1
\$\begingroup\$

I have some poorly received posts. Should I kill my account? Should I make all my posts say user227432 with no link?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ You have some well-received posts as well; I don't think your account is in any kind of irreparably bad standing at all - just make sure your next posts are asking for feedback on any/all aspects of a completed and working piece of code, and you'll do great! That said if you do want to nuke your account for whatever reason, you can request deletion of your account via the contact links in the page footer. \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Aug 2 at 19:27
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I would say that it is way too early to consider killing your account, you only have one question that was poorly received out of 3 questions. The one question that was poorly received can be saved if you add the test cases you used and some additional code. \$\endgroup\$ – pacmaninbw Aug 2 at 19:47
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ If you keep our FAQ on asking questions in mind with your next posts, I see no reason to delete your account. Let us know if you have further doubts and I'll answer them one-by-one in the morning (CET). \$\endgroup\$ – Mast Aug 2 at 19:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @MathieuGuindon Thanks for your comment. \$\endgroup\$ – user227432 Aug 2 at 21:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @pacmaninbw What exactly do you mean by "test cases?" \$\endgroup\$ – user227432 Aug 2 at 21:27
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You presented a single function with no supporting code such as how the function would be used. One of the rules of Code Review is that the code must be known to work before we can review it, therefore I assume that the code has been tested and that there are test cases. Part of the problem with the question is that it is really hard to review code that doesn't provide a context for how it is used. Code review is very different from stackoverflow, we want to see as much code as necessary to give us the background of what the code does. \$\endgroup\$ – pacmaninbw Aug 2 at 21:51
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @pacmaninbw I see. I'll edit it when I get the time. \$\endgroup\$ – user227432 Aug 2 at 21:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ @pacmaninbw But I don't understand the first part, because the code functions as intended when I compile and use it. \$\endgroup\$ – user227432 Aug 8 at 3:36
5
\$\begingroup\$

Note: I'm going to be a bit pedantic in this answer and point out things that could be considered problematic by some of the users. The reality may or may not be as harsh, but please consider it all carefully. None if it is personal, none of it is an attack. And whatever you do, read our FAQ on asking questions. It was written by people smarter than me and their advice is worth gold.


First of all, it is rarely necessary to kill an account simply because a post was ill-received. I don't know how many posts you've removed, but from a quick glance I can spot 3 questions and 1 self-deleted answer (scoring 0). Of those 3 questions, all questions are answered and only 1 is closed (scoring -4). The other 2 have a positive score, one of them has a single downvote. Let's focus on the closed one, your most recent question.

You could've been more responsive to the comments left on your questions. It is quite possible people have given you the benefit of the doubt during the first 2 questions and decided against doing that with the 3rd. All 3 questions are after all not great questions and I would've understood if the others had been closed as well for lack of description and context. It was also posted only hours after the 2nd question. That by itself is poor practice (You can't have fully understood the answer, its effects, written a good second version and properly tested that in such a small amount of time. Besides, more answers may have been on their way.), but it's made worse by how you wrote your 3rd question. Let's start with the title:

How can I represent a given memory pattern in C, rather than a mathematical value, for endian-independant code?

Does that sound descriptive to you? It doesn't to me. It doesn't sound like a request for review either. It sounds like a feature-request. We don't do those.

The site standard is for the title to simply state the task accomplished by the code.

After the title, you begin with this:

Again, still trying to interpret a boolean value from an input string.

Do. Or do not. There is no try.

This is your 2nd question on the topic and Code Review requires working code. So we all assume your new version is working better than the first. And the first should've been fine already. Your phrase sounds fatalistic, after a title that doesn't fit our scope. This means you've left a bad impression and the rest of the question is fighting an uphill battle to convince reviewers your question is fit for the site and worth their time.

So we have a poorly specified task with a poorly phrased question and then we encounter this:

How can I create integer literals, by memory layout rather than by value? I am trying to write the fastest possible string interpretation algorithm possible.

Again, a feature-request. And more ambiguity. The question was closed since it looks like it wasn't ready yet for review.

"the fastest possible string interpretation algorithm possible"

We all want to write fast code. But why are you re-inventing the wheel here? It looks like you're cutting corners and sacrificing safety for performance. This is pointed out by multiple answers. What in your specification is so speed-critical that this is the way to go about it? That's completely unclear, since we have no specification. is quite a dangerous language to go fast-and-loose with.

A good question has a problem statement (the problem solved by the program). A specification, a description. Preferably both. A piece of code showing the example usage helps a lot with that, as do test cases.

Remember, all we know about your code and your project is what you tell us about it. We can't look in your head.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ The thirt questions look like a payment job enrollment... \$\endgroup\$ – Francisco Núñez Aug 5 at 21:09

You must log in to answer this question.