Also you are seriously comparing process startup time with the latency of a network call, or worse an llm call?

What do you expect Carney to do what that!?

Yes that’s exactly what I think. I also don’t think the team was aware that opus 5 talks like an overcooked gibbon either. And what’s more I’m certain that it will do neither very soon.

Also many many people keep saying the same thing and you keep repeating adnausium the same tired comments. I get it, you think the comments are great and are valuable.

Read the entire thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49393378

The concensus in this thread is that for multiple reasons the excessive comments are in fact actively harmful. The listed reasons are:

1. Document the conversation, not the code — narrate the back-and-forth that produced the change rather than what the code does

2. Reference intermediate states that never shipped ("previously X, now Y")

3. Cite plan documents and session artifacts (`per section 2.1 of addition-implementation-plan.md`) meaningless to a future reader

4. Belong in commit messages or PR comments, not source files

5. Go stale immediately — describe a state the code is no longer in

6. Launder incorrect code as intentional, making bugs harder to spot

7. Build a false Chesterton's fence around mistakes

8. Use defensive prose ("this is not cosmetic", "prevents the critical bug that shipped once") that asserts importance instead of conveying information

9. Describe what the code doesn't do — relevant in the moment, not in the codebase

10. Confuse later agent sessions, sending them to read irrelevant files

11. Consume context tokens on every read

12. Force reviewers to manually delete the litter

13. Resist correction — telling Claude to be concise doesn't durably stick

Please consider that your opinion may need to adjusted.

Now there is hard-er coding. Novel algorithms, performance sensitive stuff, and so on.