> The author of this piece admits that they have to change the code they write in response to comments. This means the code review is flagging areas of improvem

> The author of this piece admits that they have to change the code they write in response to comments. This means the code review is flagging areas of improvement. Surely the resulting code is better than the original code (otherwise I'd expect the author to push back on the comments instead of implementing bad suggestion). There's a potential problem with that idea: The assumption that, if several programmers involved offer different solutions, the best solution will prevail. I think in many cases the accepted solution ends up being the one pushed by the person that holds more power, the one who can communicate better, or the person that 'negotiates' more aggressively. I'm not saying that to argue against code reviews - It's just a friendly reminder that although as technical people we hope to achieve some objective level of quality, we can't escape office politics, human bias and general subjectivity.