2
\$\begingroup\$

Question in question: Printing a multiplication table

As Simon pointed out in the comments, the question is not so much about "Please review how I am solving the problem of printing a multiplication table given x", but on the definitions of "processing/object allocation inefficiencies".

Although I have given an answer related to the code (how differently it can be written, and how my thinking may answer the original question), I don't think that's a sufficient answer given the OP's intentions. Hence, all the more I feel like this question might better be relocated back to SO, or maybe even 'swung' to Programmers.SE. In other words, I think it's less contrived to think of this as a question about the implementation design, than the code itself.

Any thoughts about this?

\$\endgroup\$

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
3
\$\begingroup\$

Actually, I had flagged that question on Stack Overflow myself, requesting for migration to Code Review. In my opinion, it is a classic for us: it works, but the employer didn't like it, why not?

As for the specific question about processing inefficiency and object allocation inefficiency, I didn't think that they were directly relevant to this particular code sample, but were more of a diplomatic way of them saying "why are you making this so complicated?" (Remember, those were the general feedback he got for the entire test, of which the multiplication table exercise was just one of the tasks.)

In my opinion, the best way to help the author is through Code Review, and I hope that we'll see his other rejected solutions turned into Code Review questions too.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ The author asks: What is object allocation inefficiency(I didn't use any static variables), there is no occurrence of object allocations in the code he has shown. \$\endgroup\$
    – Simon Forsberg
    Apr 10, 2015 at 9:57
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @SimonAndréForsberg String concatenation results in object allocation. However, the object allocations in this code are entirely reasonable. There are much more important problems, as I've noted in my answer. I think that the object allocation concern is generic feedback about some other code he wrote, and is thus largely irrelevant to this question. \$\endgroup\$
    – 200_success
    Apr 10, 2015 at 10:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ "and is thus largely irrelevant to this question" - which is exactly why I didn't think migrating it to Code Review would be a good idea. That part is a Stack Overflow question, as it is totally unrelated to the code shown. \$\endgroup\$
    – Simon Forsberg
    Apr 10, 2015 at 10:05
1
\$\begingroup\$

If you feel that it still belongs on a different site, feel free to vote to close. That will automatically reject the migration, and the origin site's mods would have to be notified if the question should be unlocked and reopened over there. Bearing that in mind, we would have to be very sure that it should've stayed on the originating site.

However, if it belongs on another site, a mod on the target site (us) will have to handle that. If you do feel that it belongs on a different site, then flag for moderator attention as such.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Belonging on a different site is not a close reason!! (as I and nhgrif often say to SO users...) \$\endgroup\$
    – Simon Forsberg
    Apr 10, 2015 at 9:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SimonAndréForsberg well actually... it is... It just shouldn't be used as the solitary close reason. \$\endgroup\$
    – Vogel612
    Apr 10, 2015 at 10:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Vogel612 Voting to close as "belongs on another site on the SE network" migrates the question, not closes it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Simon Forsberg
    Apr 10, 2015 at 10:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's still under: "Closing > off-topic > other > [this belongs on a different site in the network]" in the flagging (and closing) dialogue \$\endgroup\$
    – Vogel612
    Apr 10, 2015 at 10:37
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Vogel612 Yes, but importantly, unlike all the other "close" reasons, the migration reasons never actually CLOSE the question. It's one thing to MIGRATE a question from Site A to Site B. It's a completely different ballpark when you're talking about CLOSING a question on Site A because you think it belongs on Site B. So even though those migration options are under the "close" menu, they're not actually close reasons or options. They're migration options placed under the close menu. \$\endgroup\$
    – nhgrif
    Apr 10, 2015 at 10:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SimonAndréForsberg: I didn't mean that literally (especially not the typical custom close reason). But in any case, I agree with nhgrif. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal
    Apr 10, 2015 at 12:32
1
\$\begingroup\$

I didn't want that question migrated here because I don't think it is off-topic on Stack Overflow. And the question "What is object allocation inefficiency" is not related to the code at all, which makes me believe that it is a general question.

That said, now that the question is here I don't see a reason to make a bigger mess of it by migrating it off somewhere else. Either we close the question here (with a valid off-topic reason) or we leave it open and answer it the Code Review way.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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