When you point out the importance of context, I would hasten to add that for me comments in programs provide context that even the best naming convention, etc fails to provide.

I would agree, but there also needs to be a balance. You can't solely rely upon comments when needing to change the code, whereas you can rely on comments to grasp what is happening in said code. But the same can go for self documenting variables. Sure they help you understand what the variable/function/etc. holds, but not what it does.

Almost like naming convention is looking at something through a telescope (very narrow point of view, but very concise) and comments (especially those at top of functions/Sprocs/algorithms that describe what is happening) are like looking with your bare eyes. You can get a jist of things, but you sometimes can't be sure that's accurate 100%.

(A backpacking saying is "never trust any sign you come across" Someone could have tampered with it since it was put up. Use it as a guideline, but not as a rule. I take a similar approach to comments in critical pieces of code. (Touching Credit Decision-ing for Auto Loans ... yep, gonna slow down and take it slow to make sure I don't screw anything up))

Roman numerals did not have a zero. It could only be used to represent counting numbers between 1 and 3999. As abstraction s go it failed to accommodate a large number of situations that Arabic numbers could.

I don't think that's right. Roman numerals allowed a bar over the number to indicate that it was multiplied by a thousand. One million, for example, was an M with a bar over it.

I agree about "counting numbers", though. So far as I know, it was impossible to represent fractions or decimals in Roman numerals.

They used `S` for "half", with dots for additional fractions of twelve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Fractions

And here I thought I'd never need to know that.