Embracing Code Reviews and Alternative Solutions
As software engineers, we often spend hours immersed in our own code, confident that our design patterns, logic, and methods are the best approach. The clarity in our heads translates into a sense of ownership and pride in our work, which is essential to driving innovation and solving complex problems.
However, when our code undergoes a code review or we receive feedback from a peer, it’s natural to become defensive, certain that our path is the right one. This confidence can be valuable—it enables us to advocate for our ideas and push through challenges. But once in a while, it might be worth modeling the alternative.
What if the reviewer’s suggestion is valid? What if their critique points to an edge case or a more elegant solution we hadn’t considered? How would implementing their idea change the system’s performance, readability, or scalability?
Instead of dismissing alternative perspectives outright, we can ask ourselves:
• If they’re right, how does that change the codebase or the user experience?
• How can I use this insight to strengthen the project overall?
In software development, embracing alternatives doesn’t mean admitting defeat—it’s about collaboration and continuous improvement. If the feedback leads to a better solution, great! If it doesn’t, we still gain clarity on why our original approach works, and we can confidently return to it.
The beauty of software engineering lies in its iterative nature. We can always refactor, rebuild, and refine tomorrow. The willingness to entertain “if our peer is right” not only strengthens our code but also fosters a culture of openness and shared learning within the team.
After all, no single function, framework, or developer has all the answers. But together, through constructive feedback and an open mind, we build something greater than the sum of its parts.
#softwareengineering #teamwork