1
\$\begingroup\$

I came upon this question, a while back. TL;DR: the user is trying to implement a custom List, and does not understand when Unity complains that it does not have the required interface to complete it's Sort() method.

I identified the problem, quickly. I have had the same problem, in general programming. I also know the solution, but here's the problem: the entire subject of the matter (question and answer) are very generic to programming (or maybe C#, rather).


I flagged the question, and tried to suggest the user post at StackOverflow. The user still hasn't received an answer, and the question was not closed.

Recently, another user commented on the question, saying that generic programming questions are tolerated, if they are in the context of game programming. It was decided, here on meta, though they could not find the link.

My understanding has been that if you can take out the game development element of the question, without changing the question and relative answers, it is a generic programming question.

Ultimately, the user is asking why Sort() is not working. They need to implement a method or two that compares whatever primary value their class contains, but this all has very little to nothing to do with game development.


Am I wrong, here, and this sort of question is acceptable? If it is acceptable, I will actually answer it.

\$\endgroup\$
6
\$\begingroup\$

Personally, I have recently come to the conclusion that our policy here is far too draconian and have been refraining from unilaterally closing (most of) these questions as a means of trying to gauge how much the community actually feels about the issue.

I generally will only unilaterally close such a question right now if it's purely a compiler error or similar syntax issue. I feel like the post in question is fine here.

I haven't really had enough time to formulate what I think a good revised policy should be, which is why I haven't bothered to float the issue here yet. But offhand I think I'd be perfectly fine with a policy that permitted these questions except in the case of questions asking specifically about syntax issues.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ That's good enough, for me. \$\endgroup\$ – Gnemlock Jan 5 '17 at 21:52
5
\$\begingroup\$

My opinion is that Stack Overflow exists for those questions. Having redundant Q&A for the same questions doesn't seem helpful to me.

But I'd be willing to go along with the rest of the community if they decide we should allow them.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ The gist of my thought that we should be more lenient is that StackOverflow is so busy that it's a great place for a question to go to die. And in general SE is okay with there being some overlap in questions among established sites (for example, vim related questions are on topic on at least three sites and get good traffic and answers without a lot of rules-lawyering about who should close what). To me it seems like it probably won't hurt us, since we certainly do have the expertise to answer most of these, and it might make the community more accessible and useful. \$\endgroup\$ – Josh Jan 5 '17 at 23:27
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "make the community more accessible and useful" Yup. I often think it's so sad to close questions asked by new game programmers that are trying to learn, "sorry dude, don't ask here". I wouldn't be surprised that it turns them away forever most of the time. \$\endgroup\$ – Vaillancourt Jan 6 '17 at 11:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .