41–49 of 49 posts
Nice post. However, imho with a good enough writing style it should be possible to convey the purpose of the text without an explicit label.
I tend to agree with that, however don't understand the language barrier. Labeling comments makes the intent unambiguous. I also enjoy a tactical use of smileys and other emojis where applicable :)
However, while "strong communication skills" is something we say we look for, it's not something we actually test for. What does "strong communication skills" actually mean? Does it mean you know how to use a spell checker? A grammar checker? Read and write in your native language?
Personally, I've always taken "strong communication skills" as being able to communicate with other people to achieve the goals of the company. And if one of the goals of the company is creating a team of people that enjoy working at the company, then communicating in a way that doesn't achieve that flies in the face of a goal of the company. In other words, you are lacking in "strong communication skills."
tl;dr: Does "strong communication skills" really matter or is it just a platitude?
Might be off-topic but this feels like one of the better sites on my mobile device: works well, the padding/whitespace is on point and the fonts and their sizes are wonderfully readable. What a pleasant experience.
I've been a big fan of this approach for years (introduced to me by Conventional Comments [1]) - even though it may not always be necessary, it's a low-effort way to make sure you're not misunderstood. [1] https://conventionalcomments.org/
I'd previously tried Conventional Commits but I found the number of labels they suggest too many to keep in my head. The labels in post map well to how I think about comments.
Respectful agreement: I can see how this would work well to encourage the encoding of correct tone in comments, which typically lack the ability to convey that information. Whimsical analogy: The Elcor in Mass Effect adopted a similar approach to manage communicating with other races who lacked their ability to communicate nuance through scent and microgestures. > Elcor speech is heard by most species as a flat, pond…
Cynical observation: HK-47 is commonly passive-aggressive and sarcastic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, it’s extremely common for less senior people to interpret suggestions from more senior people as instructions to be followed even if they aren’t worded as such. Having a consistent, explicit, and unambiguous way of distinguishing between these scenarios that everybody on the team can follow easily is valuable. You can’t rely upon all developers to be good writers or even good readers, especially across…
Eh, suggestions from more senior people are in practice instructions. The risk in ignoring them is that something comes back to bite you and you look like an idiot for not following the suggestion of the senior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, it’s extremely common for less senior people to interpret suggestions from more senior people as instructions to be followed even if they aren’t worded as such. Having a consistent, explicit, and unambiguous way of distinguishing between these scenarios that everybody on the team can follow easily is valuable. You can’t rely upon all developers to be good writers or even good readers, especially across…
As a senior, you should be aware of the authority you have or that others perceive you have. Your comments will be perceived as authoritative and coming from experience. And they might very well be! But just make sure you get a rapport with the reviewed party, and prefix or suffix the comment with a "just a suggestion" or an explicit "I'm not asking you to act on this remark". With a semantic review, you can shorten…
That's what the article suggests, using "Suggestion:" as a prefix.
> or an explicit "I'm not asking you to act on this remark"
Same, the article suggests the "Remark:" prefix. Both are more terse than what you suggest here.