this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
50 points (98.1% liked)
Programming
26022 readers
285 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If review is the "bottleneck", I'd say the code needs to be optimized for review time. Ship small increments of easy to understand code, touching as small surface as possible, and make sure it passes the review with no need for corrections and re-review.
Some people are more receptive to these kinds of things than others. Not only in terms of open mind but also how they are able to apply it (or capable of applying it?).
I wish agreeing on intentions and improvements in terms of scoping and description would be met. Same with unnecessary, obvious issues showing up costing review time and iterations. I just don't get how these are issues - but they are - for or with some people.
Ideally you can do that, but even the most well designed software ends up needing a larger refactor/reorganization that will touch a large portion of the code base.
My boss likes to say "you aren't qualified to design something until you have built it once" which I do feel rings true. This inevitably leads to at least one major redesign for a significant codebase.