Some nice suggestions in the review and most importantly the author leaves the programmer out of it and focuses on the code... except for one bit where the author cites the opinion of the masses (implying ei shares the same views). It's important that when reviewing code you only talk about the code and not the people or person who wrote it. It will happen to you one day and someone else will come along and make all sorts of remarks of your character and ability. And it will be completely unjust and unwarranted. So don't do it.
The conclusion I found wanting. "Should," is a word like, "obvious," that is best avoided. It is a sign of weak, wishful thinking and stinks of condescension. Could, would, or should have... it happened and was dealt with, it seems, in an appropriate manner. Armed with good suggestions on how to avoid it in the future perhaps we won't see the same mistake made again (hah).
Comments
Some nice suggestions in the review and most importantly the author leaves the programmer out of it and focuses on the code... except for one bit where the author cites the opinion of the masses (implying ei shares the same views). It's important that when reviewing code you only talk about the code and not the people or person who wrote it. It will happen to you one day and someone else will come along and make all sorts of remarks of your character and ability. And it will be completely unjust and unwarranted. So don't do it.
The conclusion I found wanting. "Should," is a word like, "obvious," that is best avoided. It is a sign of weak, wishful thinking and stinks of condescension. Could, would, or should have... it happened and was dealt with, it seems, in an appropriate manner. Armed with good suggestions on how to avoid it in the future perhaps we won't see the same mistake made again (hah).