If what you really want is code that's easier to understand we're better off scrapping all comments, then enforcing good coding style, so that the code is readable without comments. If the functions are kept small, things are well named, and the complexity confined (eg. no 7 level indent), you'll be able to understand the code without the auth
If you need to comment your code so others can understand it, it's probably badly structured and unclear.
I think that above argument, and the gripe about: i++; /* increment i */ are both overrated and overused to get away with laziness and to excuse a lack of discipline that would create better code.
Yes, obviously written code to perform an obvious function needs few, if any, comments. And I think I would agree that the Wine server is commented about right; it is, imho, a beautiful piece of code.
But there are plenty of places in Wine where the code does something screwball or out of the ordinary (hell, the API itself is screwball), and those places deserve more comments.
I think David hit the nail on the head. I don't need a comment to tell me what the code is doing, I agree that the code itself is more clear. I need a comment to tell me why the @#$ you decided to do that.
And the problem is that that prevailing attitude discourages people from being thoughtful about where a comment *would* do some good.
I'd far rather discard a bunch of /* increment i */ comments but still have some comments as to an authors state of mind than have no comments at all (what we have now).
But that's too bad, because Alexandre feels exactly the opposite; and so long as he's in charge (and I very much want him to continue being in charge), that's the way it's gonna be.
@#$!@$@#$ Wine Maintainer...
<grin>
Cheers,
Jeremy