Their argument is "it explains the configuration". My argument is that it's more important to be able to quickly see what configuration is actually applied (which usually fits in a terminal window without scrolling) then it is to redundantly store help-text on the server (which also makes it hard to read what is enabled).
Unfortunately, many distributions ship configuration files in /etc with a pile of commented-out defaults and documentation, on the theory that doing so makes them easy to edit.
Personally, I prefer the current approach of not shipping a file in /etc at all, shipping the defaults in /usr if anywhere, and thus reducing the file in /etc to actual configuration.
What the current configuration _means_, however, is a different matter. I have worked on systems where the explanatory comments are only accessible in a different system. One more extra hurdle, whether they are helpful or not...
Which means I need the config files.
I'm not against ALL comments - i.e. if something has a non-obvious external issue, that's worth noting. But people argue that the very verbose default comments, for example, should be left in - that's pointless, and potentially hazardous.
:view
:g/^\s*#/d
comments like "does this" are telling you the name of the function that the following code should be in.
... so unless your scripts/configuration data are written in a very esoteric language or format i'm inclined to agree with your point very strongly.