<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for AriasAmp</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ariasamp.net/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ariasamp.net</link>
	<description>Brent Arias chanting about software development</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:02:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on A Review of Peer Reviews by Cory Lamle</title>
		<link>http://www.ariasamp.net/2011/03/review-peer-reviews/comment-page-1/#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>Cory Lamle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:02:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ariasamp.net/?p=182#comment-68</guid>
		<description>Excellent article Brent! The peer-review aspect is really a colossal point that so many developers just don’t do or get well. For me the most desirable outcomes of a good peer-review help generate well written documents or hopefully a clean API (if they were not even considered first), heck even nice clean detailed comments get generated to help further explain the rationale behind the design.

Most developers just write code for their own consumption and don’t even think of the various consumers of it (usually their peers). Too many assumptions are made that anyone can just read the code and understand the process. However in larger systems this is not always the case, and following a rabbit trail down a stack that is at minimum a 100 levels deep just isn’t any fun. In an ideal world peer-reviews should be the norm, but either laziness or busyness tends to mask out these much need practices.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent article Brent! The peer-review aspect is really a colossal point that so many developers just don’t do or get well. For me the most desirable outcomes of a good peer-review help generate well written documents or hopefully a clean API (if they were not even considered first), heck even nice clean detailed comments get generated to help further explain the rationale behind the design.</p>
<p>Most developers just write code for their own consumption and don’t even think of the various consumers of it (usually their peers). Too many assumptions are made that anyone can just read the code and understand the process. However in larger systems this is not always the case, and following a rabbit trail down a stack that is at minimum a 100 levels deep just isn’t any fun. In an ideal world peer-reviews should be the norm, but either laziness or busyness tends to mask out these much need practices.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

