19
\$\begingroup\$

In my reviews a couple of points come up again and again (and again). It's like somebody is teaching bad practice out there.

As a result a lot of my reviews look very similar (or get terse with my annoyance). It would be nice if there was an area we could have canned quotes that we could link to had all the text we need for a point. Then we could peer review these canned quotes to make sure they are accurate. Update them with wisdom etc. Then when doing the review, just link to the canned quote.

Do we support anything like that? On Stack Overflow, they had added the tag to handle this. Could we introduce something similar on this site? A tag we use to curate common mistakes and the perfect review answer for them.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ IIRC there's a userscript for this, I'll try to find it. \$\endgroup\$ – Riker Mar 6 '17 at 18:58
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I have my own long list of "frequently made review suggestions" but it would be nice to be able to have a list instead. I like this idea a lot! \$\endgroup\$ – Edward Mar 6 '17 at 18:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ That's probably something we could maintain on Github / Gist as community, but I don't think the site's meta is a good place for this, since all languages/frameworks/etc. have their own common issues. Thoughts? We can throw some ideas around in chat if you like. \$\endgroup\$ – Phrancis Mar 6 '17 at 20:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ Interestingly enough, another user and I were working on some stuff for a website a while back, but it kind of died: github.com/Hosch250/FrequentlyPostedReviews \$\endgroup\$ – Hosch250 Mar 6 '17 at 21:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ I got a couple of half-baked ideas (pastebin). I don't know how I should post them, or if they're any good, so I'll leave them here. \$\endgroup\$ – Peilonrayz Mar 7 '17 at 0:29
  • 2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ How about linking to something in Stack Overflow Documentation instead? \$\endgroup\$ – 200_success Mar 7 '17 at 0:48
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @200_success That's probably not a good idea. Documentation still has a lot of problems that need fixing. Maybe once it's stabilized, but that hasn't happened yet, and probably won't for, oh, 6-8 weeks or so. \$\endgroup\$ – Fund Monica's Lawsuit Mar 7 '17 at 3:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ I like the idea of using the tag wiki. But if it is just one long page it becomes less useful as you force the user to scroll through a whole bunch of irelavant stuff. In the tag Wiki; is there a way to add anchors to the text so we can link to a specific section? \$\endgroup\$ – Martin York Mar 7 '17 at 18:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @200_success I don't think documentation is the correct place. Documentation shows you the functionality. But does not have common mistakes or common themes. \$\endgroup\$ – Martin York Mar 7 '17 at 18:57
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I would prefer not to use an offsite store. Git/pastbin/gist etc. There are a whole bunch of ownership issues. \$\endgroup\$ – Martin York Mar 7 '17 at 19:00
6
\$\begingroup\$

Experiment one did not really work.

I have rolled back the C++ tag wiki page.
With the minor addition of a couple of lines at the top:

As an experiment I am starting to collect snippets of common Code Review things that happen repeatedly here: Code Review

I have started a github repository. CodeReview

If you want to help fill out this repository (especially for other languages) I would love the help. But as a starting point you need to have reached the level of being able to edit the tag wiki for the language you want to contribute for.

Yes this is an arbitrary rule so just using it as a starting point and we can see if it goes anywhere.

\$\endgroup\$
3
\$\begingroup\$

One possible way we could approach this would be to ask (and answer) questions on Stack Overflow like this one: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1452721/why-is-using-namespace-std-considered-bad-practice

It also has the advantage that if there are different views or tradeoffs, these are likely to be more fully discussed (in the form of multiple answers) than in any one person's answer.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes we should definitely link to these articles. But when I give this link I also try and explain that why its std and not standard (so you only have to type 5 characters and that's not a big deal). \$\endgroup\$ – Martin York Mar 7 '17 at 19:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Also your text on return 0 is a couple of links and some explaining text. I would like to capture that in a single place to re-use verbatim. \$\endgroup\$ – Martin York Mar 7 '17 at 19:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ If we went this route, it'd be nice to be able to categorise these questions. Since we probably shouldn't use Stack Overflow tags to do this, do you have any ideas to achieve this? \$\endgroup\$ – Peilonrayz Mar 25 '17 at 23:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've added my return 0 text as an answer on StackOverflow: stackoverflow.com/questions/204476/… \$\endgroup\$ – Edward Apr 22 '17 at 11:39
-1
\$\begingroup\$

OK I don't think we have a real consensus.
But as an experiment I have started editing the tag wiki for C++.

Advantages:

  • It's on site.
  • The previous content was an outdated copy of what was already on SO (so no loss)
  • People with the appropriate privileges can edit it (and help)

Disadvantages:

  • There is no ability in markdown to use anchors.
    So you can only link to the page not to a specific part of the page.

Quick Link: C++ Tag Wiki

OK. Even with just the basic layout I think this is already failing, because of the lack of anchors. We need to be able to link to specific pieces of advice.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I believe it will kinda bloat the wiki. May be there is another place to keep and maintain the quotes? Also the icons seem to be inaccessible for me and may be others (my location is Kazakhstan, Astana, no vpn, but from university campus). \$\endgroup\$ – Incomputable Mar 25 '17 at 7:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It seems like the server that was used for icons doesn't allow hotlinking. May be it would be better to find some free icons that we could upload to se itself? \$\endgroup\$ – Incomputable Mar 25 '17 at 10:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ About C headers: they are gonna get undeprecated in C++20, link to paper. This is the answer under which there is a comment from Howard Hinnant that it is a proposal for C+20. I'm not sure if it will get accepted, but certainly the wiki entry could be edited. \$\endgroup\$ – Incomputable Mar 25 '17 at 12:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ You can't link to sections in the tag wiki, take your 'Header Files' link, it goes to the top of the page. Also the wiki is more than likely going to get bloated. \$\endgroup\$ – Peilonrayz Mar 25 '17 at 23:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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