Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Welcome to the Monastery
 
PerlMonks  

RE: Code Review section, anyone?

by swiftone (Curate)
on Sep 14, 2000 at 19:25 UTC ( #32476=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Code Review section, anyone?

Posting problematic code for review is already done in Seekers of Perl Wisdom, so the key issue appears to be the private feedback.

I don't really understand the point. Why get private feedback when the feedback can be posted publicly, to help others? There doesn't even have to be a experience issue, because I (and I'm assumin others) tend to upvote questions that illicit good responses.

A place for monks to get honest, open feedback about their code,....Nobody posts here unless they want direct feedback.

This sounds like PerlMonks :) You can even post Anonymously if you like.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(kudra: what about Craft?) RE: RE: Code Review section, anyone?
by kudra (Vicar) on Sep 14, 2000 at 20:07 UTC
    I think Seekers is quite different from what was proposed for the code review section.

    Seekers:
    the code doesn't work; the poster is stuck. Post the minimal example and describe errors.
    Code Review:
    the code works, but the poster wants to know if there's a way to improve a function's efficiency, or if there are some bugs in the module that s/he hasn't seen, or if there's a pitfall in the program s/he didn't notice.

    That said, I think Review is more or less like Craft.

    See the description of the various sections. I get the impression that snippets and catacombs could easily be used for polished pieces of (snippets and standalone programs respectively) code (polished modules belong at CPAN of course). The code in these sections should be good enough for someone to use. It might actually be nice to have these sections moderated, allowing only code that passed review to be found in these sections.

    Craft, on the other hand, is a place to show off code. If something's on display, it's going to get comments and critique...at least that's how I see it.

    Update: Merlyn, I agree that it's good to have it clear that people will critique. I just think a new section would be redundant. If Craft is what I think it is (and if not, what is it for?), it would certainly benefit from a clearer description, and possibly even from being renamed to Review.

      Craft, on the other hand, is a place to show off code. If something's on display, it's going to get comments and critique...at least that's how I see it.
      But you perhaps are a mature programmer, someone who understands that putting stuff out there is going to get critique. I'm worried about a repeat of a couple of mistakes I made in the past here, where someone is posting a snippet "because it's way cool, dude" and not for critique, and then I critique it.

      I want a place where it's clear from the get go that code will get shredded in that area. So the newbies with fragile egos will stay away, but the people who understand what having a good code critique will treasure.

      -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

        i think that operating on the default assumption that Craft is for 'showing off' works rather well, and people who want a critique could ask for it when posting to Craft.

        optionally, why not check the poster's home node for mail, and send 'em a private critique rather than a public one, so if the ego gets shattered, it's still within the privacy of the home/cube/whatever.

        criticism is great - when it's expected. and someone who posts code and writes 'l00k itz k3wl d00d' probably doesn't really want to have errors pointed out -- even if they're deserved.

      I think that Code Catacombs is already moderated in some manner.   I've submitted a small handful of minor scripts, one of which actually appears there.   Mind you, I'm not complaining - just hope to learn enough at PM to eventually tweak or rewrite the others to warrant inclusion.   8^)
          cheers,
          Don
          striving for Perl Adept
      A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
RE: RE: Code Review section, anyone?
by merlyn (Sage) on Sep 14, 2000 at 19:29 UTC
    A place for monks to get honest, open feedback about their code,....Nobody posts here unless they want direct feedback.
    This sounds like PerlMonks :) You can even post Anonymously if you like.
    No, the problem is that many monks post to Code or Snippets without there being the request (and understanding) that the code will get feedback. I've stomped on far too many toes here, because I dig in with my "code review" eyes on, when all they wanted to do was say "see, looky here, I got some GOOD STUFF".

    So, the difference between "code review" and the rest is that there is an explicit understanding that this is the "I want feedback on how I am doing this". Formalization of the process would definitely help, and yet still protect the ego-full junior programmers (opposite of egoless programming) from misunderstanding the responses of people like me, who ultimately are just trying to help.

    -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

      Okay, let me see if I understand completely:

      You want a section that is different from Seekers of Perl Wisdom in that:

      1. It is explicitly for reviewing working code
      2. The posters are aware that the code is there to be reviewed
      3. Replies can be private
      If this is indeed what you want, I would overall have no problem with it, except:
      1. I see no reason for private feedback. PerlMonks is about sharing learning, and this could be an excellent learning opportunity for more than the poster
      2. This would be best accomplished by revising the Code Catacombs section. As it stands, there is no real distinction made between Code Catacombs, Craft, and Snippets. Rather than adding a new section, I would modify one of those existing ones.
      If I am now understanding your wishes, and with the above comments, I think this is a great idea. You mentioned something in the chatterbox yesterday about what you considered good/bad usage of the ? : construction during a code-review, and I found it interesting. Where I work I'm the only Perl programmer, and there is nothing resembling a code review. My only reason for writing good code is that I have to maintain it, and my only means of learning new tricks is reading books and PerlMonks. I know I would benefit from code review, and I imagine others would too.

      All of this is IMNSHO, of course.

        Yes, I like the idea of scrapping code catacombs and renaming it Code Review, maybe with a monkish sort of name.

        As for private feedback, I don't know what made me think that, and I can't remember now. {grin}

        -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://32476]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (7)
As of 2020-07-14 11:48 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?