If that was his argument I'd be happier with it. As described, his goal was to encode comments in the function name and describe caveats in test cases; none of those steps sound like 'write a javadoc'.
Javadoc and comments are both forms of code documentation. Perhaps we can generalise OP's point to the following:
"Most of the things programmers say about documentation of code are excuses for not writing any documentation at all"
I'm not going to use a library without documentation in favour of one that is documented. Above a certain minimum standard, it doesn't matter how 'clean' the code is if you don't understand why it exists. Cute naming simply doesn't make up for a lack of documentation, and avoiding documentation should be considered a cone of shame, not a badge of honour.
Javadoc and comments are both forms of code documentation. Perhaps we can generalise OP's point to the following:
"Most of the things programmers say about documentation of code are excuses for not writing any documentation at all"
I'm not going to use a library without documentation in favour of one that is documented. Above a certain minimum standard, it doesn't matter how 'clean' the code is if you don't understand why it exists. Cute naming simply doesn't make up for a lack of documentation, and avoiding documentation should be considered a cone of shame, not a badge of honour.