> since clearly there's strong disagreement on coding styles and conventions The same people who are perfectly happy to do a back and forth, adding 3 days of c

> since clearly there's strong disagreement on coding styles and conventions The same people who are perfectly happy to do a back and forth, adding 3 days of code review time, would never go in and refractor existing code to "fix" stylistic issues. It's a cognitive bias that we think everything is up for philosophical debate in reviews. Btw, I'm one of those people who drove stylistic debates in an organized fashion. I learnt that you simply can't police everything, even if it we pretend that it's a good idea to do so. It's much better to share ideas and have them spread through voluntary mechanisms, such as dedicated tech talks, mentoring, postmortems and other deliberate knowledge sharing. That said, automated enforcement of pure formatting can work well if there's standard tooling, e.g. gofmt and rustfmt. But contrary to reviews, that's a way to suppress debate during day to day business. Btw, my experiences are from a mega corp, not claiming it's true for every org.