4 ms·

> I’m not sure if I understand the whole idea but could you explain what this method does? What's wrong with this? The author suggests that this is somehow ext

> I’m not sure if I understand the whole idea but could you explain what this method does? What's wrong with this? The author suggests that this is somehow extremely condescending, and that the reviewer should instead review at an "eye-to-eye level". So the solution is to jump to a remedy without fully understanding what the writer meant? If you are going to review at an eye-to-eye level, then you have to go in assuming best intentions. A method might seem poorly named, but if you're reviewing a peer then it is very likely that you just doesn't understand some context. I'd never jump in and assume a method is poorly named unless I understand why it was named that way: Chesterton's Fence.

verzeichnis 4y ago
The condescending part is that the reviewer understood how the method worked, but asked to have it explained to them again anyhow. That is dishonest. That is why the suggested rephrasing was to say: I had a hard time understanding how the method worked. How about renaming it?
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  I agree. And it can be good to rephrase your opinion into a question sometimes. You may think it should be done differently but it's good to know the reasoning behind things. But if it's the simple renaming example then by all means lead with the suggestion.
ryanf 4y ago
The question itself would be fine if the asker were actually interested in the answer. What's condescending is asking the question while already knowing the answer, with the unstated ulterior motive of getting the writer to change the method name.
kazinator 4y ago
What's wrong with it is that the reviewer knows well what the method does. The reviewer just wants the name to be changed to reflect that. He's just playing dumb, perpetrating the Socratic method to guide the reviewee to the conclusion/agreement that the method needs a different name, through the giant detour of having to explain what it does, when both parties already know that.
ordu 4y ago
> What's wrong with this? I do not know what happens. Do reviewer really cannot understand, or he is trying Socrates on me? Or maybe he have some undisclosed anxiety issues, and keep himself vague on purpose, because he is afraid to show me some inner processes of his mind? Maybe it is an imposter syndrome at work or something like that? What should I do in such a situation? Should I answer his question in a direct way and to explain what is happening, or should I jump to a meta and try to guess why the reviewer asking me such question? I mean I need to go meta and to untangle all this mess, but I'm a programmer, not a psychologist. This is not a psychotherapy session. But I'm forced to imagine all the kinds of mind states to find those that may generate the question I've got, and then to find some reaction for me, that will do minimum damage regardless of the state and give me more information about the state. So my reaction will be a counter question. It is time spent for a small talk, with me carefully moving around to not trigger possible anxieties of the reviewer, while being unsure about his mental issues and not knowing what exactly I'm trying to avoid. But the honest review when reviewer gives me his thoughts is much more informative. I need no more to guess what is going on. “I had a hard time grasping what the method does. What about changing the method name to openRequest() to make the methods objective clearer and improve code readability?” gives me all I need to proceed in a conversation. I know what reviewer wants from me (to change method name), and I know why he thinks so. I know my options: I can accept his change, reject it, or propose some third variant of the method name. > I'd never jump in and assume a method is poorly named unless I understand why it was named that way: Chesterton's Fence. Review process is not a process of editing wikipedia. My commit was not approved yet, I'm not a random anonymous person from Internet, and the reviewer also is not a random anonymous person. So Chesterton Fence is not applicable here. If I think that my way to name method is better for some reason, I'll inform the reviewer on my opinion, and my reasons to think so. Moreover I can move the conversation one step further right now by addressing his concerns.
- jerglingu 4y ago
  This comment is perfect and elicited the long-buried inner rage I used to feel towards a former staff in an old company. I should not have had to navigate a staff engineer’s mind minefield like my BPD ex. Additionally, a person with that degree of influence should not hate directness and potential conflict more than he hates himself

verzeichnis 4y ago

The condescending part is that the reviewer understood how the method worked, but asked to have it explained to them again anyhow. That is dishonest. That is why the suggested rephrasing was to say: I had a hard time understanding how the method worked. How about renaming it?

nonethewiser 4y ago
I agree. And it can be good to rephrase your opinion into a question sometimes. You may think it should be done differently but it's good to know the reasoning behind things. But if it's the simple renaming example then by all means lead with the suggestion.

ryanf 4y ago

The question itself would be fine if the asker were actually interested in the answer. What's condescending is asking the question while already knowing the answer, with the unstated ulterior motive of getting the writer to change the method name.

kazinator 4y ago

What's wrong with it is that the reviewer knows well what the method does. The reviewer just wants the name to be changed to reflect that. He's just playing dumb, perpetrating the Socratic method to guide the reviewee to the conclusion/agreement that the method needs a different name, through the giant detour of having to explain what it does, when both parties already know that.

ordu 4y ago

> What's wrong with this? I do not know what happens. Do reviewer really cannot understand, or he is trying Socrates on me? Or maybe he have some undisclosed anxiety issues, and keep himself vague on purpose, because he is afraid to show me some inner processes of his mind? Maybe it is an imposter syndrome at work or something like that? What should I do in such a situation? Should I answer his question in a direct way and to explain what is happening, or should I jump to a meta and try to guess why the reviewer asking me such question? I mean I need to go meta and to untangle all this mess, but I'm a programmer, not a psychologist. This is not a psychotherapy session. But I'm forced to imagine all the kinds of mind states to find those that may generate the question I've got, and then to find some reaction for me, that will do minimum damage regardless of the state and give me more information about the state. So my reaction will be a counter question. It is time spent for a small talk, with me carefully moving around to not trigger possible anxieties of the reviewer, while being unsure about his mental issues and not knowing what exactly I'm trying to avoid. But the honest review when reviewer gives me his thoughts is much more informative. I need no more to guess what is going on. “I had a hard time grasping what the method does. What about changing the method name to openRequest() to make the methods objective clearer and improve code readability?” gives me all I need to proceed in a conversation. I know what reviewer wants from me (to change method name), and I know why he thinks so. I know my options: I can accept his change, reject it, or propose some third variant of the method name. > I'd never jump in and assume a method is poorly named unless I understand why it was named that way: Chesterton's Fence. Review process is not a process of editing wikipedia. My commit was not approved yet, I'm not a random anonymous person from Internet, and the reviewer also is not a random anonymous person. So Chesterton Fence is not applicable here. If I think that my way to name method is better for some reason, I'll inform the reviewer on my opinion, and my reasons to think so. Moreover I can move the conversation one step further right now by addressing his concerns.

jerglingu 4y ago
This comment is perfect and elicited the long-buried inner rage I used to feel towards a former staff in an old company. I should not have had to navigate a staff engineer’s mind minefield like my BPD ex. Additionally, a person with that degree of influence should not hate directness and potential conflict more than he hates himself