Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
I am really happy when people are quite strict in code reviews, it makes me feel safer and I get to learn more.
Nothing worse than some silent approvals with no real feedback. What if I missed something obvious... and now it's merged.
To be fair, I also enjoy getting my grammar corrected. I'm juggling 3 languages and things can get messy.
In that spirit, I will call attention to your first sentence, specifically the comma. In my opinion, that can be improved. One of three other constructions would be more appropriate:
The first of my suggested changes is favoured by those who follow the school of thought that argues that written sentences should be kept short and uncomplicated to make processing easier for those less fluent. To me, it sounds choppy or that you've omitted someone asking "Why?" after the first sentence.
Personally, I prefer the middle one, because it is the full expression of a complete state of mind. You have a feeling and a reason for that feeling. There is a sense in which they are inseparable, so not splitting them up seems like a good idea. The "because" explicitly links the feeling and reason.
The semicolon construction was favoured by my grade school teachers in the 1960s, but, as with the first suggestion, it just feels choppy. I tend to overuse semicolons, so I try to go back and either replace them with periods or restructure the sentences to eliminate them. In this particular case, I think the semicolon is preferable to both comma and period, but still inferior to the "because" construction.
I've clearly spent too much time hashing stuff out in writers' groups. :)
This is what I live for. :D
I agree with most of that. In formal settings, I prefer full sentences with conjunctions; however, choppy sentences are the ones that often end up in my Lemmy comments.
That only makes sense. We are having a conversation, not creating literature.
Strange, I get a mild hostility vibe from colleagues if I review too ambitiously.
Reviews have to be balanced to circumstance. There is a big difference between putting out the sales brochure and the notice on the bulletin board. Likewise in coding a cryptographic framework for general consumption and that little script to create personal slideshows based on how you've tagged your photos.
As a general rule, wider distributions, public distributions, and long-lived distributions need more ambitious reviews. If the distribution is wide, public, and permanent, then everything needs very detailed scrutiny.
I have found some success in starting with and occasionally revisiting review goals. This helps create and maintain some consistency in a process that is scaled to the task at hand.
Like the other guy, I also read your comment twice looking for mistakes but found none.
You should of left something to fix!
😏
Edit: I'm glad there so many people who are as passionate about the correct spelling of "should've" as I am. I was testing you all, and you passed!
Correcting the reviewer.
Notes: "should of" isn't valid, should implies a verb, of isn't a verb. I expect you meant "should have". Please recall this in future submissions.
They should of course keep that in mind, but it's not that "should" should always be followed by a verb directly. The problem is that "of" in this context is a mishearing/spelling of "have", so they should in this case have written it like that instead.
I love that you used "should of" in a valid sentence.
Except that it would be "they should, of course,".
Notes: “should of” isn’t valid, should implies a verb, of isn’t a verb. I expect you meant “should have”. Please recall this in future submissions.
😏
should implies a verb, of isn't a verb
"should" and "of" should probably be in quotes here?
A question mark does not fit the sentence, which is a statement ("they should." rather than "should they?"). While question marks are commonly used to demonstrate a rising tone at the end of a sentence, its not considered correct for formal writing.
Notably, a good code review should also bring up the good parts of the submission, and not just concentrate on the errors. Not only does it make the recipient feel better to get positive feedback among the negative, but it helps them learn about good practices too. Just concentrating on the errors doesn't really tell them which things they're doing well.
Many reviewers concentrate on just finding mistakes, and while it's useful it's sort of the bare minimum; a good code review should be educational. Especially if the submitter's a more junior coder, in which case it'd also be a good idea to not just outright tell them how you'd fix some problem, but sort of lead them to a solution by asking them questions and pointing things out and letting them do the thinking themselves. But still, experienced coders will also benefit from well-structured feedback, it's not like we're "finished" and stopped learning.
Yeah, I learn so much from code reviews and they've saved me so much time from dumb mistakes I missed. I've also caught no shortage of bugs in other people's code that saved us all a stressful headache. It's just vastly easier to fix a bug before it merges than once it breaks a bunch of people.
I'm juggling 3 languages
We Americans like to forget that anyone might have any trouble understanding English especially in cases of polyglots.
I don't know which is your native tongue but from this comment it looks like you're doing a fine job.
Assuming you have competent leadership, then it wouldn't be merged if you missed something obvious. I guess you're saying that you want more positive reinforcement.
I will correct both + your spelling because it drives me fucking nuts when I can't find a function or variable due to it being severely misspelled
Me omw to tell the POSiX guys it's supposed to be "O_CREATE" instead of "O_CREAT":
Chars are expensiv
Crs r xpnsv
That's the Oracle way.
The Unix way: chexp.
Not gonna lie, I have no idea what chexp is supposed to mean
That never stopped a Unix programmer!
(But yeah, my comment was missing punctuation.)
I stand corrected:
Me omw tell POSiX "O_CREATE" not "O_CREAT":
Correcting my code is helpful. The machine didn't know what I even meant. Computers are interesting and changing rapidly.
Correcting my grammar is an unsolicited English lesson from someone who already knew what I meant. English is not interesting or changing quickly.
English changes very quickly. New words come out every year. Some programming languages takes years for updates.
Also that person may have known what you meant, but another might not and may have any number of reasons for not asking.
Better communication skills are a worthwhile goal and there's no good reason to not learn and grow.
Except for front-end technologies like JavaScript where there's a new framework every week lol
What if your grammar is that bad that people struggle to understand you?
I know someone who is incomprehensible most of the time. I have to ask probing questions just to vaguely understand what they're trying to communicate. I've politely told them more than once about the issue but they never try; they're not mentally challenged or anything, just an ass.
It's actually "their'yre" dumby, learn ur words
It’s actually “their’yre” dumby, learn ur words
SOme morans should of staid inn School!!
get a brane morans
Grammar is code.
However, real grammar and prescribed textbook grammar are two different things.
Someone Renames your objects "because they sound better that way"...
I use incorrect grammar all the time on Lemmy because I'm writing colloquially, comma splices are my biggest offense.
Fuck me, never touch my code, it is perfect.
Brother you don't even remember what it does, how and why after 3 days
Of course, but because it is perfect, no one, not even myself, needs to fix/modify/extend/understand
/s