Bellow is a single function commented in two different ways. Which one is better?

NSString* MD5StringOfString(NSString* inputStr)
{
//UTF8 encoding is used so the hash can be compared with hashes of ASCII strings
NSData* inputData = [inputStr dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];

unsigned char outputData[CC_MD5_DIGEST_LENGTH];
CC_MD5([inputData bytes], [inputData length], outputData);

NSMutableString* hashStr = [NSMutableString string];
int i = 0;
for (i = 0; i < CC_MD5_DIGEST_LENGTH; ++i)
[hashStr appendFormat:@"%02x", outputData[i]];

return hashStr;
}

NSString* MD5StringOfString(NSString* inputStr)
{
//convert the string to UTF8 encoded byte data
NSData* inputData = [inputStr dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];

//calculate the hash
unsigned char outputData[CC_MD5_DIGEST_LENGTH];
CC_MD5([inputData bytes], [inputData length], outputData);

//convert hash to a hexadecimal string
NSMutableString* hashStr = [NSMutableString string];
int i = 0;
for (i = 0; i < CC_MD5_DIGEST_LENGTH; ++i)
[hashStr appendFormat:@"%02x", outputData[i]];

//return the hexadecimal string
return hashStr;
}


## The Good

The single comment in the first block of code doesn’t explain "what" the code does, but explains "why". The difference is that the "why" can’t be discerned from the code alone. Someone editing the code would see this comment, and know not to change the encoding unless they wanted to break compatibility with ASCII string hashes.

## The Bad

The comments in the second block of code are redundant. They explain what the code does, which is information that the code already contains. If the code is too difficult to understand, then it should be decomposed into functions with meaningful names like so:

NSString* MD5StringOfString(NSString* inputStr)
{
NSData* inputData = [inputStr dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];
NSData* hashData = MD5HashOfData(inputData);
return HexadecimalStringFromData(hashData);
}


I would argue that the above code with no comments is much easier to read than the original code with four comments. Hard-to-read code should be rewritten properly, instead of being explained with comments.

## The Heart of the Matter

Too many people think comments are extra information that you get for free. If they appear to have no cost associated with them, and there is no downside to extra information, then comments sound awesome. The problem lies in the fact that there are costs associated with comments.

Each comment, good or bad, comes with a future maintenance cost because they must be synchronized with the code whenever changes are made. The more comments, the higher the maintenance cost. On top of this, if a comment were to get out of sync, it could confuse the reader which is also expensive in terms of time and the possible introduction of bugs. You can’t run comments, and a comment that lies is worse than no comment at all.

My advice is to:

1. Avoid comments that explain "what" the code does.
2. Only include "why" comments if they are of decent value to developers maintaining the code.
3. Always delete code that has been commented out. If you really need the old code, it should be available from your version control software anyway.

If you disagree with me, feel free to share your thoughts in the comments. Pun intended!

P.S. Auto-documentation comments (Javadoc, Doxygen, etc.) may be a necessary evil.

P.P.S. See this post by Peter Hosey where he almost accidentally committed an incorrect comment, then refactors the code to avoid the comment entirely.

• http://www.peoplesoftsqr.com Steven

I completely agree. Here are some of my thoughts about comments.

http://peoplesoftsqr.com/index.php/2009/07/7-comments-about-comments/

• http://www.typicalprogrammer.com Greg Jorgensen

“Don’t just echo the code with comments — make every comment count.”nn”Make sure comments and code agree.”nn”Don’t comment bad code — rewrite it.”nnfrom “The Elements of Programming Style” by Kernighan and Plauger, 1974.

• http://tomdalling.com/ Tom Dalling

Sage advice.