I love how the first-mentioned "hardest thing in computer science," naming things, is one of the shortest sections: > Did the developer pick good names for eve

I love how the first-mentioned "hardest thing in computer science," naming things, is one of the shortest sections: > Did the developer pick good names for everything? A good name is long enough to fully communicate what the item is or does, without being so long that it becomes hard to read. They mention several times a "Nit:" or other prefix for nonblocking comments. I wonder if that is purposeful and/or reflects the experience of the company. I also like a lot of the points made in the CL Author's Guide [0]. I've recently finished a similar document at work on how to form good Git commits. I generally like to be able to review a GitHub PR by stepping through a sequence of well-formed commits one by one, each of which sounds like what Google is describing in this document. Regardless of how it's sliced up, by commits or PRs or whatever, in general I just wish I could get more folks on board with this part of writing code. [0]: https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/developer/ https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/developer/