GlyphI've seen a lot of people talking about the practice of code review in a way that I consider unrealistic lately. So here are my thoughts on what code review is—and isn't—for: https://blog.glyph.im/2026/03/what-is-code-review-for.html
Christopher Neugebauer@glyph have you read the naur paper I've recently been ranting about yet?
@chrisjrn oh wait, “programming as theory building”. yes, I have muddled through a bit of it
@glyph you're making a lot of points that echo it: your "enculturation" idea in particular is very similar, but it's holding some unstated priors (e.g. that having multiple people understand the code is useful); Naur starts from the point of view of long-term maintenance, at which point, understanding seems essential
@chrisjrn it’s definitely ideologically aligned. I didn’t read it too deeply (partially because i have been just generally distracted, but also) because it echoed another one of my faves, https://blog.nelhage.com/post/computers-can-be-understood/ particularly “building mental models” .
Computers can be understood
Computers and computer systems are build up from deterministic, comprehensible, building blocks. Their operations and behaviors can be understood and reasoned about. I relate my personal beliefs and mindset on this point, and explore some manifestations and ramifications of this philosophy.
@glyph That piece is an epistemological argument in the same way that yours is, which I feel would not be compelling to people who haven't developed priors that justify a want of understanding. Indeed, that piece acnkowledges that and implies (and almost explicitly says) that understanding as the end goal is counterproductive.
Which is not to say that the joy of understanding isn't a valid one (I care about it a lot), it's just that if that doesn't motivate people, I don't think your point holds up.
Magnus