Post #1966168

2026-03-17 17:02 UTC

@curiouserrandy I definitely _agree_ with how essential trust is. There may be some bias, but I have too many data points that back it up... I'm not sure I disagree with anything in the article TBH, but the part I'm still thinking about before making up my mind is around code reviews being in essence a form of layered-QA that was shown to not actually achieve the desired quality in a manufacturing context. The historical lesson is pretty clear cut, but I have questions about whether the analogy applies effectively to software. But it is a really interesting challenge my assumptions about software and so something I'm continuing to ponder.

Replies (1)

@curiouserrandy@hachyderm.io 2026-03-17 18:40

@chandlerc that all makes sense. Random speculation: I wonder if it's worthwhile separating out the "How many eyes look at a work product" from "Layers of review". I don't know anything about design/production in the physical assembly space, but I could easily imagine that it naturally involves multiple people. That might suggest substituting pair programming (+ trust + an emphasis on quality code) for the first layer of review, which might substitute a x2 cost for an x10 cost. Again, pure speculation; I also have very little experience with pair programming. But what I do have suggests that just having a second pair of eyes and brain going through the process in parallel catches a lot of possible failure points.

Open ##1966169