I'm here for a little more than one year now but still very new to the
how-to of the place, and a recent comment in this post made me think that maybe I was overstepping my boundaries.
I'm not well versed in that many languages but I have lot of experience programming (I'm a senior dev) and algorithm being what it is; I always answered questions in a specific language with general programming advice by taking the time to check if this and that function existed, how they worked and if the advice could apply, but not the entire "best practice recommendation" (I may if it's a new job but not just for an answer in this forum, no offense intended ^^).
I thought that by just signalling it honestly as a proof of concept (like I did in the answer above and in this one) OP and the community could correct me in case I missed some obvious specificity of the language (well in the hangman
\\ case it's more of an oversight on my part really ^^") and that it was still better than no advice at all.
Is this true? Do I instead need to stay away from question using language I don't master? Do you prefer potentially improvable answers who may be and stay "wrong" if nobody double-checks them or no answer at all?