EDIT: It might have even been fortran code. The rest of the project was C++
EDIT: It might have even been fortran code. The rest of the project was C++
This is an interesting case, because it's something that I probably wouldn't document. Code should be readable. If you're writing down how your code works in a document then something is wrong with the code. Documentation can't fix an incomprehensible codebase. I document how algorithms work, what the business logic is for things (which is another algorithm really), how applications work in a 'data flow' sense, what integrations there are with external services and how they work, what things mean, and so on.
I've encountered this "readable code means I don't have to document" idea before. I have no time for it, it's just wrong:
1. Important things aren't easily visible in the code, most commonly why the code does a particular thing. "Readable" code, which is a very subjective standard, can only tell you what it does but not the underlying rationale.
2. Writing docs often exposes the fact that the way the code works, or is expected to be used, doesn't make sense or is sub-optimal. If your docs include lots of caveats or explanations of nonsensical behaviour then it's a good hint you should go back and think again.
3. Figuring out stuff by reading the code is often drastically slower than reading the docs. That's why all professional APIs have good docs and people grumble and moan when expected to use code that doesn't.
4. The sort of people who argue this, in my experience, often don't actually write readable code, they just tell themselves they do.