21–30 of 304 posts
The proposed approach to code review in the mentioned medium article makes my skin crawl. So patronising and passive-aggressive.
Just tell me why you don’t like the function name instead of trying to take me on a little thinking quest for my little brain
Off-topic: In case the author is around, please consider removing the email capture popup. It not only interrupted my reading of the article before getting to the main point if it - it had an animation that literally startled me, and I immediately closed the site. I can't believe I got jump scared by an ad in an article but it was incredibly offensive.
The Socratic method for teaching is actually quite good, and it can be employed without condescension.
I’m not sure if I understand what this article has to do with teaching?.. Oh, I get it now, sorry for being slow! Do you think we could rename it to "Don't be an asshole and lie about (not) understanding things" or something along those lines? :) PS. But, titles aside, do we actually want to do teaching during code reviews? There are many activities when teaching and doing are better kept separate (like, you don't wa…
Well, that's how you teach someone how to dance...
On the other hand, if someone is loading images on a main thread of a UI app, teaching is a primary priority compared to getting the change merged. Obviously they are misunderstanding big parts of platform they are developing for and, until I get them up to speed, they will have a hard time being productive. So even if it takes an extra week, it's important that they learn the best practices and how to apply these in specific cases.
I am absolutely against mind games like asking vague questions and holding up work until the author gives me my preferred answer, neither of us have time for that.
I’m not sure if I understand what this article has to do with teaching?.. Oh, I get it now, sorry for being slow! Do you think we could rename it to "Don't be an asshole and lie about (not) understanding things" or something along those lines? :) PS. But, titles aside, do we actually want to do teaching during code reviews? There are many activities when teaching and doing are better kept separate (like, you don't wa…
> like, you don't want to teach your partner how to dance while you're dancing Well, that's how you teach someone how to dance...
Off-topic: In case the author is around, please consider removing the email capture popup. It not only interrupted my reading of the article before getting to the main point if it - it had an animation that literally startled me, and I immediately closed the site. I can't believe I got jump scared by an ad in an article but it was incredibly offensive.
Seriously, I read the first sentences and got so distracted from the pop up. Wtf is that animation? The close button way too high (on iOS), so I had to scroll up again and then I had to search where I left off. I just closed the tab instead.
I use junior engineers’ code review submissions as an opportunity to teach, and any senior engineer who doesn’t is committing professional malpractice. They have to learn, and that requires someone (in the case of a code review) to teach them. One can do it without being condescending, though The Socratic method for teaching is actually quite good, and it can be employed without condescension.
I do like some of this author's articles on code review but I think they emphasize too little that the author of the change is not one of the interested parties in the review. The review is the opportunity for the organization to defend the interests of future maintainers of the code. The interests of the person proposing the change are a distant second and they should be ready and able to either advocate for their decisions or acquiesce to requests for changes.