MEMO-063: Week 9 Day 4 - Code Example Placement Analysis

Date: 2025-11-15 Updated: 2025-11-15 Author: Platform Team Related: MEMO-052, MEMO-061, MEMO-062

Executive Summary

Comprehensive code example placement analysis across all 5 massive-scale graph RFCs. Overall assessment: Excellent code documentation with appropriate context patterns. The RFCs use a reference documentation pattern rather than tutorial style, which justifies the observed code block context approach.

Key Findings:

• ✅ Language tags: 100% compliance (271/271 code blocks)
• ✅ Before explanations: 76-84% provide context
• ⚠️ After explanations: 0-3% have explicit "what it does" sections
• ✅ Self-documenting code: Extensive inline comments, well-structured examples

Conclusion: Current pattern is appropriate for reference documentation. The "code sandwich" pattern (before + after) is best for tutorials, but these RFCs use inline documentation where code blocks are self-explanatory through comments, structure, and context.

Recommendation: Accept current pattern with minor improvements to the 16-24% of code blocks missing before-context.

Quantitative Analysis

Overall Statistics

Metric	Total	Result
Total code blocks	271	-
With language tags	271	✅ 100%
With before explanations	219	✅ 81%
With after explanations	2	⚠️ 0.7%
Complete sandwich pattern	2	⚠️ 0.7%

RFC-Specific Breakdown

RFC	Total Blocks	Lang Tags	Before	After	Sandwich
RFC-057	57	100%	82.5%	0%	0%
RFC-058	46	100%	78.3%	0%	0%
RFC-059	52	100%	80.8%	0%	0%
RFC-060	73	100%	83.6%	2.7%	2.7%
RFC-061	43	100%	76.7%	0%	0%

Qualitative Analysis: Code Block Patterns

Pattern 1: Self-Documenting Text Blocks (40% of code blocks)

Example (RFC-060, lines 59-68):

Before: "**Single-Machine Execution** (impractical at 100B scale):"

Code:
  Step 1: Scan all vertices (100B vertices)
  Step 2: Filter by label='User' and city='San Francisco'
    Result: 5M vertices
  Step 3: Traverse out('FOLLOWS') for each
    Result: 50M edges to follow

After: (continues with "**Distributed Execution** (this RFC):")

Analysis: Text blocks contain step-by-step explanations within the block itself. Adding an "after explanation" would be redundant.

Verdict: ✅ No improvement needed

Pattern 2: Inline-Commented Go Code (30% of code blocks)

Example (RFC-059, lines 654-699):

func (sl *SnapshotLoader) LoadHDFSSnapshot(hdfsPath string) error {
    // Connect to HDFS
    client, err := hdfs.New(sl.Config.HDFSNameNode)
    if err != nil {
        return err
    }
    defer client.Close()

    // List vertex files
    vertexFiles, err := client.ReadDir(hdfsPath + "/vertices")

    // Parallel load across proxies
    var wg sync.WaitGroup

    // ... (continues with detailed comments)
}

Analysis: Every section has inline comments explaining purpose. The code is self-documenting.

Before explanation: "Loader Implementation:" (sufficient) After explanation: Redundant - comments already explain what each section does

Verdict: ✅ No improvement needed

Pattern 3: Self-Documenting Protobuf Schemas (15% of code blocks)

Example (RFC-058, lines 174-207):

message PartitionIndex {
  string partition_id = 1;  // "07:0042:05"
  int64 vertex_count = 2;
  int64 edge_count = 3;

  // Schema version for index format evolution
  // Version history:
  //   v1: Initial release (hash + range indexes)
  //   v2: Added inverted indexes (2025-01)
  int32 schema_version = 10;  // Current: 5

  // Hash indexes (property → vertex ID list)
  map<string, PropertyHashIndex> hash_indexes = 5;
}

Analysis: Field-level comments explain purpose and evolution. Schema is self-documenting.

Before explanation: "Storage Format:" (sufficient) After explanation: Would just repeat field comments

Verdict: ✅ No improvement needed

Pattern 4: Configuration Examples (YAML) (10% of code blocks)

Example (RFC-057, lines 107-123 estimated):

partition_strategy:
  type: hierarchical
  clusters: 10
  proxies_per_cluster: 100
  partitions_per_proxy: 64

  sizing:
    vertices_per_partition: 1.56M
    partition_size_mb: 156
    memory_per_proxy_gb: 30

Analysis: YAML configuration is self-explanatory through key-value structure.

Verdict: ✅ No improvement needed

Pattern 5: ASCII Diagrams (5% of code blocks)

Example (RFC-057, lines 195-226):

        Global
         │
         ▼
┌────────────────────────┐
│  Cluster 0: 100 Proxies│
│                        │
│  ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐    │
│  │Proxy │ │Proxy │    │
│  │  0   │ │  1   │    │
│  └──────┘ └──────┘    │
└────────────────────────┘

Analysis: Visual representation doesn't need after-explanation. The diagram itself communicates structure.

Verdict: ✅ No improvement needed

Missing Context Analysis

Code Blocks Without Before Explanation (16-24%)

Sampling of blocks without before-context:

1. RFC-060, Line 55: Gremlin query example

   • Current: Query appears without introduction
   • Recommendation: Add "Example Query: Find all users in SF who follow someone in NY"

2. RFC-058, Line 151: Index examples

   • Current: Text block appears mid-section
   • Context: Sufficient from preceding paragraph

3. RFC-061, Line 240: Authorization context protobuf

   • Current: Continues from previous message definition
   • Context: Adequate (part of series)

Pattern: Most "missing before" cases are:

• Continuation of previous code blocks (series of message definitions)
• Mid-section examples where context is implicit
• Comparison code blocks (before/after examples)

Severity: Low - context is usually inferable from section headers and preceding paragraphs

Reference Documentation vs Tutorial Style

Tutorial Style (Not Used in These RFCs)

Pattern: Explicit before + after explanations

We'll implement a snapshot loader that reads from HDFS. This loader will:
- Connect to HDFS namenode
- Read vertex files in parallel
- Deserialize protobuf vertices

[CODE BLOCK]

This code connects to HDFS, lists all vertex files, and spawns goroutines
to load files in parallel. Each goroutine reads a SequenceFile, deserializes
protobuf vertices, and creates them in the local partition.

When Appropriate: Learning materials, getting-started guides, step-by-step tutorials

Reference Documentation Style (Used in These RFCs)

Pattern: Section header + self-documenting code

### HDFS Snapshot Loader

**Schema**:
[HDFS layout diagram]

**Loader Implementation**:
[Go code with inline comments]

### Performance Characteristics
[Continues with next topic]

When Appropriate: API documentation, architecture RFCs, technical specifications

Characteristics:

• Readers are experienced engineers (not beginners)
• Code quality is high enough to be self-documenting
• Inline comments explain implementation details
• Section flow provides macro-level context

Examples of the Two "After Explanation" Instances

Example 1: RFC-060, Line 55-95 (Comparison Pattern)

Structure:

Problem statement
[Gremlin query code]

Single-machine approach:
[Text block: execution steps]
Result: Hours

Distributed approach (this RFC):
[Text block: optimized execution]
Result: 7 seconds
Speedup: 2,500×

Analysis: The "after explanation" is actually a comparison showing performance improvement. This is appropriate because it demonstrates the RFC's value proposition.

Pattern: Before/After comparison (different from "what it does" explanation)

Example 2: RFC-060, Line 642-661 (Trade-Off Discussion)

Structure:

Cost estimation:
[Text block: calculation steps]

Decision: Use index scan (136 vs 100B = 735,000,000× faster)

Analysis: The "after" text provides a decision rationale based on the calculation, not just explaining what the code does.

Pattern: Analysis → Evidence → Conclusion

Validation Checklist

Criterion	Status	Notes
✅ Language tags on all code blocks	PASS	271/271 (100%)
✅ Before-context for code blocks	GOOD	219/271 (81%)
⚠️ After-explanation for code	N/A	Not needed for reference docs
✅ Inline comments in Go code	EXCELLENT	Comprehensive
✅ Self-documenting text blocks	EXCELLENT	Step-by-step format
✅ Protobuf field comments	EXCELLENT	Evolution history included
✅ YAML configurations readable	EXCELLENT	Clear structure

Common Effective Patterns

Pattern A: Section Header + Code + Next Section

### Snapshot Loading Algorithm

[Code block with algorithm]

### Performance Characteristics

[Next topic]

Why it works: Section header provides macro context, code is self-documenting, flow continues naturally

Pattern B: Bold Label + Code + Analysis

**Rebalancing Cost Example**:

[Text block: scenario and calculations]

Impact: 30 minutes downtime, expensive operation

Why it works: Bold label frames the example, code shows details, summary provides takeaway

Pattern C: Comparison Pattern

Without optimization: [calculation showing problem]

With optimization: [calculation showing solution]

Result: 10× speedup

Why it works: Shows problem → solution → benefit in clear sequence

Pattern D: Self-Documenting Code with Rich Comments

func LoadSnapshot() {
    // Step 1: Connect to storage
    client := connect()

    // Step 2: Parallel load
    for file := range files {
        go loadFile(file)  // Each goroutine handles one file
    }
}

Why it works: Comments explain intent, code shows implementation

Recommendations

High Priority: Fix Missing Before-Context (52 blocks)

Target: The 16-24% of code blocks without clear before-context

Action Items:

1. RFC-057 (10 blocks): Add section headers or bold labels before standalone code blocks
2. RFC-058 (10 blocks): Add transition sentences before mid-section examples
3. RFC-059 (10 blocks): Add context for configuration examples
4. RFC-060 (12 blocks): Add example descriptions before queries
5. RFC-061 (10 blocks): Add scenario descriptions before policy examples

Example Fix:

Current:
  [Code block appears without introduction]

Improved:
  **Example**: Multi-tenant organization isolation

  [Code block with example]

Estimated Effort: 1-2 hours (5-10 minutes per RFC)

Medium Priority: Enhance Inline Comments (Optional)

Target: Go code blocks where intent isn't immediately obvious

Example Enhancement:

// Current (adequate)
bitmap := roaring.New()

// Enhanced (better)
// Create roaring bitmap for efficient set operations
// Roaring bitmaps use compressed runs for sparse data
bitmap := roaring.New()

Estimated Effort: 2-3 hours

Low Priority: Add "Performance Note" After Benchmarks (Optional)

Target: Code blocks showing performance calculations or benchmarks

Example Addition:

[Cost calculation code block]

**Performance Note**: At 100B scale, index scan provides 735M× speedup vs full scan,
making query completion time drop from hours to milliseconds.

Benefit: Reinforces the business value of optimization decisions

Estimated Effort: 1 hour

Comparison to Other Documentation Styles

Style 1: Tutorial Style (e.g., Getting Started Guides)

Pattern: Heavy before/after explanations

• Before: "We're going to implement X which does Y"
• Code: Implementation
• After: "This code does Y by calling Z and returning A"

Audience: Beginners, first-time users Goal: Learning and understanding

Style 2: Reference Documentation (Current)

Pattern: Section structure + self-documenting code

• Section header: Context and purpose
• Code: Implementation with inline comments
• Next section: Continues logical flow

Audience: Experienced engineers Goal: Specification and implementation reference

Style 3: API Documentation (e.g., Javadoc)

Pattern: Formal structure with returns/params

• Before: Method signature, parameters, return value
• Code: Implementation
• After: Usage examples, exceptions, notes

Audience: Library users Goal: Integration and usage

Our RFCs: Best match is Style 2 (Reference Documentation), which is appropriate given the audience (staff/principal engineers implementing massive-scale systems).

Conclusion

Overall Assessment: ✅ Excellent code documentation with appropriate style for reference documentation

The RFCs demonstrate sophisticated code presentation with:

• 100% language tag compliance
• High use of inline comments and self-documenting code
• Appropriate reference documentation style for experienced engineers
• Clear section structure providing macro-level context

The "missing after explanations" is not a defect - it reflects an intentional documentation style where:

1. Code quality is high enough to be self-explanatory
2. Inline comments provide implementation details
3. Section flow provides context
4. Target audience (senior engineers) can read code fluently

One improvement area: 16-24% of code blocks (52 total) lack clear before-context. These should have section headers, bold labels, or transition sentences added.

Recommendation: Accept current pattern as appropriate for reference documentation style, with minor improvements to add before-context where missing.

Next Steps

Week 9 Day 4 Completion

✅ Code example placement analysis complete

Optional improvements (1-2 hours total):

1. Add before-context to 52 code blocks missing clear introduction
2. Enhance inline comments in complex Go functions (optional)
3. Add performance notes after benchmark calculations (optional)

Week 9 Day 5: Table and Diagram Review

Focus:

• Check all tables for clear headers and aligned columns
• Verify tables complement (not duplicate) surrounding text
• Review ASCII diagrams for clarity
• Consider converting complex prose to tables

Week 10: Line-Level Copy Edit

Activities:

• Active voice conversion
• Jargon audit and consistent terminology
• Sentence length optimization (15-20 words)
• Verb precision improvements

Revision History

• 2025-11-15: Initial code example placement analysis for Week 9 Day 4