Probably unpopular opinion, but peer reviews are overrated. If coders are good AND know the project, the only thing you can do in a PR is nitpicking. They are more useful for open source collaborators because you want to double-check their code fits with the current architecture. But people here are reacting as if peer reviews could actually spot bugs that tests can’t catch. That happens rarely unless the contributor is junion/not good.
Peer reviews can catch bugs that tests can’t catch.
I won’t disagree that peer reviews are overrated, but they’re a great way to train and onboard less experienced devs (who are just more fun to work with, anyway). Like I’m a platform dev, so I don’t have a “home” project - if I had to know every project before I opened a PR for it, I’d get hardly any work done. Review help other knowledge experts weigh in on my changes.
I operate from the presumption that code’s first job is to be as easy for a human to understand as possible. It should clearly communicate what it’s attempting to do. If your code isn’t written so that your colleagues, or you 2 years from now, can read it and understand it, it’s bad even if it’s whip tight, fits all the AC and has 100% test coverage with a perfect mutation score. That’s what I focus on when I review code: does it communicate intent semantically. Code that can be understood is code that can be reused, optimized, altered when use cases change, generalized out into even more reusable code, and provide insights that technically perfect but incomprehensible code can’t. I, like you, assume that the coder knows what they were trying to do and how to test for it, so that only gets a cursory glance to spot common errors like missed nullables, inverted conditionals and shit like that. I look at it from the perspective of “If I had to add functionality to this, could I do so easily”. Because I’m gonna one of these days.
Nitpicking can be automated by a linter, then reviews can actually sit back and review more important things like high-level design and scalability
as if peer reviews could actually spot bugs that tests can’t catch
There can’t be bugs if there are no tests to catch them! Ofc you can also automate test coverage standards. But PRs are sometimes the only way to catch bugs, even and especially with senior devs in my experience bc they are lazy and will skip writing tests, or write useless or bare minimum tests just to check off code standards and merge on ahead
Code review can’t fix incompence though. I lost count of how many times my boss told me “review that PR well because X is not very good”. Also my point is that they are overrated, not that they are useless.
As someone who is learning, I think it’s imperative to understand that chatgpt has limitations that cannot be overlooked. It’s pretty good if I make some silly syntax or formatting errors, but at the core I have to understand what I’m working with if I want to be a better programmer. I love the conversational nature because I often have a hard time wording questions, so it helps me in that regard as well. Idk if you want to be truly good at something you have to be more reliant on yourself than external tools.
The thing is, in some fields like devops, there are so many tools that you can’t remember or know all of them very well. So asking chatgpt how to do something saves very much time. It can write ansible playbooks, docker files, web server configurations etc etc. They almost never work perfectly but they give a very good starting point to modify.
It used to be that you could be very good at specific languages or tools but today, there isn’t enough time. Everyone is always in a hurry to get something out as quickly as possible too.
I want more information on the ionosphere-storage calculations. 175kB bandwidth is hella illegal (in my jurisdiction at least) for an amateur station, but if you’re ignoring laws you could get way more. 1MB seems entirely reasonable if you can use anything open enough on the whole shortwave spectrum.
Yes, buddy, your ISP is totally throttling you. I think over a thousand individual recipients per second for hours is the definition of suspicious traffic. I guess it could be a hardware limitation too, either way they have no reason to let you do this as a member of the general public.
Ah, there’s a technical report!
“So the first step is going to be to reverse the random number generator of the game…” Yep that’s harder lol. Aaand it’s right around as hard as I would expect assuming a really shitty RNG. How much time did this guy spend on the video?
I guess the polymino-placement algorithm must be in the technical report? Oh wait, pre-computed brute force search for each byte.
Well, this next one sounds biohazerdous. Jesus Christ that test is far dumber than this harder drive could ever be. Oh man, he’s designing and printing a circuit board? And building physical things? He really does go all-out.
Also, still gross. And yes, Bitcoin is also gross, especially because it’s a persistent bad implementation of a non-terrible idea.
Honest question: is case sensitivity that important? Are there files named settings.ini and Settings.ini, for example, in the same folder that do different things?
programmer_humor
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.