6 ms·

> "your code sucks" is even more concise. It doesn't convey the same meaning at all though. One is a constructive criticism, one is not. Asking about reasoning

> "your code sucks" is even more concise. It doesn't convey the same meaning at all though. One is a constructive criticism, one is not. Asking about reasoning for discarding alternative solutions is a perfectly standard part of any review process. It doesn't need to be further elongated and stylized to reduce directness. > "it's not my fault you feel bad about my abuse" Nowhere in my post did I justify abuse. Ad hominem is generally out of bounds in professional communication. I'm defending a more direct style that communicates the same message, not a difference message all together. I'm not saying that praise isn't useful feedback, only that it shouldn't be used in place of criticism as the parent post suggested. A submission is either adequate or not, and a review finding a submission inadequate should lay out its reasoning as clearly as possible. If you're consistently authoring inadequate contributions, the onus is on you to figure out why, and negative emotion is a powerful tool to motivate an individual to do so. The same applies to teams and organizations that fail to meet their objectives. After all these emotions didn't evolve for no reason or in a vacuum. > People still want to generally feel like they belong Some people do, some people understand that they're fulfilling a professional function in exchange for compensation and don't see that their feelings have anything to do with it.

mcpackieh 3y ago
Have you noticed that the people advocating for emotional coddling in this thread also seem to have trouble with nuance? They pose this false dichotomy of "Wow I really love this but..." vs "This sucks go fuck yourself" Simply being direct and forward without wrapping your words with empty praise or naked insults doesn't seem to be an option they recognize.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  'I apologize for such a long letter - I didn't have time to write a short one.' - Mark Twain I also notice many people advocating "directness" tend to be bad with words. You may be paid to code, but you're still a professional expected to know how to communicate with peers and everyone else involved. Take time in both your craft and words.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    If you can't find the middle-ground between fake smarmy praise and telling people to go fuck themselves, maybe you should check yourself and not go around telling other people they aren't good at communicating. > In reality, we tend towards one extreme. This is a personal problem, you should work on improving this.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  More immature dichotomous thinking: "Why does one ask "why"? There's two primary reason: curiosity and accusation." Shocking mentality.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
> One is a constructive criticism, one is not. The other one is accusatory in tone and puts the user in a defensive position. Even a simple tweak to say "did you consider this approach" is better than a direct "why did you do it this way/not that way"? So I argue the original form leans a bit away from constructive. > I'm defending a more direct style that communicates the same message, not a difference message all together. and unfortunately, that direct style has histories of being used to put down. Hence my allegory. Good intentions, but if you can't consider how that language was used by others in less savory ways, you will simply end up the same when you dismiss someone's personal concerns: Tonedeaf. >If you're consistently authoring inadequate contributions And here's the assumption that once again comes out of nowhere. Why are we assuming that the hostile employee is right and everyone else is dumb? There are very few cases where these kinds of workers are truly in the right, and those that do tend to have enough emotional intelligence to go on a tirade against every co-worker, as opposed to talking to a manager or director. Complain up the ladder, not in your immediate radius. I'm assuming we're all competent professionals, so there's almost no reason to ever lash out at a co-worker over their code quality. >some people understand that they're fulfilling a professional function in exchange for compensation and don't see that their feelings have anything to do with it. Then they shouldn't care about their co-worker's code quality unless they are constantly asked to fix it. Which is a managerial problem, not a co-worker problem. Same matter applies.
- thegrimmest 3y ago
  > The other one is accusatory in tone I think you need to revisit the definition. There is nothing accusatory about "Why didn't you do it this way?". It's simple question with a simple answer in the format: "Because <reason>". Reading an accusatory tone from a perfectly neutral question, and then getting defensive about it, is exactly the sort of corporate culture that has no place in a productive environment. ChatGPT gave the following answer: > If I encountered the phrase "Why didn't you do it this way?" during a code review, I would likely assume a curious or neutral tone. To avoid miscommunications, we should all be at least as sane as ChatGPT. > has histories of being used to put down The whole point is to interpret the words as they are written, and with common definitions from the dictionary. Not to read tones into them that may not exist in the culture of the speaker. > assumption that once again comes out of nowhere I was responding to your quote: > You can't be negative 100% of the time If you're receiving 100% negative feedback, the first place I'd look is internally. A review process is a solicitation for criticism. It's you who is saying that a who clearly, directly, professionally, and constructively criticizes work is "hostile". > Then they shouldn't care about their co-worker's code quality unless they are constantly asked to fix it They should care when they are asked to review it, since that's the point of a review process.

mcpackieh 3y ago

Have you noticed that the people advocating for emotional coddling in this thread also seem to have trouble with nuance? They pose this false dichotomy of "Wow I really love this but..." vs "This sucks go fuck yourself" Simply being direct and forward without wrapping your words with empty praise or naked insults doesn't seem to be an option they recognize.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
'I apologize for such a long letter - I didn't have time to write a short one.' - Mark Twain I also notice many people advocating "directness" tend to be bad with words. You may be paid to code, but you're still a professional expected to know how to communicate with peers and everyone else involved. Take time in both your craft and words.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  If you can't find the middle-ground between fake smarmy praise and telling people to go fuck themselves, maybe you should check yourself and not go around telling other people they aren't good at communicating. > In reality, we tend towards one extreme. This is a personal problem, you should work on improving this.
mcpackieh 3y ago
More immature dichotomous thinking: "Why does one ask "why"? There's two primary reason: curiosity and accusation." Shocking mentality.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

> One is a constructive criticism, one is not. The other one is accusatory in tone and puts the user in a defensive position. Even a simple tweak to say "did you consider this approach" is better than a direct "why did you do it this way/not that way"? So I argue the original form leans a bit away from constructive. > I'm defending a more direct style that communicates the same message, not a difference message all together. and unfortunately, that direct style has histories of being used to put down. Hence my allegory. Good intentions, but if you can't consider how that language was used by others in less savory ways, you will simply end up the same when you dismiss someone's personal concerns: Tonedeaf. >If you're consistently authoring inadequate contributions And here's the assumption that once again comes out of nowhere. Why are we assuming that the hostile employee is right and everyone else is dumb? There are very few cases where these kinds of workers are truly in the right, and those that do tend to have enough emotional intelligence to go on a tirade against every co-worker, as opposed to talking to a manager or director. Complain up the ladder, not in your immediate radius. I'm assuming we're all competent professionals, so there's almost no reason to ever lash out at a co-worker over their code quality. >some people understand that they're fulfilling a professional function in exchange for compensation and don't see that their feelings have anything to do with it. Then they shouldn't care about their co-worker's code quality unless they are constantly asked to fix it. Which is a managerial problem, not a co-worker problem. Same matter applies.

thegrimmest 3y ago
> The other one is accusatory in tone I think you need to revisit the definition. There is nothing accusatory about "Why didn't you do it this way?". It's simple question with a simple answer in the format: "Because <reason>". Reading an accusatory tone from a perfectly neutral question, and then getting defensive about it, is exactly the sort of corporate culture that has no place in a productive environment. ChatGPT gave the following answer: > If I encountered the phrase "Why didn't you do it this way?" during a code review, I would likely assume a curious or neutral tone. To avoid miscommunications, we should all be at least as sane as ChatGPT. > has histories of being used to put down The whole point is to interpret the words as they are written, and with common definitions from the dictionary. Not to read tones into them that may not exist in the culture of the speaker. > assumption that once again comes out of nowhere I was responding to your quote: > You can't be negative 100% of the time If you're receiving 100% negative feedback, the first place I'd look is internally. A review process is a solicitation for criticism. It's you who is saying that a who clearly, directly, professionally, and constructively criticizes work is "hostile". > Then they shouldn't care about their co-worker's code quality unless they are constantly asked to fix it They should care when they are asked to review it, since that's the point of a review process.