Some time ago, I remember having discussion in chat (a discussion which should have been on the meta... which is why this is going on the meta now) about how much code a question has to include in order to be reviewable. Given that how we name our classes, methods, functions, and variables is such an important aspect and a large portion of reviews are spent on critiquing naming alone, an answer with nothing more than the name of a class has "enough reviewable code". Having actual executable code isn't actually a requirement for meeting some "enough reviewable code" criteria. I also made the point that "enough reviewable code" is not the only criteria by which we can determine whether a question is on-topic or not.

One of the things we spend a lot of time focusing on in reviews is the general readability of our code. We do this not because it makes the code perform better or use less memory, we do this because humans will read our source code several times more frequently than a computer will. It is important for humans to discern what's going on with the code.

In most cases, the focus on our review is, how readable is this to a maintainer of the code? After all, that's the human who looks at our code the most, right? Anyone involved in the upkeep and maintenance of our source code, correct?

But what about interfaces and APIs? While a maintainer looks at these things, a large group of other humans will look at these far more frequently. These are the end-user developers. It is arguably MORE important that your interfaces and APIs are very readable and contain methods which describe exactly what they do from name alone so that that developer may write readable code because they has no control over the method names you picked in your interface or API!!!

These things are highly worth of a good Code Review so that some programmer in the future perhaps doesn't post some source code that makes use of a library with cryptic unintelligible method names that they can not change!

Some time ago, I remember having discussion in chat (a discussion which should have been on the meta... which is why this is going on the meta now) about how much code a question has to include in order to be reviewable. Given that how we name our classes, methods, functions, and variables is such an important aspect and a large portion of reviews are spent on critiquing naming alone, an answer with nothing more than the name of a class has "enough reviewable code". Having actual executable code isn't actually a requirement for meeting some "enough reviewable code" criteria. I also made the point that "enough reviewable code" is not the only criteria by which we can determine whether a question is on-topic or not.

One of the things we spend a lot of time focusing on in reviews is the general readability of our code. We do this not because it makes the code perform better or use less memory, we do this because humans will read our source code several times more frequently than a computer will. It is important for humans to discern what's going on with the code.

In most cases, the focus on our review is, how readable is this to a maintainer of the code? After all, that's the human who looks at our code the most, right? Anyone involved in the upkeep and maintenance of our source code, correct?

But what about interfaces and APIs? While a maintainer looks at these things, a large group of other humans will look at these far more frequently. These are the end-user developers. It is arguably MORE important that your interfaces and APIs are very readable and contain methods which describe exactly what they do from name alone so that that developer may write readable code because he has no control over the method names you picked in your interface or API!!!

These things are highly worth of a good Code Review so that some programmer in the future perhaps doesn't post some source code that makes use of a library with cryptic unintelligible method names that he can not change!

Some time ago, I remember having discussion in chat (a discussion which should have been on the meta... which is why this is going on the meta now) about how much code a question has to include in order to be reviewable. Given that how we name our classes, methods, functions, and variables is such an important aspect and a large portion of reviews are spent on critiquing naming alone, an answer with nothing more than the name of a class has "enough reviewable code". Having actual executable code isn't actually a requirement for meeting some "enough reviewable code" criteria. I also made the point that "enough reviewable code" is not the only criteria by which we can determine whether a question is on-topic or not.

One of the things we spend a lot of time focusing on in reviews is the general readability of our code. We do this not because it makes the code perform better or use less memory, we do this because humans will read our source code several times more frequently than a computer will. It is important for humans to discern what's going on with the code.

In most cases, the focus on our review is, how readable is this to a maintainer of the code? After all, that's the human who looks at our code the most, right? Anyone involved in the upkeep and maintenance of our source code, correct?

But what about interfaces and APIs? While a maintainer looks at these things, a large group of other humans will look at these far more frequently. These are the end-user developers. It is arguably MORE important that your interfaces and APIs are very readable and contain methods which describe exactly what they do from name alone so that that developer may write readable code because he has no control over the method names you picked in your interface or API!!!

These things are highly worth of a good Code Review so that some programmer in the future perhaps doesn't post some source code that makes use of a library with cryptic unintelligible method names that he can not change!

Some time ago, I remember having discussion in chat (a discussion which should have been on the meta... which is why this is going on the meta now) about how much code a question has to include in order to be reviewable. Given that how we name our classes, methods, functions, and variables is such an important aspect and a large portion of reviews are spent on critiquing naming alone, an answer with nothing more than the name of a class has "enough reviewable code". Having actual executable code isn't actually a requirement for meeting some "enough reviewable code" criteria. I also made the point that "enough reviewable code" is not the only criteria by which we can determine whether a question is on-topic or not.

One of the things we spend a lot of time focusing on in reviews is the general readability of our code. We do this not because it makes the code perform better or use less memory, we do this because humans will read our source code several times more frequently than a computer will. It is important for humans to discern what's going on with the code.

In most cases, the focus on our review is, how readable is this to a maintainer of the code? After all, that's the human who looks at our code the most, right? Anyone involved in the upkeep and maintenance of our source code, correct?

But what about interfaces and APIs? While a maintainer looks at these things, a large group of other humans will look at these far more frequently. These are the end-user developers. It is arguably MORE important that your interfaces and APIs are very readable and contain methods which describe exactly what they do from name alone so that that developer may write readable code because they has no control over the method names you picked in your interface or API!!!

These things are highly worth of a good Code Review so that some programmer in the future perhaps doesn't post some source code that makes use of a library with cryptic unintelligible method names that they can not change!