If you don’t trust the code to write a decent comment, why trust it write good code?
Of course, ensuring compilation or other checks can verify some code, which it can’t do for comments. But comments still serve the same purpose as human comments.
If I understand correctly, it’s not that the LLM can’t write a good comment, it’s that you want to be able to interpret and understand the generated code without comments - and in that process end up writing comments yourself.
I don’t get that argument. Most of the time by the end of the session the comments from the agent encode tricky details that I told the agent to write down so it stops making “simplifying” assumptions. Thus comments at the end of a couple days of agent-only coding, when I start to actually read and edit the prose, contain the details which aren’t possible to know from reading the local code. It may help that my last couple sessions before I start reading the code myself are variations on telling the agent to self-review and improve the comments in specific ways, so the comments left are only those the agent thought remain meaningful at clarifying unexpected interactions between the local code and other code that needs to be referenced to understand it.
The actual code output has improved a lot over the past year. I’ve found it matches existing patterns better, and the code is succinct so I can easily tweak it if I don’t like the way the agent wrote it.
The problem with comments is that LLMs tend to copy their verbose chat output format and insert session/prompt specific details. It makes me think that LLMs aren’t constrained in their comment output the same way they are with their code output
Of course, ensuring compilation or other checks can verify some code, which it can’t do for comments. But comments still serve the same purpose as human comments.