From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200202062304.XAA29702@localhost.localdomain>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] XP (was: code complexity) 
In-Reply-To: Message from Laura Creighton <lac@cd.chalmers.se> 
   of "Wed, 06 Feb 2002 21:15:18 +0100." <200202062015.VAA03744@boris.cd.chalmers.se> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed,  6 Feb 2002 23:04:59 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4e0bb4ce-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Laura wrote:
> And it was many, many hours before
> they felt that it was in some way, _permitted_ for them to point out
> flaws in my code.  Finally they got the idea.  And really liked
> savaging their elders for carelessness, and ugliness, and complexity,
> and all sorts of good stuff.  But first they had to know that we
> really wanted to hear this.

I get this problem in prose reviews too. I try to counter it by
explaining to people that I want to hear both what's good and
what's bad: the former, so that I can choose to do it again, and
the latter so that I can choose to avoid it. But in both cases,
it needs to be constructively critical - *why* is it good/bad?

Another tack, which depends on your environment, is to point
out that it's much better for a colleague to point out you've done
something stupid than a (soon-to-be-ex-) customer.

steve