Everything the author describes can still be accomplished by being diplomatic and understanding without being confrontational and direct. Plus, you build a better, more resilient team that way.
I’m not really sure the author learnt what he thought he learnt.
Being direct is good. But ‘too complex, refactor’ as an explanation is just one word longer than ‘fuck off’. You need to explain in detail why the solution is bad and which parts should be changed, in this case it just shows that the reviewer did not actually read the code.
The problem there is not the directness, but the terseness. This is something I had to learn myself, and fortunately was able to get feedback from colleagues who appreciated my directness and wanted more elaboration.
Everything the author describes can still be accomplished by being diplomatic and understanding without being confrontational and direct. Plus, you build a better, more resilient team that way.
I’m not really sure the author learnt what he thought he learnt.
I think his conclusion was the same as yours. He learned the engineering lesson and added the human skills.
What’s the alternative to being direct? Being indirect? Dropping hints? Spreading a rumor?
Being direct is good. But ‘too complex, refactor’ as an explanation is just one word longer than ‘fuck off’. You need to explain in detail why the solution is bad and which parts should be changed, in this case it just shows that the reviewer did not actually read the code.
The problem there is not the directness, but the terseness. This is something I had to learn myself, and fortunately was able to get feedback from colleagues who appreciated my directness and wanted more elaboration.