Peer Code Review Statistics


Steve Bennett
Steve Bennett
Business Formation Expert
Steve runs LLCBuddy, helping entrepreneurs set up their LLCs easily. He offers clear guides, articles, and FAQs to simplify the process. His team keeps everything accurate and current, focusing on state rules, registered agents, and compliance. Steve’s passion for helping businesses grow makes LLCBuddy a go-to resource for starting and managing an LLC.

All Posts by Steve →
Business Formation Expert  |   Fact Checked by Editorial Staff
Last updated: 
LLCBuddy™ offers informative content for educational purposes only, not as a substitute for professional legal or tax advice. We may earn commissions if you use the services we recommend on this site.
At LLCBuddy, we don't just offer information; we provide a curated experience backed by extensive research and expertise. Led by Steve, a seasoned expert in the LLC formation sector, our platform is built on years of hands-on experience and a deep understanding of the nuances involved in establishing and running an LLC. We've navigated the intricacies of the industry, sifted through the complexities, and packaged our knowledge into a comprehensive, user-friendly guide. Our commitment is to empower you with reliable, up-to-date, and actionable insights, ensuring you make informed decisions. With LLCBuddy, you're not just getting a tutorial; you're gaining a trustworthy partner for your entrepreneurial journey.

Peer Code Review Statistics 2023: Facts about Peer Code Review outlines the context of what’s happening in the tech world.

LLCBuddy editorial team did hours of research, collected all important statistics on Peer Code Review, and shared those on this page. Our editorial team proofread these to make the data as accurate as possible. We believe you don’t need to check any other resources on the web for the same. You should get everything here only 🙂

Are you planning to form an LLC? Maybe for educational purposes, business research, or personal curiosity, whatever the reason is – it’s always a good idea to gather more information about tech topics like this.

How much of an impact will Peer Code Review Statistics have on your day-to-day? or the day-to-day of your LLC Business? How much does it matter directly or indirectly? You should get answers to all your questions here.

Please read the page carefully and don’t miss any words.

Top Peer Code Review Statistics 2023

☰ Use “CTRL+F” to quickly find statistics. There are total 21 Peer Code Review Statistics on this page 🙂

Peer Code Review “Latest” Statistics

  • Capers Jones’ ongoing analysis of over 12,000 software development projects showed that the latent defect discovery rate of formal inspection is in the 60-65% range.[1]
  • According to a 2012 research by VDC Research, automated methods for peer code review are now used by 17.6% of the surveyed embedded software developers, and 23.7% plan to utilize them in the next two years.[1]
  • Empirical studies provided evidence that up to 75% of code review defects affect software evolvability/maintainability rather than functionality, making code reviews an excellent tool for software companies with long product or system life cycles.[1]
  • In a specific company, it was noted in 2015 that 75% of code review feedbacks are provided by team authors, despite being marginally less helpful than feedback from other teams.[2]
  • According to Bosu (2015), some projects the proportion of relevant comments decreased by 10%, when they compared changes in 40 files with changes in a single file.[2]
  • 96% of participants think patches with more LOC have a negative impact on duration.[2]
  • 29% of the participants think that patches with more LOC get fewer comments, while 49% disagree and say that patches with more LOC receive more comments.[2]
  • 97.8% of the participants reported medium to very high experience with projects with multiple teams, whereas 93.3% reported medium to very high experience with projects with multiple locations, suggesting that they have experience in DSD.[2]
  • The most intriguing findings, according to McConnell, are that no technique’s modal rate exceeds 75% and that the approaches’ average efficiency is about 40%.[3]
  • According to several estimates severe bugs are 100 times more expensive to fix after shipping than they are to fix before shipping.[3]
  • According to Basili and Selby, code reading found 80% more defects per hour than testing, even when evaluating programmers on code with no comments. Inspections are often a less expensive way to uncover flaws than testing.[3]
  • If aforementioned four categories was simply used, the best bug discovery rate will be 68%.[3]
  • The SmartBear study of Cisco Systems found that “spot checking” 20% to 33% of the code resulted in lower defect density with minimal time expenditure.[4]
  • The SmartBear study of Cisco Systems found that lightweight code review takes less than 20% the time of formal reviews and finds just as many bugs.[4]
  • Despite the fact that the majority of my students were upper level computer science majors, 63% of them admitted at the beginning of the semester that they had never used git.[5]
  • According to a 2017 study of 240 development teams, 90% of the teams employ a review procedure based on changes, and 60% use frequent changes.[6]
  • 96% of the participants believe that duration is negatively affected by patches with a higher number of LOC.[6]
  • A study of an organization at AT&T with more than 200 people reported a 14% increase in productivity and a 90% decrease in defects after the organization introduced reviews.[7]
  • In a software-maintenance organization, 55% of one-line maintenance changes were in error before code reviews were introduced.[7]
  • The Aetna Insurance Company found 82% of the errors in a program by using inspections and was able to decrease its development resources by 20%.[7]
  • 95% of the modifications following the introduction of reviews were accurate the first time, when all changes were taken into account.[7]

Also Read

How Useful is Peer Code Review

One of the key ways in which peer code review proves its usefulness is through the detection of bugs and errors in code. By having a fresh set of eyes look over code before it is deployed, developers can catch issues that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. This ultimately leads to a higher quality product, as bugs are fixed before they have the chance to cause problems for end users. Additionally, catching bugs early in the development process saves time and resources that would have been spent on fixing them post-deployment.

Another major benefit of peer code review is the opportunity it provides for knowledge sharing and learning. When developers review each other’s code, they have the chance to learn best practices, new techniques, and alternative solutions that they may not have considered on their own. This collaborative approach to code review can lead to improved skill sets among team members and can help promote a culture of continuous learning within a development team.

Furthermore, peer code review fosters a sense of accountability among team members. When developers know that their code will be subject to review by their peers, they are more likely to put in the effort to produce high-quality work. This can help prevent sloppy coding practices, encourage better documentation, and promote a higher level of professionalism within the team.

In addition to improving code quality and promoting learning, peer code review also has benefits for team collaboration and communication. By working together to review and discuss code, developers have the opportunity to communicate effectively, share feedback, and work towards common goals. This can lead to stronger team cohesion, improved problem-solving abilities, and a more efficient development process overall.

While peer code review undoubtedly offers many benefits, it is not without its challenges. One common concern is the potential for code reviews to become overly critical or confrontational. Developers may be hesitant to give or receive feedback, fearing that it will be taken personally or lead to conflicts within the team. To overcome this challenge, it is important for teams to establish a positive and constructive code review culture, where feedback is given in a respectful and professional manner, and where developers are encouraged to learn from each other’s experiences.

In conclusion, peer code review is a valuable practice that can significantly improve the quality of code, enhance team collaboration, and promote continuous learning within software development teams. While it may require some effort to establish an effective code review process and overcome potential challenges, the benefits of peer code review far outweigh the downsides. By making peer code review a standard practice in their development workflow, teams can ensure that they are producing high-quality, error-free code that meets the needs of their users and stakeholders.

Reference

  1. wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_review
  2. springeropen – https://jserd.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40411-018-0058-0
  3. burke – https://kevin.burke.dev/kevin/the-best-ways-to-find-bugs-in-your-code/
  4. smartbear – https://smartbear.com/learn/code-review/best-practices-for-peer-code-review/
  5. teachdatascience – https://teachdatascience.com/countingcommits/
  6. webinarcare – https://webinarcare.com/best-peer-code-review-software/peer-code-review-statistics/
  7. agilesparks – https://www.agilesparks.com/peer-code-review-benefits-and-statistics/

Leave a Comment