That said, realize that a lot of what people think is important when it comes to reviewing code is iffy, at best. Consider, git.[1] Odds are extremely high that this does not fit any style of most startups. Now, you could take that as an argument against many startup stylings, but that is not necessarily my intent here.
To their credit, they have a very exhaustive coding guideline that is fairly open to breaking rules when need be.[2]
That is, I am asserting most metrics people use for intrinsic quality of code would likely mark git as something they would not want to support. And yet it is proving to be very reliable.
To their credit, they have a very exhaustive coding guideline that is fairly open to breaking rules when need be.[2]
[1] https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/wt-status.c
[2] https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/CodingG...