Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Code review takes too much time. You can take a painting that took 100 hours to make, and start delivering useful criticism after a minute or so. Giving useful feedback on a programming project that took 100 hours will take much, much longer.

Also, art is meant to be examined - that is its primary purpose. Source code, not so much.



I'll agree that while a project is being bootstrapped, peer code review could be cumbersome. Once a project has matured enough, some amount of code review, done incrementally, shouldn't be a burden. At that point, if you're typing out reams of code every day, you might be doing it wrong ( something code review could help catch [ e.g., "Library X does this; you don't have to re-implement it" ] ). The point would not be to circle back after 100 hours of work to review, but rather every (say) 10.

I don't agree that source code is not meant to be examined ( but maybe we work in totally different fields ). I regularly read source code from my coworkers, and they regularly have to read mine. Often, the developer who wrote the code is not available for questions, or isn't with the company any longer. My own code might as well have been written by another developer if I look at it after about a year. All these issues could be mitigated or muted by another set of eyes, either by sharing the knowledge ( "Why did Bob do this?" might be answered by someone else who'd reviewed the code ) or by asking the questions initially ( "Bob, why did you do it that way?" Bob: "Because of X -- I'll leave a comment in the source ).


I've found that it's not the actual code review that's helpful, but preparing for a code review. It forces you to describe the code clearly, which often makes the code clearer in the process. Plus you try to anticipate the comments your co-workers will give.


Art is meant to be examined as much as food is meant to endure chemical tests!


if by "chemical tests" you mean compatibility with the human digestive tract and metabolism, then yes


I mean no. It looks very wrong to me to think that art's primary purpose is to be examined. Am I the only one?


Nope. I think art's purpose is to change and mature you, if you let it.

It's just that the Internet is home to a lot of people that believe rationalism is the only valid way to perceive the universe, when in reality it is just one way to do so. Personally, I found myself unhappy when I restricted myself to it. The universe seemed cold, empty, and cruel. I think a lot of people hit this stage and then just give up completely.

It's really sad.


I only meant "examine" as in "observe", "look at", "listen to", as opposed to "use", "run" or "execute". I never meant to make the universe seem cold or cruel. Sorry about that.


To quote the great philosopher Karl Pilkington: "Art is just something for your eyes to look at."




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: