Return to Answer

###Java:

###PHP:

###TI-Basic:

###C:

Java:

PHP:

TI-Basic:

C:

• Serialize/deserialize objects to and from database concurrently - None of the plain-English on this question makes it clear at all why it should have the code-size-optimization tag. I recommend simply removing the tag from this question.

• PHP cron job for updating broadcast status - Again, none of the plain-English on this question makes it clear at all why it should have the code-size-optimization tag. PHP is a server-side language, so this isn't a minification issue. It seems most likely, the tag simply exists because the user was trying to add optimization and stumbled across code-size-optimization in the auto-complete list (and the asker is looking for any optimization). Seems like a meta use, so we can probably simply remove the tag from this question.

• Roman numeral to decimal converter - This question actually is explicitly asking for optimizing the code for size. However, that doesn't make it any less of a meta tag. I don't know anything about TI-Basic. Presumably this is for or related to TI calculators? I'm not going to make the case for using the embedded tag or simply removing the tag. But either way, I can't see a strong case for code-size-optimization here. If there are any domain experts for TI-Basic, please advise or take appropriate action.

• Adding support to Busybox vi for reading file from stdin - This question is explicitly about the executable size. It is also already tagged with embedded. The code-size-optimization tag can probably simply be removed.

• Spell Corrector in C - There's nothing in the plain-English part asking for code-size-optimization, and there's no mentioned of embedded use (or a tag). The asker is certainly looking for optimizations though, and it seems this is most likely either a mistagging or a meta-tag.

• Size improvements for cat reimplementation - This question is explicitly asking for "size improvements", but seems to be asking for source code size improvements. As such, this seems to be meta usage and can simply be removed.

• Serialize/deserialize objects to and from database concurrently - None of the plain-English on this question makes it clear at all why it should have the code-size-optimization tag. I recommend simply removing the tag from this question.

• PHP cron job for updating broadcast status - Again, none of the plain-English on this question makes it clear at all why it should have the code-size-optimization tag. PHP is a server-side language, so this isn't a minification issue. It seems most likely, the tag simply exists because the user was trying to add optimization and stumbled across code-size-optimization in the auto-complete list (and the asker is looking for any optimization). Seems like a meta use, so we can probably simply remove the tag from this question.

• Roman numeral to decimal converter - This question actually is explicitly asking for optimizing the code for size. However, that doesn't make it any less of a meta tag. I don't know anything about TI-Basic. Presumably this is for or related to TI calculators? I'm not going to make the case for using the embedded tag or simply removing the tag. But either way, I can't see a strong case for code-size-optimization here. If there are any domain experts for TI-Basic, please advise or take appropriate action.

• Adding support to Busybox vi for reading file from stdin - This question is explicitly about the executable size. It is also already tagged with embedded. The code-size-optimization tag can probably simply be removed.

• Spell Corrector in C - There's nothing in the plain-English part asking for code-size-optimization, and there's no mentioned of embedded use (or a tag). The asker is certainly looking for optimizations though, and it seems this is most likely either a mistagging or a meta-tag.

• Size improvements for cat reimplementation - This question is explicitly asking for "size improvements", but seems to be asking for source code size improvements. As such, this seems to be meta usage and can simply be removed.

Minimizing the size of your executable is about reducing the number of instructions and has nothing to do with how many lines (or characters) are in your source code file. Using code-size-optimization for these questions is arguably misleading. Moreover, outside deploying to embedded systems, worrying about the size of your executable isn't something that gets done any more these days. And if it is something you're worried about, your question isn't likely to be a good fit for Code Review. Instead, you probably need to think about your applications design from a bigger picture and probably formulate a question that's a good fit for Programmers.

Minimizing the size of your executable is about reducing the number of instructions and has nothing to do with how many lines (or characters) are in your source code file. Using code-size-optimization for these questions is arguably misleading. Moreover, outside deploying to embedded systems, worrying about the size of your executable isn't something that gets done any more these days. And if it is something you're worried about, your question isn't likely to be a good fit for Code Review. Instead, you probably need to think about your applications design from a bigger picture and probably formulate a question that's a good fit for Programmers.