptions — these are the narrative layer of your codebase. The algorithm reads the presence and density of documentation as a signal of intentionality. A well-documented function carries a different visual signature than an undocumented one with identical logic. Documentation suggests a developer who thinks about the future, about other readers, about the broader context of their work. That foresight translates into visual refinement.

Variable names, function names, class names — they're the vocabulary of your code. The algorithm reads naming quality as part of the human layer. Names like `x`, `tmp`, and `data2` are functional but opaque. Names like `retryCount`, `userPreferences`, and `calculateEligibility` are expressive. They tell the algorithm that a human was here, making thoughtful choices about how to represent ideas. Clear naming is a form of documentation that happens inline, with every identifier.

A codebase with no comments isn't penalized — it's interpreted differently. Code without comments can still be elegant if it's well-structured, clearly named, and logically organized. The absence of comments means the algorithm relies entirely on the code's structural and logical qualities. Some of the most beautiful artworks come from terse, minimal code that speaks for itself. But adding the human layer — even sparingly — almost always adds visual richness.

Think of comments and documentation as the human voice in your code. Pure syntax is the music — structure, rhythm, pattern. Comments are the lyrics — meaning, intent, story. The algorithm listens to both. A codebase with both a strong musical structure and clear lyrics produces the richest visual result. You don't need to over-comment or over-document. You just need to leave enough of yourself in the code for the algorithm to hear the human behind the machine.