« first day (7 days earlier)      last day (52 days later) » 

12:26 PM
OK, so, I am hung up on this one:
0
Q: Improvising the code block

SharathWatson gives to Sherlock an array: A1,A2,⋯,AN. He also gives to Sherlock two other arrays: B1,B2,⋯,BM and C1,C2,⋯,CM. Then Watson asks Sherlock to perform the following program: for i = 1 to M do for j = 1 to N do if j % B[i] == 0 then A[j] = A[j] * C[i] endif end do end ...

 
12:40 PM
@SimonAndréForsberg why is that one not a gimme-the-code?
 
1:02 PM
Ah, good timing ;-)
 
@rolfl He's not asking for code, only for an approach. I think he'd be happy with a push in the right direction
 
and he would be happy to not have a code review at all, right?
he does not care how good his code is at doing what it does, all he really wants is to know what algorithm to use.
 
Who cares what he wants? The question is what he needs :)
 
I feel like saying: You can solve this in O(n) complexity without using BigInteger at all. When you have figured out how this should be solved .....
 
is not this a case of ?
 
1:05 PM
maybe, and maybe I am so confused.
 
@rolfl I would perhaps give him some hints about how to come to that conclusion, but I would not give him the O(n) solution directly (partially because I don't know it, although I have seen a similar question very recently around here)
 
maybe I will answer that question, and show what the right answer would be.....
 
Yes
I would recommend that
 
and why it is not a code review.
 
right answer to his CR question or right answer to his problem?
I'd recommend reviewing his code and giving him a few hints about O(n)
or at least, that's what I would do if I would answer
But you may answer as you wish
 
1:42 PM
0
A: Improvising the code block

rolflIn 1801, a guy called Carl Friedrich Gauss studied problems where the number line wrapped around, called Modular Arithmetic. In his studies, he proved that: $$ (a \times b) \% n = (a)\%n \times (b)\%n $$ Also, 1000000007 is a prime number which means that there are other benefits... And, ...

@SimonAndréForsberg - there, I solved the problem for him.
 
@rolfl How nice of you(?)
 
Is it? I am trying to decide if an answer (review?) like that is a good thing
 
1:59 PM
If "improve my algorithm" questions are on topic, then it most certainly is a good answer. So, I think that's the real question you're asking, right?
Answers like that just kinda feel dirty, but how else would you answer the question?
 
@RubberDuck you could just review the code even though he doesn't explicitly ask for one
2
 
▲▲♥
 
Isn't that kinda what we've been doing anyway to oh so many other questions?
I can't say that there's anything wrong with answering the actual question though
 
2:16 PM
@SimonAndréForsberg Absolutely true, and I do think a review of the code in addition to showing the improved algorithm makes for a better answer.
But none of that makes what was posted a bad answer.
@rofl, can you explain more about what has you concerned?
 
 
2 hours later…
4:30 PM
@rolfl FYI:
I have already asked this on StackOverflow.There was a comment to post this here as long as I have done kind of coding. — user51814 8 mins ago
 
 
2 hours later…
6:43 PM
"Hi!"
 
7:05 PM
@ANeves Hello
 
 
1 hour later…
8:15 PM
@rolfl May I remind you about this DOQ?
14
Q: Reusability vs Simplicity

Nick UdellI have a small game I'm working on with a set of interfaces: IHavePosition: public interface IHavePosition<T> { T Position { get; set; } } ICanMove: public interface ICanMove<T> : IHavePosition<T> { IEnumerable<IMotor<T>> Motors { get; set; } } ICharacter: public inter...

First you closed it, then you opened it and told me to prove you wrong, and then you ended up writing a nice answer on it yourself :)
 
8:48 PM
yeah, I am not happy with the situation, but it is certainly true that the code parts are reviewable.
I think it boils down to me feeling that some questions expect us to do work that I think is reasonable to expect them to do first.
I don't want to become that place on SE where lazy people go to get their work and thinking done for them.
 
@rolfl That I can agree with
 
I just can't find a way to make that a close reason
I expect people to bring their best work that they can do, and we can take them that next step forward.
So, if the other stuff is on topic, but not great, I can alsways just downvote the folk who I think are lazy, and answer and help the folk I think are trying, and are 'worth it'.
 
@rolfl I think that is a good approach for the moment, yes
@rolfl I think that could be a good meta question. "How can we avoid making Code Review a place where lazy people go?", with some links to questions that we want to avoid for that reason (such as the prolog question from earlier)
 
That's not really a meta question I can ask ;-)
 
@rolfl Because you're a mod? :)
Should I ask it instead?
 
8:59 PM
Let me say that differently, I am not quite mentally organized enough to ask that question tactfully ;-)
If you think you can, then sure!
 
Alright
Might make an attempt tomorrow :)
Can you help finding a couple of such questions that we want to avoid?
 
Sure.
I'll do some scanning, and then dume the links in here. Not right now though.
 

« first day (7 days earlier)      last day (52 days later) »