• RiverGhost@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • jadero@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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:

      • I am really happy when people are quite strict in code reviews. It makes me feel safer and I get to learn more.
      • I am really happy when people are quite strict in code reviews, because it makes me feel safer and I get to learn more.
      • I am really happy when people are quite strict in code reviews; it makes me feel safer and I get to learn more.

      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. :)

      • RiverGhost@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • jadero@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • reflex@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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!

      • ironhydroxide@partizle.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • wandermind@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • jadero@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would argue that “should of” is just a naive written rendition of the spoken contraction “should’ve”. They are homophones, so it’s a completely understandable error among those without the relevant education or background. I know only English and was in Grade 9 at a different school before someone corrected me.

        • reflex@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          😏

        • interolivary@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          should implies a verb, of isn’t a verb

          “should” and “of” should probably be in quotes here?

          • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • interolivary@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              A-ha, but this most decidedly not formal writing! UNO REVERSE CARD.

              But on a more serious note, I did intend it as a sort of question because I’m not 100% sure, because the rules for quote use might well be different in English than my native language. I actually also don’t know the rule for question mark usage in English; is it generally considered a crime against orthography to plonk a question mark on something that’s a statement, or is it valid in some cases?

              • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s totally valid in most cases. It’s technically only supposed to be used for a question, but language is based on how it’s most commonly used, with those “rules” only applying in extremely formal situations. With the prevalence of informal text-based communication, many people use it to indicate being unsure, like how you used it. I just wanted to continue the chain of grammar corrections (which is why I used the wrong “its”/“it’s” at one point). Also, you were right about the quotes.

                • interolivary@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It’s technically only supposed to be used for a question, but language is based on how it’s most commonly used

                  Ah, I see you’re also a descriptivist 😀

                  But yeah I know you were just continuing the joke; I’m a language nerd (well, general nerd really) and I just got curious about what the rule actually is. While English orthography rules related to punctuation usually seem to be pretty much the same as with Finnish, the rule for question marks seems to be more relaxed in Finnish because it can “officially” be used to mark any expression as a question. The rules for commas are also different, ours are closer to German and we tend to spray commas everywhere

    • interolivary@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • RiverGhost@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, I tend to do that, and thankfully some of my colleagues do too. Clever but readable solutions, following good and relevant practices, clear documentation, making a good MR description that makes it easier to review, and more.

        • interolivary@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s great to hear. It’s thankfully becoming more common in general, and we can all do our part in spreading these practices.

          I tended to actively evangelize for it when I was managing coders or teams. Unfortunately it’s still not all that uncommon for coders to be downright offensive when giving feedback, like not necessrily quite Linus-level rants but things like “this is idiotic, this is stupid, that’s shit, why would you do that” etc etc. The usual explanation I’ve gotten is that they’re just being “honest” and saying what they think, and it’s not their problem if the reviewee (is that even a word‽ I can’t English today) gets offended. Some even get all huffy about it, like “oh we’re just supposed to coddle them and never say anything negative so their little feefees don’t get hurt?” And I mean, yeah, getting honest feedback definitely a good way to learn, but it’s not like the only way to point out errors or problems is to be a cunt about it.

    • CoderKat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Doug [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • explodicle@local106.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • lemmyingly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • MJBrune@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      English changes very quickly. New words come out every year. Some programming languages takes years for updates.

      • Doug [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean, there’s a difference between something being phrased in an odd or confusing way, and a pedantic comment about whether you should use a Latin plural. 90% of the time you get the latter.

          • Doug [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            90+% of the time you get common mistakes. Should ofs, they’re - there - their confusions, apostrophes for plurals.

            The kind of thing that confuses ESL speakers. The decent thing would seem to be to try and stick to the way it’s taught rather than go with the “it doesn’t matter” route when it absolutely matters to some.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If you’re speaking to someone ESL, don’t do not even use contractions. They are perfectly valid but they are confusing to those new to the language. I also like to put all idioms in quotes when writing, as those are confusing in any new language. Misspellings are less of an issue than you might think because English spellings are dumb and arbitrary already.

              When someone tells me “um, it is cacti, AKCTUALLY” I do not think concern for an ESL person listening in is the main motivation, though.

              • Doug [he/him]@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think you and I have very different experiences. I rarely see that kind of correction if ever.

                When you’re in a public space you never know when your words are being consumed by an ESL speaker. I think the best approach is natural yet accurate. They’re going to encounter contractions when dealing with native speakers, but the difference between it’s and its, for example, can be tricky so try to use them as taught.

                Spelling mistakes can absolutely be an issue. It’s already hard enough to figure out English spelling without native speakers making it worse. Add on to that the difficulty in any added language of working out near homophones, let alone actual homophones.

                I knew someone who was pretty decent with English as their third language but had trouble keeping Texas and taxes straight. I know another guy who is American and uses no in place of know. That one threw me for a while before I figured out what he was trying to say.

                I will admit, I do like that “technically” the plural for octopus is “supposed to be” octopods (pronounced like oc-tip-o-dees) but that’s a fun “fact”, not a correction I’ve ever tried to make.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I really do run into issues talking aloud about plants of the family Cactaceae fairly often. It might be a hyper-local thing I guess.

                  I don’t remember where exactly I got the spelling thing from, so I could just be wrong about that.

      • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except for front-end technologies like JavaScript where there’s a new framework every week lol

        • MJBrune@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Depends on how you talk and what you define as normal. How much C++ is still using C++98 and how much uses C++20? It’s pretty silly of a comparison. As someone else put it, corrections are also there for a third party.

          But let’s get down to the issue. You are right, correction of English is used as an insult a lot of the time. Sometimes correction of code is also used as an insult. When correcting someone is used out of line and abused, it’s always a bad thing. Correcting someone should never be used to insult.

          If you don’t mind, let’s go down a rabbit hole, if you don’t care to join feel free to stop reading here. The upshot is that you are correct because the intent behind correcting English is usually abusive.

          So, I corrected you earlier but this is to create a conversation. This is something I’ve been noticing a lot in social media overall: corrections seem to create conversation where if you agree with someone it’s not typically a conversation. “Yeah, you are right…” isn’t a path to an interesting exchange of ideas. There is another way that I’d also love to encourage people to try. Asking questions and digging into why. I’ve seen this happen a few times and it feels like it’s taken more as an insult. A lot of people get defensive if you ask “Why is this something you think.” We’ve created an internet culture of correction, where correction makes conversation. I wonder if this stems from people on the internet correcting people as an insult. Anyways, thank you for reading this random tangent :D

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But let’s get down to the issue. You are right, correction of English is used as an insult a lot of the time. Sometimes correction of code is also used as an insult. When correcting someone is used out of line and abused, it’s always a bad thing. Correcting someone should never be used to insult.

            I like this. I don’t think that’s the intention for a lot of pedants, but rather they hold a belief in prescripitivism, and have taken it upon themselves to enforce the rules as they imagine them, for one reason or another. That being said, it’s still telling someone they’re wrong without any possibility of improving present or future discussions, and that’s why it’s annoying.

            So, I corrected you earlier but this is to create a conversation. This is something I’ve been noticing a lot in social media overall: corrections seem to create conversation where if you agree with someone it’s not typically a conversation. “Yeah, you are right…” isn’t a path to an interesting exchange of ideas.

            It’s true, and I think there’s some people that like that approach more than others. I wonder if that contributes to the high number of lurkers on every platform. The main other kind of space centers around venting about a common complaint as the main form of discourse, and those always end up being a little unhinged after a while.

            Asking questions and digging into why. I’ve seen this happen a few times and it feels like it’s taken more as an insult. A lot of people get defensive if you ask “Why is this something you think.” We’ve created an internet culture of correction, where correction makes conversation. I wonder if this stems from people on the internet correcting people as an insult.

            You know, I’ve never thought about it that way, but you’re right. Every once an a while I see someone take a truly odd position on something, and I end up just asking questions because it’s new and interesting and I don’t really have a bottled comeback. It seems like that actually makes them more defensive than if I had just called them an asshole.

            Anyways, thank you for reading this random tangent :D

            You’re welcome, it was a good one!

            Edit: Oh yeah, and on C, I was expecting someone to mention it. It’s an outlier in being way more static than pretty much every other programming language, but it’s still faster changing than the average natural language. Maybe casual Hebrew has changed more since the 60’s, I guess.

  • samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I use incorrect grammar all the time on Lemmy because I’m writing colloquially, comma splices are my biggest offense.

  • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It should be normalized to kiss the furry femboy programmer who corrects your code as a thank you.