Timeline for Must answers include a code review?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:41 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 1, 2014 at 13:58 | comment | added | ChrisW | @SimonAndréForsberg Yes, "always" can imply a false dichotomy: "Is it always, or never?" I think I ask it in order to test the rule: is it true, and/or are there exceptions to the rule? I think that's a scientific method: "My hypothesis is that answers must contain a review to be on-topic. Is that always true, or is that contradicted by observed counter-examples?" It can be a way of generating useful laws, for example "Always Newtonian Mechanics, except when very fast or very massive or very small or...". | |
| Feb 1, 2014 at 13:26 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg | @ChrisW I don't like your "always" questions. I can't say anything about whether or not it's always an answer if you suggest equivalent pre-made functionality. The whole library-issues is an entirely different topic, but if they have re-invented the wheel without knowing it then I think suggesting that "This wheel already exists, here's how you use it yada-yada-yada..." is an OK answer. | |
| Feb 1, 2014 at 12:12 | comment | added | ChrisW | Also my worry about this specific answer was that just "Use a profiler!" might be used as an answer to any question about performance. | |
| Feb 1, 2014 at 12:09 | comment | added | ChrisW | Are you suggesting that it's always an adequate review to suggest equivalent pre-made functionality? If someone posts a question about a C++ circular buffer, can we point them to a boost C++ library class? And/or to a non-free vendor's offering? Does the answer depend on whether the OP is doing the code as an exercise, or for production? Is "Is there a built-in API or third-party library which does this?" a valid question, even though that might be seen as 'a shopping question'? | |
| Feb 1, 2014 at 11:56 | comment | added | ChrisW | @SimonAndréForsberg I did wonder about that answer at the time: I thought it would have been a great comment! One (strange) reason why it's clearly a Code Review is that the OP doesn't say (in English) that they're implementing a property-bag and property parser; so AJMansfield must have read the OP's code, and reverse-engineered its purpose, before suggesting the alternative: and that deserves credit. If the OP had started with "I'm implementing a 'Property' class using Java" then the answer would have been less impressive IMO, but an even better comment. | |
| Feb 1, 2014 at 9:25 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg | @200_success I do believe the answer I linked to is a good answer, that is why I want to know how to define "Code Review". | |
| Feb 1, 2014 at 9:19 | comment | added | 200_success | @SimonAndréForsberg Why wouldn't you consider dead code elimination to be acceptable as code review? | |
| Feb 1, 2014 at 9:04 | comment | added | Simon Forsberg | What is your definition of a Code Review? Is this answer technically a Code Review? If so, in what way? | |
| Feb 1, 2014 at 2:19 | comment | added | Mathieu Guindon | You convinced me. I made a minor edit and retracted my upvote (don't do this at home!). | |
| Feb 1, 2014 at 2:03 | history | edited | ChrisW | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 152 characters in body
|
| Feb 1, 2014 at 1:44 | history | edited | ChrisW | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 715 characters in body
|
| Feb 1, 2014 at 1:29 | history | answered | ChrisW | CC BY-SA 3.0 |