[IshKebab]

The difference is we can't tell if you reviewed the code.

[layer8]

To be fair, we also couldn’t tell for sure if they hand-wrote the code.

[IshKebab]

If they hand wrote the code we know they at least looked at it once.

[layer8]

Since we can’t know whether they really hand-wrote the code, we also wouldn’t know whether they looked at it.

[IshKebab]

Err yeah that's the point.

[layer8]

You wrote: “If they hand wrote the code we know they at least looked at it once.”

But that’s not true, because even if they did indeed hand-write the code, we as third parties wouldn’t have any reliable proof of that, and therefore still couldn’t draw the conclusion that they looked at the code.

Them claiming to have hand-written the code isn’t any better than them claiming to have thoroughly reviewed the code. We can’t know in either case.

[IshKebab]

> Them claiming to have hand-written the code isn’t any better than them claiming to have thoroughly reviewed the code. We can’t know in either case.

It is better, because most people aren't out-right liars. If he said "I hand-wrote the code", sure it doesn't prove it, but I would believe him. When he says "I thoroughly reviewed the code"... yeah maybe. That's the sort of thing people do lie about (even to themselves).

[mountainriver]

you never can, thats the responsibility of the engineers to not lie. You can tell if there are sufficient tests and if they passed