PullRequest's blog covers code review practices and its paid code-review-as-a-service offering, run by hired reviewers.
Commenters mention the service as a way to pay for outside code review; one user says reviewers gave good architecture advice but it costs money.
> I have a feeling this is just another way to get cheap labour.
You make it sound like it’s a Bad Thing (TM). The apprentices that sign up for this gain real world experience that’s hard to come by locally and get paid for it.
This kind of extended apprenticeship is valuable as they can go on to land remote jobs that pay them better than their local market.
Perhaps they could have worded that more clearly as: “we recruit devs . . . from low-income countries with English as their official language”
This is how they are able to make the economics work.
EDIT:
https://www.pullrequest.com/ is a comparable service (where you involve “outsiders” with your codebase) except they use senior devs rather than junior devs. Of course senior devs are more farther along in their careers so it is clear you are paying for their experience.
FWIW, and definitely somewhat off-topic, when they say code is reviewed "twice," they don't mean necessarily literally. When someone gets "readability" in a language, they can approve changes in that language for readability; if neither the reviewer nor the person writing the code yet have readability in a given language, they will need someone who does to approve it in addition. The idea is to have someone who has pretty good knowledge of the style and conventions used for a given language to have reviewed it.
More information is available on the net if you're curious. A cursory Duck Duck Go leads me here: https://www.pullrequest.com/blog/google-code-review-readability-certification/
I agree with what I think is your argument that “bureaucratic” tools used at a company with many thousands of engineers aren’t necessarily appropriate for a much smaller company. For example, the system of ownership by directory in a monorepo alluded to in other comments is unnecessary if you have a handful of engineers or a few dozen. Or the system like their “readability” reviews that you can read about elsewhere online (eg https://www.pullrequest.com/blog/google-code-review-readability-certification/)
It’s when you get to a bigger size that you (probably) need to worry these cases.
Thanks for the thread.
I am loking for a part time business person/CEO.
I am a tech guy. Have 15+ years experience building backend systems. Now, I build user facing websites/services and release them. I have no knowledge of marketing/sales, so if you are a non tech guy who wants to do some fun projects, hit me up. Email in profile.
Currently, I am working on a website where people can post their code and ask for feedback. (Something http://pullrequest.com/)
Note that these are mostly side projects. Unless you are very good, they will be side projects for now :)
Check out https://codereview.stackexchange.com/ or the code review subreddits. If you follow their posting guidelines you're likely to get feedback on how to improve your (working) code.
I recommend you start with the free options above, but if you need more in-depth feedback we offer paid code review at https://www.pullrequest.com. It's code review as a service for every popular language that can help you improve your code quality.
Based on [1]; readability in google means you've been certified to review code according to Google's code style in a given language.
Seems like if you've been certified you don't need an extra person who has been certified in 'readability' to review your code so it makes it easier.
1) https://www.pullrequest.com/blog/google-code-review-readability-certification/