[crazygringo]

> Nobody is reading or reviewing these documentation so what hope is there that anybody is reading or reviewing their new code?

Why do you assume that reviewing docs is a lower bar than reviewing code, and that if docs aren't being reviewed it's somehow less likely that code is being reviewed?

There's a formal process for reviewing code because bugs can break things in massive ways. While there may not be the same degree of rigor for reviewing documentation because it's not going to stop the software from working.

But one doesn't necessarily say anything about the other.

[novaleaf]

I don't know if you are just playing devil's advocate, but there's plenty of examples of code quality issues coming out of msft these days too.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Regardless, their point is that the argument seems faulty. Indeed, their docs going unreviewed seems moot to whether the code goes unreviewed, given there are much stronger reasons to review code than there are to review documentation; as they wrote, bad documentation doesn't automatically break your application when it's published (there's at least a few more steps involved). Your statement's accuracy is not exclusive to the illogic of an argument which agrees with the statement.

> I don't know if you are just playing devil's advocate

Indeed, that is playing Devil's Advocate but one should remember that such Advocacy is performed to make sure that arguments against the Devil are as strong as they can be. It's not straightforward to see how simply repeating an assertion helps to argue for the veracity of it.

[palata]

They never said that there was no example of code quality issues.

What they say is that low quality in the documentation does not mean low quality in the code. Nothing says that they are related.

[novaleaf]

Sure I suppose on the face of it the two are not necessarily related, but it seems likely to be highly correlated?

[robotresearcher]

> these days

I realize BSOD is no longer nearly as common as it once was, but let's not forget that Windows used to be very fragile indeed.

[Wobbles42]

It was more fragile 20 years ago than it is today.

It was more robust 5 years ago than it is today.

Or at least that's been my impression. I can't back that up with hard data.

[lesostep]

>> I realize BSOD is no longer nearly as common as it once was

Anecdotally, installing wrong drivers (in my case it was drivers for COM-port STM32 interaction) could make it as common as twice a day on Win11. While my windows server 2008 still doing just great, no BSOD through lifetime.

I agree that for a common user BSOD is now less likely to happen, but wonder whether it's less to do with windows core, and more with windows defender default aggressive settings

[smadge]

At another BigCo I am familiar with any external communications must go through a special review to make sure no secrets are being leaked, or exposes the company to legal or PR issues (for example the OP).

[stogot]

Same here. Four or five pairs of eyes on external comms, nothing like this would even get past the abstract submission.

[Wobbles42]

Likely it wouldn't get written at all. The most useful aspect of layered approval processes is people treat them like outright bans and don't blog at all unless it's part of the job description.

[anal_reactor]

If there's no reward for your effort but you might get punished then there's no point trying.

[stogot]

No one gets punished for trying. It’s a simple “no thanks”

[jacquesm]

If they have the documentation... With Microsoft probably the answer to that is yes, but more often than not documentation is simply absent. And in cases like this not being too aware of where the lines are is probably a great way to advance your career.

[miki123211]

This isn't really documentation though, I suspect devblogs get even less scrutiny than that.

[shadowgovt]

Reviewing docs is a lower bar than reviewing code because it's a lower bar than reviewing code.

I have never even heard of a software company that acts otherwise (except IBM, and much of the world of Silicon Valley software engineering is reactionary to IBM's glacial pace).

I'm not saying docs == code for importance is a bad way to be, just that if you can name firms that treat them that way other than IBM (or aerospace), I'd be interested to learn more.

[crazygringo]

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, maybe my use of "lower bar" was ambiguous, and I realize now it has a dual meaning.

What I'm saying is, you have to review code to get it out the door with a certain degree of quality. That's your core product. That's the minimum standard you have to pass, the lowest bar.

In contrast, reviewing documentation is usually less core. You do that after the code gets reviewed. If there's time. If it doesn't get done, that's not necessarily saying anything about code quality.

Even if it's easier to review documentation, that doesn't mean it's getting prioritized. So it's not a lower bar in the sense that lower bars get climbed first.

[stogot]

>> Reviewing docs is a lower bar than reviewing code because it's a lower bar than reviewing code.

You reason in circles

[darkwater]

No, they are specifically using a tautology to make a point.