Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Activity for Lundin
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #278780 |
Why did you think that RAM was an irrelevant tag to a question discussing different memory segments in RAM (as opposed to NVM)? (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278792 |
The intention is to make things like Doxygen and Javadocs on-topic. No, you can't ask questions about that on Writing... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278790 |
This is meant to label the endless "which language is best", "which compiler should I use", "where can I find a library about..." questions. And now you mean to make them on topic? (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278788 |
Way too vaguely phrased in my opinion. We could however say something about copy/paste homework dumps. I've been meaning to suggest that such dumps should always lead to user suspension since they are rude, but that's for another post. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278785 |
Also if we can't narrow the scope enough, I don't think the site will attract enough experts - they tend to shy away from "everything about software & stuff" sites were random hobbyist trade bad advise with each other. We already have some 100 sites like that on the Internet. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278785 |
This isn't about first time visitors as much as defining what the site is actually about & provide guidance to moderators. I'm thinking the site will be fairly tolerant, but in case someone decides to close bad questions, they need some community consensus to prove the point if someone starts arguing... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278752 |
Similarly, "formula" is another garbage tag which is way too generic and ambiguous. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278728 |
Mandatory pun: should we start over with a clean sheet? (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278648 |
@Alexei This post could be used in the long term too. I don't think we should change anything unless there's strong community consensus, whatever that means in practice (+5 score?). If something is updated, a moderator might want to leave an edit comment in the answer along the lines of: "Status-com... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278708 |
I think this is a hypothetical question since there's almost always something to say about code if enough of it is posted. If that isn't the case, well, _why_ is it fine? This or that is good practice, so point that out. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278666 |
Yeah good call, the actual core of the site is missing. I liked my definition from the previous discussion thread: "Specific programming problems, where the poster includes their own attempts to solve or debug the problem." But the proposed change in this answer works too. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278649 |
@r~~ No the intention is to not allow questions of the nature "Which language is fastest, C# or Java?". With no specifics or "best" criteria what-so-ever. "Fastest" in this case could mean a whole lot of things. But if the question goes into details about differences of lets say the underlying VM on... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278648 |
We may also assume that the poster of each answer is in favour of that proposal. We can't vote on our own posts, so imagine that there is an invisible +1 vote on each proposal posted :) (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278628 |
@Alexei I made a feedback post [here](https://software.codidact.com/questions/278648). Hopefully we can centralize discussion about specific items there and update once there seems to be a strong consensus. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278628 |
For example, I disagree with "asking to explain what a certain code does" as off-topic. These should be fine most of the time, long as they are narrow enough. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278628 |
I was rather hoping that we can break out individual rules of my draft in answers, vote for them, then edit the question until we come up with some manner of consensus. Because by looking at votes on the question, it's hard to tell what specific items people agree or disagree with. Maybe we can creat... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278624 |
Well, if it is off-topic then we have to define what's off-topic or not. "Where do I buy..." ought to be off-topic, or "Where to download...", or "Where to find documentation..." I think those are the main reasons for the corresponding rule on SO. "Which is best, x or y, given specification..." is pr... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278606 |
Yep, looks good as far as I'm concerned :) If tool recommendations are to be off-topic, we should probably come up with some examples of on-topic/off-topic and place such in the community help. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278606 |
Pretty sure it would be closed on SO, they have very low tolerance for "which tools exist". Though if that phrase is simply changed to "how to document SQL DDL" then it should be under the (supposedly) broader scope of this site, which includes software documentation questions and also perhaps "what'... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278606 |
The question is if tool recommendation questions are on-topic or off-topic to begin with. This [draft proposal](https://software.codidact.com/questions/277235), which is arguably not community consensus (yet) would have made this question off-topic, for the reason "Off-topic: Recommendation questions... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278591 |
I've repeatedly pushed for giving this kind of feedback in private channels, rather than in public comment fields etc. Humans are much more likely to respond well to critique if given in private. We all have lots of experience from SE; what did not work out there was "public shaming as moderation too... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278470 |
@Alexei That was a proposal for a _Software Engineering site_ similar to the one on Stack Ex. Notably, it lists "Implementing, trouble-shooting or explaining specific code" as off-topic, because that would make the scope too dang huge. Now the current site here is both the "Software Engineering" and... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278470 |
I would have preferred site proposition -> scope -> posting rules -> temporary moderator nominations -> launch, so that we had a chance to truly make something better than SO. Now, it is very far from what was discussed on the old forums last winter. It is what it is. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278470 |
@r~~ The problem is rather that you get all manner of whale enthusiasts joining too - marine biologists, anti-whaling enthusiasts, whale hunters and a couple of bird watchers. If the bird watchers are numerous and loud enough, then that's what you'll end up with instead. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278560 |
I'm flattered, thank you, but not interested in a moderator position. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278470 |
I made some attempts to gather consensus about this once the site was launched, but there was neither consensus nor enough interest. And if there isn't even enough interest to come up with a site scope, well then perhaps there wasn't enough interest to launch the site-about-something to begin with. T... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278470 |
Scope is of course subject to change as the site matures, but there needs to be some foundation upon site launch. Instead of "lets release a random programming site and see what happens". As it stands, everyone seems to have some vague, personal opinion of what the site is about. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278470 |
The complete lack of response might indicate that it's a good idea to assign (temporary) moderators and coming up with a site scope _before_ launching a new community. Seems we have neither. What should the moderators do other than enforcing CoC? This site has been floating around here for many month... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278173 |
@EJP That is evidently wrong. Did you run the code in the question? https://godbolt.org/z/4q74Gh. Since the output is, as proven, `a b c 7`, the code is executed according to order of evaluation, not according to operator precedence, or the output would be `b c a`. Formally, ISO 9899:2018 6.8 states ... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278468 |
@Monica Cellio Can each category get custom close reasons? See the discussion in comments below my posted answer. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278472 |
@jrh As for close reasons, maybe we should bring that up on general meta as a feature request and discuss a close vote mechanism that gives category-specific reasons? So that when you close vote a post in the Code review category, you get Code review-specific close reasons only. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278472 |
@jrh I would agree that a site of its own would be ideal, when we can gather the user base for it. Which we can't currently, we can't even gather enough for general programming Q&A. We shouldn't open up ghost town communities, so the idea is to host code review as a category here for now, then let it... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278450 |
Isn't the biggest problem here indeed the rebalancing of the tree after each insertion? Algorithm theory typically fails to take that in account and relies on rebalancing happening instantly through "magic". I suppose the most efficient would be to add a whole branch of a contiguous sequence and then... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278390 |
@Stephen C My point is rather that registers _do_ play a part in that abstract model, because on some very low-end computers they replace the stack entirely. And on any computer, registers may be used instead of stack storage because of optimization or calling convention. As explained in the answer ... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278393 |
@Monica Cellio Ok. Seems a bit cumbersome to monitor _n_ number of metas instead of one, though? (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278393 |
Sounds like a network-wide problem and arguably it is a bug. Might want to post this on https://meta.codidact.com/ so that it gets attention from the right people. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278390 |
"In short, register and cache storage don't play any part..." Well, they do. Because not all computers have a stack: there's very low end microcontrollers that are stripped down of everything to reduce price, typically used for consumer electronics. On such admittedly rather exotic computers, you onl... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278385 |
This was about C, but C++ behaves the very same up to version C++14. In C++17 and later, as well as all versions of Java, the assignment operator has well-defined sequencing, making `i=i++;` etc well-defined. But C++17 and beyond still does not allow completely wild stuff like `i++ + ++i`. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278190 |
@jrh The main issue besides non-existent structure was quality. There was various excited students writing examples that were just plain bad or incorrect. See the various crappy tutorial sites out there as reference for how easy it is to get things wrong. I can relate to the students writing all this... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278265 |
But a reasonable speed vs program size compromise could be a 16 bytes large nibble-based one, which doesn't make the program that much slower, but saves 64kb executable size. An answer can list all sensible options if the requirements are listed. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278265 |
@Peter Taylor Of course, but you can list which requirements are the most important. Such as for example 1) execution speed (most important) 2) RAM use (important) 3) executable size (less important). If the question then is how to implement some search algorithm for a 16 bit integer key, the pure s... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278277 |
This particular community will need a number of specific close reasons though, such as "the question is looking for debugging help but didn't provide the minimum code necessary to reproduce the problem" etc. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278238 |
I agree with you overall, we should have a list of valid close reasons, as per community consensus. We can't have users closing questions based on personal whims or believes. Ideally the close reasons should be well-defined and maybe we can also give a number of examples of what such an off-topic que... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278237 |
The problem is rather that the community has yet to define what's actually on scope here. I gave it a try here: https://software.codidact.com/questions/277235, but it sits at +5/-2 so hardly "community consensus". I think we might need a retake on that, maybe let the community vote on individual deta... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278203 |
In case of Windows, it's a method provided by the OS, but can be used to modify the behavior of other programs. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278194 |
Also, in the early stages of a new site, self-answered Q&A can be used to get the activity going and demonstrate what kind of questions that are suitable for the site. Or at the very least show that the site is alive, if there are not enough people asking questions. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278197 |
Also, all hooks are not used for code injection. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278173 |
Btw keep in mind that this was all decided in 1989-1990. Compilers back then were pretty horrible at optimizing code in general. `register` as a sensible manual optimization still made perfect sense. Other such primitive, manual tricks like `inline` had not even been considered. Modern C compilers in... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278173 |
@Derek Elkins Source & quote added. (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278173 |
@Derek Elkins That's how the rationale was explained to me by someone who was a member of the ANSI C/C90 committee. ISO in particular is very picky with not giving a particular technology an advantage/disadvantage. (That's also the reason C supports dysfunctional things like one's complement and sign... (more) |
— | over 3 years ago |