Defending the Python lanuage...

[Alex Martelli]

Peter Milliken wrote:
        ...
> Actually, if you are *good* at what you do, then code review, whilst still
> beneficial, is not nearly *that* beneficial. Things like code review (IMO
> :-)) is there for the 25-50% of programmers who just plain shouldn't be in
> the industry - what they generate is just absolute garbage - code review
> will hopefully stop the code from getting into Unit test and beyond the
> point of redemption :-).

I disagree.  Code review, or even better the "continuous ongoing code
review" that's such a substantial part of the benefits of pair programming,
is in my experience just as beneficial with the best coders: without it, 
besides bugs, it's far too much a temptation to pepper the code with
clever tricks, individual style quirks, unexamined (subconscious) 
assumptions about inputs and environmental conditions, and the like.

The code coming out of a good review, or a good-synergy pair, is
thus of much higher quality and more valuable than the results of a lone
coding session of even a very good coder.


> Agreed with the "Art" - many programmers give one the impression that they
> perceive themselves as a Prima Donna of the software industry :-) Ask
> someone to look at their code (as in code review) and they look offended -
> like you'd just asked for their first born or something :-) A severe lack
> of comprehension is the general response - "You want to look at *my* code?
> What one earth for! It's perfect (by definition)" :-).

I fully agree with you.  But that implies my stance in the above paragraphs,
not yours:-).  Actually the root of the problem may be in 'my' vs 'yours',
the "*my*" in your quote being correctly emphasized:-).


Alex