[nradov]

This is why competent organizations have written coding style guidelines. Everyone's code should look the same, and personal preferences shouldn't be allowed for things like freeing objects or testing for null. When the committer and reviewer can't reach consensus between themselves then they can always escalate to the program technical lead for a final decision.

[JoeAltmaier]

Now, see, that worries me right there. Because its just something a code-review obstructionist would say. They probably wrote the guidlines too.

It doesn't matter how you do those simple things. Almost always. If a case arrises where it does matter and somebody uses the wrong one, then by all means bring it up. Otherwise, hit Approve and move on.

[nradov]

Enforcing consistent compliance with the guidelines starts to matter a lot in large organizations where code lifetimes are measured in decades. When you see a commit that's out of compliance on the details that's usually a sign of deeper, more serious quality problems.

Working on code bases like that isn't for everyone. Some engineers are better suited to less demanding roles where the little details don't matter as much.

[JoeAltmaier]

Sorry, didn't expect that to sound like such an ad-hominem.

How about: the attitude that the code appearance trumps the project goals, is central to the confusion that breaks code review?