alt Hacker News> What you're describing sounds closer to studying the Talmud than to reading and reviewing most code.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/26/reading-code-is-li...
Most human written code has 0 (ZERO!) docs. And if it has them, they're inaccurate or out of date or both.
Lots of code is simple and boring but a fair amount isn't and reading it is non trivial, you basically need to run it in your head or do step by step debugging in multiple scenarios.
Hilarious you found that reference.
I think it's obvious that's in reference to poorly written code. Or at least horrifically underdocumented/undercommented code.
There's a reason coders are constantly given the advice to write code for a future reader, not just the compiler/interpreter.
If I got code like Joel describes for a code review, I'm sending it back asking for it to be clearly commented.