3 ms·

The proposed approach to code review in the mentioned medium article makes my skin crawl. So patronising and passive-aggressive.

coffeebeqn 4y ago
I just want people to be clear and concise. I hate the vague shit sandwich rhetorical questions. Just tell me why you don’t like the function name instead of trying to take me on a little thinking quest for my little brain
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  I agree but I think honestly asking "why did you do it this way?" is important sometimes. The answer may completely change your suggestion. For the contrived example about renaming a method, no I dont think you should ask why they named it that way.
  - coffeebeqn 4y ago
    That is a straight question and definitely valid.
- conductr 4y ago
  Clear and concise is often received as short and terse. I personally think people as a whole need to learn to receive communications better, versus expecting the author of said communication to know how to tailor their message for your individual preferences. So the whole premise of this article is focusing on the wrong side of things in my mind. It’s similar to the idea of “being offended” which is pretty common these days. It’s been said that offense is taken not given. So the reader is usually the problem. Ignoring of course the blatantly offensive topics and communications, which do still exists. But in a work situation, you should always approach things with an assumption the other person is trying to be constructive and make an effort to not be offended by something that initially offends you or was delivered in a terse manner. If a patterns presents itself, have a conversation and ask why it’s being delivered that way.
draw_down 4y ago
[dead]
silveroriole 4y ago
There’s no link to the original medium article but I have a feeling the author was female or some other minority in the industry. I might be totally off base with that though. I agree that the wording is very cringy, but if I may offer one defence: I also learned to do this sometimes because otherwise juniors wouldn’t listen to me at all. You had to make them think it was their own idea or they were magnanimously granting you, an idiot (notice how they apologise for being slow), a rename to help your tiny brain understand. Otherwise you’d be stuck in an insane week-long code review with the junior furiously dismissing every single instruction until you looped in a coworker with more social power. I see this article is also by a woman and I’m happy that she’s in an environment where she doesn’t have to do that. I don’t think the other article’s wording is praise-worthy but I do think it’s a somewhat rational adaptation to an environment of hostile coworkers where you need to make yourself submissive to get anything done.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
moomoo11 4y ago
I mean these days people take offense when you link them to the documentation or propose a better way to do something. They have too much pride to accept that they might not be hot shit. I've had people tell me they think its insane how some people can't handle code reviews and would go to their manager about it.

coffeebeqn 4y ago

I just want people to be clear and concise. I hate the vague shit sandwich rhetorical questions. Just tell me why you don’t like the function name instead of trying to take me on a little thinking quest for my little brain

nonethewiser 4y ago
I agree but I think honestly asking "why did you do it this way?" is important sometimes. The answer may completely change your suggestion. For the contrived example about renaming a method, no I dont think you should ask why they named it that way.
- coffeebeqn 4y ago
  That is a straight question and definitely valid.
conductr 4y ago
Clear and concise is often received as short and terse. I personally think people as a whole need to learn to receive communications better, versus expecting the author of said communication to know how to tailor their message for your individual preferences. So the whole premise of this article is focusing on the wrong side of things in my mind. It’s similar to the idea of “being offended” which is pretty common these days. It’s been said that offense is taken not given. So the reader is usually the problem. Ignoring of course the blatantly offensive topics and communications, which do still exists. But in a work situation, you should always approach things with an assumption the other person is trying to be constructive and make an effort to not be offended by something that initially offends you or was delivered in a terse manner. If a patterns presents itself, have a conversation and ask why it’s being delivered that way.

draw_down 4y ago

[dead]

silveroriole 4y ago

There’s no link to the original medium article but I have a feeling the author was female or some other minority in the industry. I might be totally off base with that though. I agree that the wording is very cringy, but if I may offer one defence: I also learned to do this sometimes because otherwise juniors wouldn’t listen to me at all. You had to make them think it was their own idea or they were magnanimously granting you, an idiot (notice how they apologise for being slow), a rename to help your tiny brain understand. Otherwise you’d be stuck in an insane week-long code review with the junior furiously dismissing every single instruction until you looped in a coworker with more social power. I see this article is also by a woman and I’m happy that she’s in an environment where she doesn’t have to do that. I don’t think the other article’s wording is praise-worthy but I do think it’s a somewhat rational adaptation to an environment of hostile coworkers where you need to make yourself submissive to get anything done.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

moomoo11 4y ago

I mean these days people take offense when you link them to the documentation or propose a better way to do something. They have too much pride to accept that they might not be hot shit. I've had people tell me they think its insane how some people can't handle code reviews and would go to their manager about it.