Thanks for taking my experience and comment seriously and challenging your preconceptions.
> Code should be correct and efficient.
When it ships to customers. The goal is to find the bugs before then. Having a stable branch can be accomplished in many ways besides gating each merge with a review.
Do you have any studies to show how effective synchronous code review is in preventing mistakes? If they are such a good idea why not do 2 or 3?
I apologise if my comment read as mean. I wanted to make the joke and it may have overshadowed the point.
> Do you have any studies to show how effective synchronous code review is in preventing mistakes?
I could’ve been clearer. I’m not advocating for code reviews, I’m advocating for not placing “velocity” so high on the list of priorities.
> If they are such a good idea why not do 2 or 3?
This argument doesn‘t really make sense, though. You’ve probably heard the expression “measure twice, cut once”—you don’t keep measuring over and over, you do it just enough to ensure it’s right.
Well my comment is against synchronous code reviews. So we are not in disagreement.
> you do it just enough to ensure it’s right.
I agree. Each layer of review etc is a cost and has benefits. You want to pick an appropriate level.
I'm honestly curious what you're experience level is? I've never known a developer with more than a couple years of experience valuing velocity over financial stability
This feels like a strange sense of priorities which would be satirised in a New Yorker/Far Side single-panel comic: “Sure, my mistake brought down the business and killed a dozen people, but I’m not sure you appreciate how fast I did it”.
Code should be correct and efficient. Monkeys banging their heads against a keyboard may produce code fast, but it will be brittle and you’ll have to pay the cost for it later. Of course, too many people view “later” as “when I’m no longer here and it’s no longer my problem”, which is why most of the world’s software feels like it’s held together with spit.