Of course, these are awful for a human. But I wonder if they're actually helpful for the LLM when it's reading code. It means each line of behavior is written in two ways: human language and code. Maybe that rosetta stone helps it confidently proceed in understanding, at the cost of tokens.
All speculation, but I'd be curious to see it evaluated - does the LLM do better edits on egregiously commented code?
All speculation, but I'd be curious to see it evaluated - does the LLM do better edits on egregiously commented code?