Hacker News Reader

Comment by GregorStocks | Hacker News Reader

The final tip being "use the tool I'm selling" makes the preceding 10 seem a lot less compelling. I'll stick to testing my code in prod, thanks.

View on HN

There are a bunch of open source software to do what exactly what they advocate, that is "a tool-assisted lightweight code review".

At Mozilla, we use GitHub (for project hosted on github, such as Gaia), and splinter [1], that integrates with bugzilla. I know there is an ongoing effort to switch to reviewboard [2] at the moment, as we feel our review tool should do more that what splinter is capable of doing.

[1]: http://blog.fishsoup.net/2009/09/23/splinter-patch-review/ [2]: www.reviewboard.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive (sorry, I just think this article deserves a more kind top comment than this one)

The 10 first tips can still be applied without the 11th. And a mail thread can replace their tool. Less efficient, but free. And still more efficient than testing in prod.

And the 11th tip is to use a code review tool, not to specifically use the example one (although the plug/mention is a bit heavy-handed)

Anything that's from "Rational Systems" is an overpriced unusable piece of crap and I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole

Not disagreeing, but the tool mentioned is not from Rational, it only integrates with the Rational workflow tool.

I've used CodeCollaborator (the SmartBear software plugged at the end of the post) and found it to be a good tool for doing multi-site code reviews. It's straightforward to use; web based; the default diff tool is reasonable; you can specify suggestions or bugs i.e. "I think you should change this line" versus "This line needs to be changed".

IBM stuff, however... well, I've mentioned my feelings on their software on HN before. They're still selling Lotus Notes and Clearcase - I'd be very careful before taking anything they've built/bought.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com