Comments in source text are a controversial issue. There are arguments both for and against the view that comments enhance readability. In practice, the biggest problem with comments is that people often fail to update them when the associated source text is changed, thereby making the commentary misleading. Commentary should be reserved for expressing needed information that cannot be expressed in code and highlighting cases where there are overriding reasons to violate one of the guidelines. If possible, source text should use self-explanatory names for objects and program units, and it should use simple, understandable program structures so that little additional commentary is needed. The extra effort in selecting (and entering) appropriate names and the extra thought needed to design clean and understandable program structures are fully justified.

Use comments to state the intent of the code. Comments that provide an overview of the code help the maintenance programmer see the forest for the trees. The code itself is the detailed "how" and should not be paraphrased in the comments.

Comments should be minimized. They should provide needed information that cannot be expressed in the Ada language, emphasize the structure of code, and draw attention to deliberate and necessary violations of the guidelines. Comments are present either to draw attention to the real issue being exemplified or to compensate for incompleteness in the sample program.