I would like to a add 2 more on to the above. - often a mixed feedback or conflicting ones are not complete interpretations so getting on a call or requesting examples have been useful as we get a better understanding and it gets easier to draw the lines or narrow down the conflicts. - giving preference to standard conventions has helped us a lot so we crossreference them against standard conventions or practices if we cannot weigh them against project goals

I prioritize feedback that aligns with project goals and real-world constraints. If opinions clash, I test different approaches in a controlled setup to see what works best. Discussing with experienced peers or mentors also helps cut through the noise and find a solid direction.

I will tackle it like this: First, I will dig into the goals of the project, what do we want to achieve at the end? Is it performance, readability or scalability or a mix of everything? Second, I will look at the benchmarks and error rates that support one approach and if it doesn’t then I will run a few tests myself and see for myself and gather the evidence about which approach should be taken. After all this if its still a confusion then I would go for the simplest approach because simplicity has less complexity and thus less errors and bugs and even easier to fix down the line. Thats my move!

If there is no significant difference in performance, focus on readability. Code must be readable by others. If the person who wrote the code leaves the company and a long time passes, anyone else who touches that part later will have to read and understand all the code from the beginning. Since a company is not a place where people work alone, if there is no significant difference in performance, it is better to write several lines of simple logic to make the code easier to understand. In general, adding one line does not significantly slow down the code. Rather, stupid(poor time complexity) looping or inappropriate use of memory space causes more problems in the real world.