however, you are probably missing a point here.
I do not know what point I am missing, I stated:
"explanations" may be useful in working towards deciphereing some crappy code, they still are not "comments".

If you in any other context than "deciphering some crappy code" and in original source saw:
mov a,#64h ;move 100 to the accumulator
would you call that a comment?

"There’s a spec somewhere - perhaps only in the developer’s head - which describes in English what a function should do in a human-friendly manner. The code is a translation of that spec to cryptic and unforgiving computerese. So I figure the way to write a function is to create all of the comments first. The header, and even all of the individual little snippets of English spread throughout the code. Then the function’s design is done.

After that, anyone can fill in the code."

Oh yes, THIS is the IT managers' view. Should every program I wrote be of this simplistic/static/mechanistic case, I would have no job today, all has been already done... or would be "filled in by anybody"...

I think the point Jack makes here is that if comments are what they should be, then the above will be true.

HOWEVER, I doubt very much that it means "any idiot can fill in the code in a qualified manner".

Sometimes to make a point an exaggaration is necessary.

If i had the choice between "complete, accurate, well written comments" and "actual code" I would prefer the first to the second in case I were to use someone elses program as a 'reference".

Erik