While I agree with the general sentiment, the first example in the article IMO demonstrates how "what" comments make understanding code easier. When I first read that code, I was pleasantly surprised how easy it was to understand everything going on there, even though I had no familiarity with the code base. This is rare for non-trivial projects. I'm not sure if it could be made as clear without those comments.

"Why not" comments are also very helpful

Self-explanatory code can't explain themselves if they do not exist

I upvoted you, but there are plenty of exceptions. For example:

* Common name of the algorithm you're using

* Reference to somewhere else in the code that's related

* "You may think this code only does X, but it really also does Y"

* "We used to also do XYZ here, but that was removed because of ABC"

and so on.

How do you know what a function does, without a "what" comment to explain it? Even "obvious" functions like Math.max have edge cases, and I rely on "what" comments to understand how those cases are handled.

WHY comments drastically improved my code.

I’ve similarly been paying much more attention to convey INTENT which I think is massively missing from computer science. The code might suck, but if the intent is clearly defined, it helps to refactor later.

I agree and first example in the article is all comments describing what the code is doing. There is not a single one explaining why.

Well I stopped reading further.

Agreed.

That's what works for me.