Timeline for Should Code Review serve as a refactoring cookbook?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 13, 2016 at 16:59 | history | reopened | 200_successMod | ||
| Jan 13, 2016 at 16:59 | history | edited | 200_successMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarification
|
| Jan 13, 2016 at 8:23 | history | closed |
Quill SuperBiasedMan TheCoffeeCup holroy Pimgd |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 12:17 | comment | added | 200_success Mod | By the way, we are building a knowledge base of a different kind. If you want to see the pitfalls to avoid when writing tic-tac-toe or Project Euler Problem 3, we've got that covered! | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 12:06 | comment | added | Konrad Viltersten | @SuperBiasedMan Yeah, like he said. I like canonical answers because they're much easier to enforce. But as I commented to the linked answer - not every great idea's going to happen, hehe. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 12:04 | vote | accept | Konrad Viltersten | ||
| Jan 12, 2016 at 12:00 | comment | added | SuperBiasedMan | @KonradViltersten I don't, because the "final result" implies a correct ending solution. I see Code Review as an iterative series of possible solutions. We shouldn't assert that a singular correct answer is canonical, but provide ideas and improvements that work towards better code, rather than the 'best' code. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59 | comment | added | Konrad Viltersten | @200_success I see your point and it makes sense (as I stood corrected in the comment above). Following up on your culinary metaphor - what I fear that we miss is the actual, nicely assembled finished cake. It possible that a single question gets its various flaws resolved partially in different answers. I'd prefer that the final compilation of the full and definite answer is collected in a single post. But that calls for plagiarism (or countless referrals). | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:55 | comment | added | Konrad Viltersten | @SuperBiasedMan Excellent observation. Now that I think about it, I still claim that my point is valid but that the need to comparison might be incorporated in form of the answers. You're right that it's not only the final result that matters, even the way to get there does. I stand corrected. Would you agree that the final result is more important than the trial-and-error'ish way to get there? | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:51 | comment | added | Konrad Viltersten | @SimonForsberg Just to be clear - I don't mean to challenge that answer linked to. Yet. I wish to hear the rationale for it, because I'm failing to see it. So this is me being modest (yes, hell's getting colder, haha). If I can't get any such rationale, then I'll challenge it, for sure. :) | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:51 | comment | added | 200_success Mod | "The lousy code needs not to be displayed" misses the point of Code Review, though. That's like buying a cake. We're more like a test kitchen where we discuss and document how we arrived at the optimal recipe, including all the failed attempts. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:48 | comment | added | Konrad Viltersten | @Zak As 200 said. Plus, the lousy code needs not to be displayed. Only the circumstances for what it's supposed to do need to be searchable. I want to know how to nicely call my variables. I only need to search for "nice call variable". No need to see how others abused the language. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:48 | comment | added | 200_success Mod | @Quill Konrad is suggesting that Code Review could more effective as a knowledge base if question titles followed a convention of stating the concern with the code rather than the purpose of the code. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:46 | comment | added | Konrad Viltersten | @Quill Now I see your point. Suppose you've got a lousy code. Your rewrite it to good quality. Then, I have lousy code (doing roughly the same thing as yours). I rewrite it to good quality. Then Jabba The Hut has lousy code... See? The lousy parts are temporary and short-term. The qualitative code is sustainable and long-term. (It happens also to be short-term too, should Jaba code qualitatively from the start. I know I don't...) | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:45 | comment | added | SuperBiasedMan | @KonradViltersten I don't agree with the premise that only the final result matters. Comparison makes the lessons more valuable. It's better to say "A is better than B because A uses X while B involves Y" than it is to say "A is good because it uses X". The latter is abstract and vague, while the former is a concrete example of what someone did try to do, and why the improvement offers a clear advantage. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:43 | comment | added | Konrad Viltersten | @SuperBiasedMan My point is that for CR needs, posterity is unnecessary, hence, whatever might be important for the posterity itself, would be unnecessary by association. Could you take a second peek at the last sentence in the last paragraph (and the third form the bottom too). | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:41 | comment | added | 200_success Mod | @Zak I think that Konrad seeks to understand / discuss the purpose and scope of Code Review, and is suggesting that a different set of editing / titling guidelines might work better. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:41 | comment | added | Konrad Viltersten | @Quill I read the link provided but failed to see the answer to my question (rather, it raises said question as far I can tell). Would you mind giving me a helping hand and guide me to which part I might be missing? Also, would you mind elaborating on the short/long term? I seem not to follow which part of my point is short-term. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:36 | answer | added | 200_successMod | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 11:12 | answer | added | Simon ForsbergMod | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 10:33 | comment | added | SuperBiasedMan | Keeping the original content is important for posterity. If you update the code you're fundamentally changing what the answers are responding to, which only adds confusion and removes clarity. | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 10:18 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 13, 2016 at 8:23 | |||||
| Jan 12, 2016 at 10:02 | comment | added | Quill | Possible duplicate of For an iterative review, is it okay to edit my own question to include revised code? | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 9:52 | comment | added | Dan | To clarify, is your question asking about the benefits/downsides to not allowing answer invalidation (i.e, modifying the question after answers have been received to display the 'reviewed' code?) | |
| Jan 12, 2016 at 9:44 | history | asked | Konrad Viltersten | CC BY-SA 3.0 |