• pelya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 days ago

      Being direct is good. But ‘too complex, refactor’ as an explanation is just one word longer than ‘fuck off’. You need to explain in detail why the solution is bad and which parts should be changed, in this case it just shows that the reviewer did not actually read the code.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        6 days ago

        The problem there is not the directness, but the terseness. This is something I had to learn myself, and fortunately was able to get feedback from colleagues who appreciated my directness and wanted more elaboration.

    • Murvel@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yes, being indirect. Instead of saying: ‘you did a bad job’, say ‘here are things you can improve for next time’.

      On is confrontational and problematic, the other diplomatic and constructive.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        You don’t seem to understand what “direct” means.

        “You did a bad job” is a subjective value statement that communicates nothing of value. It’s direct, but also useless. The problem is not in the directness.

        Providing immediate examples of improvements is also direct; the difference is that it’s constructive, and helps guide the junior engineer.

        • Murvel@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 days ago

          One is direct, and the other is not. And you’re right, one is not constructive, and the other is, that’s not coincidence.

          What ‘immediate’ even means in this context I don’t know.