[nox101]

I work at a FANMG company and see the value of code reviews for th code we're working on. But, I shipped 20 commercial products before that with no code review, just play testing (games). Our velocity without code review was easily 2x what it is with. For those projects I think that would still be true whereas I'd never suggest getting rid of code review at my current job.

The point being I think it depends on the project, it's size, audience, lifetime, etc whether or not code review is a win. my gut says it usually is a win but not always

[PoignardAzur]

That's super weird.

At the one company I was where we did code reviews, they took at most one hour per day. The reviewer would go through the changes, ask for explanations when they didn't understand something, suggest small modifications to fit the codebase's style/structure/vibe, and move on.

They definitely didn't take 50% of our time. Half my time wasn't even spent coding, it was spent thinking about problems (and it was a workplace with an unusually high coding-over-thinking ratio, because of its good practices).

[331c8c71]

> At the one company I was where we did code reviews, they took at most one hour per day. > They definitely didn't take 50% of our time.

Imo introducing code reviews might very well decrease the velocity by 50% even if the actual time spent on code reviews is much less.

I see at least two reasons for this: 1) increased need for synchronization/communication 2) increased subjective frictions and mental overhead (if only for task switching).

Code reviews are not special in this respect, similar effects can be caused by any changes to the process.

[strogonoff]

Thorough code reviews are expensive. When I review code, I have to know how to solve the problem well in the first place—that is, do all of the effort that went into writing the original code under review, minus time spent typing.

Less time may be required if you have good rapport and long work relationship with the person, but I would say halving productivity sounds about right if we are talking mandatory reviews.

Using an LLM to generate code means having to do the same. The longer the autocompleted text, the more careful you have to be vetting it. Lower predictability, compared to a person and especially one you know well, means that time requirement would not go down too much.

[deergomoo]

> When I review code, I have to know how to solve the problem well in the first place—that is, do all of the effort that went into writing the original code under review, minus time spent typing

Agree 100%, even when LLMs aren’t involved.

Certainly not all code reviews are like this—in many cases the approach is fundamentally sound, but you might have some suggestions to improve clarity or performance.

But where I work it’s not all that rare to open up a PR and find that the person has gone full speed in the wrong direction. In those cases you’re losing at least a morning to do a lot of the same leg work they did to find a solution for the problem, to then get them set off again down a better path.

Now in the ideal case they understood the problem they needed to solve and perhaps just didn’t have the knowledge or experience to know why their initial solution wasn’t good; in such a scenario the second attempt is usually much quicker and much higher quality. But introduce LLMs into the mix and you can make no guarantees about what, if anything, was understood. That’s where things really start to go off the rails imo.

[strogonoff]

> in many cases the approach is fundamentally sound

Sure, but I mean you still have to determine whether it is sound or not in the first place; i.e., you must know how to solve the problem. You can only evaluate it as right or not if you have something to compare against, after all.

If you have worked with a person for a while, though, I can see that you can spot various patterns (and ultimately whether the approach is sane) faster thanks to established rapport. Not so with LLMs, as you probably agree.

[PoignardAzur]

I mean, it's something we did once per day, usually towards the end of the day. This was pre-Covid, so our manager was in the room next to ours and we could just pop by his office to tell him we were ready for today's review.

It really doesn't need to be a massive amount of task-switching. And the benefits were obvious.

[KronisLV]

> They definitely didn't take 50% of our time.

It probably also depends on the people that you're working with. I can easily imagine the velocity plummeting when the person reviewing your code loves to nitpick and bicker and ask for endless further changes with every next round of alterations that you do.

Doubly so if they want to do synchronous calls to go over everything and essentially create visible work out of code that already worked and was good enough in the first place.

I'm not saying that there aren't times like that for everyone occasionally, but there are people for whom that behaviour is a consistent pattern.

[CuriouslyC]

OMG this. Nitpicking code reviews are the worst. I've actually instituted a rule that code must be formatted with an opinionated formatter and linted, and whatever the linter/formatter decide is right, and no formatting/linting comments are allowed on code review to avoid this sort of bullshit review comment.

[CuriouslyC]

Code review matters when you have a product that has an indeterminate lifespan. When new people come on, they need to learn the codebase and code review both helps ensure a codebase that is easy for new devs to understand (because hard to understand code doesn't survive review) and also it provides an onboarding experience as new devs can be coached during code review.

"One and done" products like games where you're mostly fixing bugs and releasing new content without major overhauls to the underlying code probably only need code reviews for code that is complex/clever where bugs are likely to be hiding, beyond that QA is fine.