|
|
|
|
|
by dodobirdlord
2024 days ago
|
|
Moreover, Google’s style guides contain a very specific clause at the beginning. Here’s the example for Java. > This document serves as the complete definition of Google's coding standards for source code in the Java™ Programming Language. A Java source file is described as being in Google Style if and only if it adheres to the rules herein. https://google.github.io/styleguide/javaguide.html Google requires all code to go through code review, so to avoid time being wasted by style disputes or reviews being sent back for style-only changes, style disputes are essentially banned. Anything that can be enforced by an auto-formatter or linter is so enforced. For anything else reviewers are expected to be able to cite the style guide to back up their requested change. This practice seems to have spread into the community due to the popularity of Gofmt, and now other languages like Rust have a community-standardized formatter (rustfmt) and linter (Clippy). Many thousands of hours have probably been saved by this point by treating format akin to language syntax. |
|
I once had a colleague who loved to nitpick variable names. Should that flag be named "continue" or "shouldContinue"? Or maybe the i variable should be renamed to index. Or maybe "row" and "column" should be renamed to "i" and "j". Sometimes "buffer" should be renamed to "data" and sometimes "data" should be renamed to "buffer".
It does not make sense to say that variable names don't matter just because there's no way to automate a style guide on the semantic content of variable names. Sometimes variable names matter quite a lot.
So interpret that particular part of their code review guide as being less about the value of automation, and more about how to guard against some of these social headaches. A culture of breaking ties toward the requester discourages nitpicking. A culture of breaking ties toward the reviewer encourages it. Even in the presence of linters.