12
\$\begingroup\$

We have various "acronym tags" related to software principles:

The problem is, they can still be used as meta tags, especially , for reducing code repetition. However, they're not solely meant to be used this way, and might still be useful without being too meta.

Also, feel free to add any related tags I've missed (or mention them in the comments).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ What about non-acronym tags of a similar nature, such as complexity, cyclomatic-complexity, and the already-abolished readability? \$\endgroup\$ – 200_success Jul 25 '14 at 17:58
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @200_success: I'm tempted to say that it should be kept, or at least these should be synonymized. \$\endgroup\$ – Jamal Jul 25 '14 at 17:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ Solid and SRP seem to be reasonably used. Dry is perhaps over used. I'm not sure about these one way or the other. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Jul 27 '14 at 1:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ckuhn203: I do agree with that, and it does make it seem like a meta tag. We used to have a similar tag, code-reuse, which has already been burninated. \$\endgroup\$ – Jamal Jul 27 '14 at 1:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ In my opinion DRY is akin to [code-reuse]; SRP is encompassed in SOLID ("S") - [dependency-injection] being the "D" - given the recent metatag purge, I don't see why they shouldn't all burn... except I like these tags - and burning them means every metatag should die - including the mentioned [complexity] and other "what's in this post" tags. \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Aug 7 '14 at 19:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Mat'sMug: The "what's in this post" tags are okay. It's the "what I want reviewed" that are a problem. You can pretty much "pick out" the meta tags that you'd like, and the 5-tag limit would just hold you back. With this burnination, there's a lot less of picking out tags like a buffet. \$\endgroup\$ – Jamal Aug 7 '14 at 19:55
8
\$\begingroup\$

NO

We don't need any of these tags. Not only are they meta tags, but I have no clue what they are or what they mean without going to the tag description.

How are these tags useful? How are these tags addressing something that

  1. The asker won't already mention when asking the question
  2. Won't be reviewed with or without the tag?

Absolutely everything about a posted question is eligible for review.

The job of a tag is to tell me what the question is about, so that I can find questions/answers about a specific topic that I'm interesting in reading about. None of these three tags do that.

When I'm considering writing a review about a question, the focus of my review comes first from things that immediately stand out to me in the posted code, and second from explanations/comments in the non-code part of the question. In my nearly 100 CodeReview answers, I don't think I've ever taken a tag into consideration in terms of what my answer is about, and I don't plan to start any time soon.

So it seems to me that these tags are not beneficial in the way that tags should be, and as such, they should be removed. Not necessarily because they're acronyms, but because they're not useful as tags (other acronym tags can be fine, like ...)

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm actually kinda surprised that we haven't seen kiss or yagni tags. But yeah, perhaps we don't need these. \$\endgroup\$ – Jamal Jul 28 '14 at 22:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ sql is an unfair comparison. Being a language and all. I would love to see these tags stay, but DRY gets abused a bit and given the recent burnination of other meta tags... So be it. I can't come up with a convincing argument to keep them around. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Jul 28 '14 at 23:36
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I couldn't think of any other good acronyms off the top of my head, but I was trying to make the point that these tags needed to be removed because they're not good tags, acronymized or not. \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Jul 28 '14 at 23:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @ckuhn203 oop is another example of an acronym tag. May it's a tag that also needs to be eliminated, maybe not, but if it does, it's because it's not helpful, not because it's an acronym. \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Jul 29 '14 at 22:14

You must log in to answer this question.

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