I agree with you. It's possible to work together with the person who wrote the PR to make the code as good as it can possibly be, while also not being a jerk. I

I agree with you. It's possible to work together with the person who wrote the PR to make the code as good as it can possibly be, while also not being a jerk. I try to be very thorough and offer lots of feedback, but also approach things from a position of respect. For example, instead of "why the hell would anyone do it this way" I instead think like "maybe they thought of something that I haven't" and I hope that it comes through in my comments. When I submit my code for review, I don't just want a rubber stamp, I want thoughtful feedback. If something can be improved, I want to know about it so that I can do it better next time. I try to pay other people the same courtesy. Another commenter said it's all about "disconnecting ego from the work" but I don't really agree. I care a whole lot about my code and that's why I take code reviews seriously. But that doesn't need to translate to anger or feeling emotionally devastated as the article's author somewhat bewilderingly seems to ascribe to his "victims." Another thing that I keep in mind is a joke I heard one time that you measure how good a piece of code is by the WTFs per minute exclaimed when reading it. It's a metric, not an emotional reaction, and it's going to be at least unity no matter how good the code is. Then again, I've had the good fortune to work with good people, so maybe I'd be seeing red too if my coworkers were writing really awful code all of the time.