May I ask why it's important to agree, here? Like... what exactly is so awful about different people having different coding styles?
I don't think it's awful for people to have different coding styles. There are certainly syntaxes, libraries, and methods I reach for at home that I don't reach for at work. At work, I think it is important to recognize that unless your team is fairly large, it probably isn't the best use of time to be having more academic debates about "legibility". Obviously, if there is an issue of performance or maintainability that deserves a healthy debate on the PR, but otherwise time at a smaller company or early stage startup is spent "getting it done".
[…] reading the documentation helps me to get a sense of how other people think about code, and I am often compelled to change my mind.
RE: obviation, I think my above comment addresses that. Debating over whether the question mark goes on the first or second line of a three line ternary statement is a luxury for a team that has already succeeded. Maybe your team has!
I've never used Rubocop, but that probably is a good caveat "linter documentation mileage may vary" 😆
At work, […] it probably isn't the best use of time to be having more academic debates about "legibility".
I would agree with that. I would also say that another (possibly better) way of handling that issue would be to enforce that any such discussion not be regarded as grounds for rejecting a PR.
If your quoted comment covered quashed constructive conversations, I wouldn't have commenced contrary contemplation consecutive to quoting it 😐
(& yes I did need to alliterate that entire third sentence)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I don't think it's awful for people to have different coding styles. There are certainly syntaxes, libraries, and methods I reach for at home that I don't reach for at work. At work, I think it is important to recognize that unless your team is fairly large, it probably isn't the best use of time to be having more academic debates about "legibility". Obviously, if there is an issue of performance or maintainability that deserves a healthy debate on the PR, but otherwise time at a smaller company or early stage startup is spent "getting it done".
RE: obviation, I think my above comment addresses that. Debating over whether the question mark goes on the first or second line of a three line ternary statement is a luxury for a team that has already succeeded. Maybe your team has!
I've never used Rubocop, but that probably is a good caveat "linter documentation mileage may vary" 😆
I would agree with that. I would also say that another (possibly better) way of handling that issue would be to enforce that any such discussion not be regarded as grounds for rejecting a PR.
If your quoted comment covered quashed constructive conversations, I wouldn't have commenced contrary contemplation consecutive to quoting it 😐
(& yes I did need to alliterate that entire third sentence)