Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical

RE: RE: Code Review section, anyone?

by merlyn (Sage)
on Sep 14, 2000 at 19:29 UTC ( #32477=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to RE: Code Review section, anyone?
in thread Code Review section, anyone?

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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: RE: RE: Code Review section, anyone?
by swiftone (Curate) on Sep 14, 2000 at 19:42 UTC
    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?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://32477]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others taking refuge in the Monastery: (10)
As of 2020-07-14 14:14 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found