I wrote about a certain experience:
	> It would have taken the original author maybe 10 minutes 
	> to explain what he was up to in those 20 lines.  
	> It would have saved me a week. 
I meant "10 minutes of typing".

"Darius Clarke" <DClarke at fadal.com> asked:
	How about "audio comments" voice recorded, with a
	EventRecorderMorph like walkthrough?
	
ARRGH!  As someone who once had to translate between an African and
and American (both of whom were speaking perfectly clear English, as
far as I could tell), I'll take text over speech any day of the year.

A "walkthrough" explaining "this line does X, this line does Y" and
so on would have been totally useless redundancy.  I could see what
the lines of code did.  What I needed to know was *under what conditions
was it OK for them to do that*, what was the code ASSUMING, not DOING.

	Do we verbally explain code (say, in a conference presentation) by
	reciting the code outloud? 

I hope not.  I really do.  Again, one reason we need comments is that we
can *see* what it is DOING, but what we need to know is what it is ASSUMING.
Any kind of explanation will involve presenting, somehow, material that is
NOT there in the code.  Perhaps even material that COULDN'T be in the code.
(References to published proofs, for example.)