Alexander Viro wrote:
> "Make it easy" is OK, unless it is followed by "for lusers". And anyone
> saying that code reviews are not practical can go and fuck himself. He
> will, anyway. Code reviews are MUST. I have no problems with folks who
> want to have debugger in addition to that. I consider anyone who wants it
> as _replacement_ for code reviews as a dangerous luser who should be taken
> out and put out of his misery.
Agreed, though I don't think capital punishment is always necessary -
in many cases, a lifetime ban on contact with computers will suffice.
A favorite method of mine for doing code reviews is to sit down
together and walk through the code with a source level debugger.
There are a number of reasons this works well, particularly the fact
that you know the other pair of eyes are going to be watching and you
naturally think harder about the code when you write it, including the
esthetic aspects. You know that if you run into a design flaw you're
going to have to stop, back up, fix, and make a new appointment for
the review. So you try to make sure that doesn't happen, by writing
the code correctly. You also know you're going to have to explain any
stupidities or awkwardness, so you try to keep those to a minimum.
This method beats heck out of staring at paper, or a whiteboard. It's
involving, and kind of fun. It shows that modern tools can *enhance*
the traditional design process, far from replacing it.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:24 EST