8
\$\begingroup\$

Current wording:

Questions asking for code to be written to solve a specific problem are off-topic here as there is no code to review.

However, some of these questions actually have some code in them already, so the wording "there is no code to review" isn't totally correct. Sometimes they are asking for more code to be written. But the code that they actually have in the question works, so this other close reason is not a better option:

Your question must contain working code for us to review it here. For questions regarding specific problems encountered while coding, try Stack Overflow. After getting your code to work, you may edit this question seeking a review of your working code.

The way I see it, our "Questions asking for code to be written" is our corresponding reason to StackOverflow's

Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist

Which is a good reason for not including a link to Stack Overflow in the text. If we would link to Stack Overflow, it would very likely be asked there and then closed on Stack Overflow too.

However, what I think we should do is to change "Questions asking for code to be written to solve a specific problem are off-topic here as there is no code to review." to something that includes the possibility that there might be some code already.

What I propose is: (Changes in italics)

Questions asking for code to be written to solve a specific problem are off-topic here as there is no code to review, or the current code is not yet ready for a review."

If you have other proposal for how to change the wording, feel free to add an answer.

If you think the wording does not need to be changed at all, feel free to downvote me into oblivion.

\$\endgroup\$
8
\$\begingroup\$

It is my opinion that the first two off-topic reasons are very similar. In fact, the first reason is a 'subset' of the second:

  • Questions asking for code to be written to solve a specific problem are off-topic here as there is no code to review.
  • Your question must contain working code for us to review it here. For questions regarding specific problems encountered while coding, try Stack Overflow. After getting your code to work, you may edit this question seeking a review of your working code.

I agree with you that the wording is cumbersome on both of these reasons. They can be merged in to a single reason:

  • Code Review is for reviewing working code. To be considered working there must be a description of what the code is supposed to do, and it must be clear that you are confident that the code succeeds at its intended purpose. If you are concerned that your code does not solve your problem then your question likely belongs on Stack Overflow or Programmers SE.

By merging off-topic reasons 1 and 2, it also frees up an option for the off-topic reason 'not your code' (nudge nudge, wink wink).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but not with "there must be a description of the problem to be solved" - it suggests that we solve problems, and that's SO's grounds. \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Nov 27 '13 at 14:16
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ What I mean is that it is very hard to review code if you don't know what the code is supposed to do.... how do I phrase that? \$\endgroup\$ – rolfl Nov 27 '13 at 14:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ How about there mus be a description of the problem being solved [by this code]? \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Nov 27 '13 at 14:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ I just edited ... \$\endgroup\$ – rolfl Nov 27 '13 at 14:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ I just noticed... @rolfl ding! \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Nov 27 '13 at 14:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'd say: "… then your question likely belongs on Stack Overflow or Programmers SE." \$\endgroup\$ – 200_success Nov 27 '13 at 17:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ Agreed, and added links... \$\endgroup\$ – rolfl Nov 27 '13 at 17:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think some questions that would fit this close reason would fit neither on SO or on Programmers. I think your suggestion is a step in the right direction though. \$\endgroup\$ – Simon Forsberg Nov 27 '13 at 23:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .