This could work well for Ethereum smart contracts
Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review
41–50 of 68 posts
Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review
#42Great idea! I agree that $49/mo is a bit steep if targeting startups. Though at the same time, each PR could easily take an hour to review so it could get time consuming fast. Is there any free trial?
To me, $49/m seems impossibly cheap for a service that requires quite specialized human skill, not to mention the vetting and risks inherit to handling IP from other companies. And I come from one of the poorer EU countries, not from SV.
Yes; pricing starts at 49$ per month, but that would be for a single review.
Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review
#43Do we expect them to provide feedback like "this algorithm is not right because XYZ" or "I fixed this algorithm to work correctly". Those are very different levels of service and I think defining exactly what someone should expect will really helps set expectations. I also think that this seems absurdly cheap, and I can't imagine it scaling with quality reviewers. Would love to be wrong on this one.
To clarify, our pricing page is probably too confusing for folks at this stage -- we aren't saying that we can provide unlimited reviews for $49. Rather, teams and individuals can expect costs to scale up from that baseline.
Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review
#44This could work well for Ethereum smart contracts
I agree - interesting landscape to play in.
Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review
#45I like this idea, it seems useful for all the ways described. My skepticism comes from the reviewers themselves. I think they will have a hard time attracting and keeping top talent who can provide high-quality reviews as such talent will want to be creating code, not only reviewing it. I'm not sure how they would resolve this.
Review offers flexiblity that other forms of contracting don't - there's no project management, client negotiation, etc.
Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review
#46I like this idea, it seems useful for all the ways described. My skepticism comes from the reviewers themselves. I think they will have a hard time attracting and keeping top talent who can provide high-quality reviews as such talent will want to be creating code, not only reviewing it. I'm not sure how they would resolve this.
[deleted]
Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review
#47My suspicion is this:
All the issues someone with no familiarity of the code base or the problem could typically uncover are things that are prone to be automated away by software in the long run (or are already in the process of being automated).
Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review
#48All reviewers sign NDAs to protect your IP.
How does your company back this up? What happens if one of your Developers violates this? Will you pay for the legal fees?
Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review
#49[deleted]
Re: Launch HN: PullRequest (YC S17) – On-Demand Code Review
#50I am skeptical that this can work well.
Having deep understanding of the code in question is essential for a good code review. Not just the code under review, but the wider scope of the project. This helps spot architectural problems, inconsistencies, unearth hidden assumptions or assumption breakages, and the like.
Reviewing the code as a drive-by loses all of those benefits and boils down to focusing on the code at hand, coding style, nitpicks, and implicitly assuming the code fits well with the rest (enforcing consistent coding style and pointing out code smells is certainly useful, these however can be automated to some extent by linters and services like CodeClimate).
I have been a reviewer in hundreds of pull requests, and reviews I've done where I have been intimately familiar with the existing code base were consistently much better than the reviews I did as an outsider to the project - even when, knowing this, I spent a lot more effort on the reviews as an outsider.
The founders seem to recognize this (it's mentioned in the TC article) and mention pairing up reviewers with the same companies, but this IMHO will not be enough, unless these reviewers are basically on retainer and work regularly, and often, with the same company.
I'd love to be proven wrong, so good luck PullRequest team!