11

I can find no use-case whatsoever which would require this tag. We all want our code to be 'better' which implies cleaner as well. If OP is worried about how clean his code is, an explanation in the question would be enough. It doesn't warrant a tag. We don't need cleancode, we don't need dry, we don't need any of those. This is just one variant of an old ...


11

Sure. If we intended to delete the tag, and yet it keeps getting recreated, then blacklisting seems like the logical course of action.


10

I've blacklisted design. Users who try to use the tag will get this warning:


10

Yes, blacklist it. As stated above: We already have separate tags for the most common data structures, so there's no reason for this one to keep coming back. Additionally, to define a post as being about data structures is too generic to be useful or informational. I can't imagine anyone would follow that tag, as it represents such a broad concept/category....


8

Yes! ...except now I wonder why it wasn't blacklisted in the first place. Anyway, naming is absolutely a meta-tag that conveys concerns that should be expresed in plain English as part of the OP. And we don't need that meta-tag.


7

Yes. I've personally removed this tag at least once since the discussion you mention was marked status-completed. I'm sure I'm not the only one. There's no reason to keep burning it over and over. Blacklist it.


6

Yes please, blacklist design.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible