Code Review - Discussion about help vs. review

2:31 AM

@TazMan - you may want to head over to the 2nd monitor - chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/8595/the-2nd-monitor

also, you may want to be a bit more circumspect about demanding a review like that

3:07 PM

codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/60722/…

Now deleted.

Now here! ;-)

First of all, I don't know why the question has -1

especially when it does not have a comment

Possibly this:

> is there a better way to do that, without instantiate each time a new DecimalFormat object?

in The 2nd Monitor, 9 mins ago, by Vogel612

@CaptainObvious and self-deleted after I VTC'd as unclear..

> 0,024849302 and i have to format it into -> 0,024 and then multiply * 1000 so the result is 24

So the goal of the code is clear.

There is working code

The code really does need a review. I can see several things to say

I'm saying on-topic

3:19 PM

Me too... I was preparing to put up an answer when itwas deleted.

But, this:

And there is a much better way to do it

in The 2nd Monitor, 11 mins ago, by Vogel612

it was a better fit for SO anyways..

I don't agree with that

in The 2nd Monitor, 7 mins ago, by Vogel612

@rolfl feature-request not-wanting-a-review

@Vogel612 Why would you say that?

> is there a better way to do that, without instantiate each time a new DecimalFormat object?

3:21 PM

As it happens, there is one thing that is unclear about it.

That's not a feature-request, it is a request for doing the same thing in a better way

but not what @Vogel612 says ;-)

Perhaps the question doesn't specifically ask for a review, but it sure does need one. And making reviews is what we do around here.

> DecimalFormat provides rounding modes defined in RoundingMode for formatting. By default, it uses RoundingMode.HALF_EVEN.

yet, he claims that:

> 0,024849302 and i have to format it into -> 0,024

@SimonAndréForsberg it's not ready to accept anything else but "how can I change this one thing"

Heslacher

3:22 PM

@SimonAndréForsberg The code itself didn't do what the OP thought it does. Just printing 0.0

and, as far as I can tell, the format #,##0 will format to 0,025

No, it won't..

I guess @Vogel612 VTC'd because it wanted a completely different implementation of the same thing, instead of specifically asking for a review. But I would not say that the question is off-topic because of that. The user is here, sure he wants a better way to do it, but a simple review of his code + a suggestion (without code) to simply parse it first and then multiply by 1000 and round down would accomplish that well

@Heslacher is right.

code does not work as designed.

@SimonAndréForsberg FWIW I VTC'd as unclear...

Also IMO the way he asks is SO and not CR.

@Vogel612 That is true, and that is acceptable.

3:27 PM

he limits the scope of reviews to a single aspect, and thus this question is off-topic as of question 6

@Vogel612 I think those questions "Is there a better way?" are both SO and CR. It might be on-topic on SO, but I would not say it is off-topic here.

@SimonAndréForsberg but then our Question 6 isn't placed well.

OK, I am satisfied that this question should be closed, and am happy with it deleted too. The reason is different to what I expected, but there's not much point in using it as a test case for the review&help debate.

@rolfl agreed

@Vogel612 That's not the first time that happens, and yet we still manage to keep such questions open anyway. Even if they "break" question 6 (Do I want reviews about anything?) answers can still review the code.

@Vogel612 That might be true

Why on earth did he have a number, formatted it as a string, and then converted it back to a double?

3:29 PM

@SimonAndréForsberg While It is acceptable to try to direct reviewers to a single aspect of the code, it's not acceptable to limit them to it

@SimonAndréForsberg because double v = (long)(input * 1000.0) is too hard?

(assuming truncation as the OP says in the text, rather than rounding which he implemented in the format).

Heslacher

or
Distance *=1000;
System.out.println(Distance.intValue());

@rolfl or because some ****** decided to just giving him strings from somewhere.

and he didn't have a double to begin with.

A: Can we ask reviewers to *not* focus on something?

@Vogel612 If he didn't have a double, why would he use String s = df.format(Distance); ?

8

Yes. It is fine to ask reviewers to preferably avoid commenting on something. Of course the reviewers can comment about it anyway, and then it will be up to the community - and the original poster - to determine if the review is helpful or not. If you're not interested in comments about naming,...

@SimonAndréForsberg I'll go kill some baby unicorns and take a shower :(

3:34 PM

I find the unicorn blood is rejuvenating for the skin, and leaves a fresh lustre in my hair!

or not... why can't I delete my own message???

2-minute grace period expired.

@rolfl hrmph.

@SimonAndréForsberg That's the other direction...

I'd rather quote Mat here:

> Now, if I say I have a performance concern and I don't want to hear about anything other than performance... then I'm not asking for a code review, I'm asking for a performance tune-up.

IMO that's more fitting of what that java question ~~is.~~ was.

@Vogel612 It is interesting though that there's not much difference in voting between my and Mat's answer

(Which is why I still haven't accepted an answer)

@SimonAndréForsberg Well the core of both answers suggest the same, namely:

> You can ask them to exclude some aspects, because of xy, but they can still review it.

Your answer doesn't even touch upon that aspect.

3:39 PM

@Vogel612 Isn't that precisely what my answer is saying?

RubberDuck

@rolfl I try not to be star happy in this room, but I couldn't resist.

@SimonAndréForsberg careful.

> ignore (xy, ab) != focusOn(cd,ef)

especially when ignore is optional.

@SimonAndréForsberg - as it happens, i had upvoted Mat's answer, and not upvoted yours.

well I upvoted the top 3 answers, as the in core state the same.

I just read them through both again, and I don't think I will change my mind (here I go disagreeing with you, agian ;-) .... but the reason is similar to what I have with this help vs. review.

Asker intent (and priority).

3:42 PM

the only answer that highlights the "limiting to" aspect is the Mug's though

If the asker asks for helpt to fix something, and the review is secondary, then I think it is off topic.

If the asker asks for a performance tune up, and explicitly says that's all they want, then any review is secondary.

if the asker does not want a review as their top priority, then why should we think it is on topic?

there's that close reason on SO / MSO / MSE: blatantly off-topic (it's not about ....)

there should be something similar here IMO.

though blatantly would definitely be wrong.

@rolfl Fix something = Code doesn't produce expected results / Work as intended = Off topic

Agreed.

@rolfl Because top priority or not, it's still on the agenda

3:46 PM

Take the Enumerable.intersect(setA,setB) thing, the priority is to make that decision, not to get a review. They need help deciding.

Bah, actually, I don't have time for this right now.

@rolfl "the Enumerable.intersect(setA,setB) thing" doesn't say much as I think we had quite some example questions there.

Q: Ruby: What is the best way to declare mutex and mutex.synchronize shortcut?

Agreed. There's better examples.

RubberDuck

4:10 PM

Grey area question. I don't think it's example code like the comment suggests, but it does seem to be a design question.

1

I am using mutex in my ruby code across many files. to deal with that I created a singleton class with one mutex object that I use all the time: class LockBlock include Singleton def initialize @lock = Mutex.new end def lock @lock end end I have two questions: Is this the...

ruby singleton

Also, seemingly relevant Meta SE question.

6

Q: What does it mean for a question to be "answerable?"

The "don't ask" page of the Help Center contains one sentence that I've always felt captures the essential ingredients for a truly great question on the network: You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. I find myself quoting this line a l...

discussion asking-questions

@RubberDuck Not real code in my opinion. Lacking usage example. Unclear. I don't know Ruby though.

@SimonAndréForsberg usage example is clear.

Application wide synchronized lock

Perhaps I should have just said "I don't know Ruby though." :)

it's something like synchronized (Singleton.getInstance().getLock()) {

at least if I understand it correctly..

RubberDuck

4:30 PM

I think it's lacking context (unclear) so probably not a good test case for design. Okay.

The meta though... I think that strikes to the core of all this. What is answerable and what is not.

Touches on the unsettling idea of "I don't know, but I know it when I see it."

4:59 PM

> Although this is compressing a twelve-hundred-and-some-odd-word long post into a single sentence, I think the message is rather clear: The difference between a question and a discussion or poll is that a real question is seeking to discover some particular truth. The other type of "question" is merely seeking to learn what other people think.

nhgrif

9:42 PM

I don't like that we're putting so much weight on the way users are phrasing the plain-English parts of their questions. All other reasons aside, it puts non-native-English-speakers at a significant disadvantage.

2