Timeline for Which programming languages are appropriate here?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 15, 2020 at 16:10 | history | edited | Tim | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Dec 15, 2020 at 16:08 | comment | added | Tim | If you want to include Unix/Linux system programming questions into the scope, It is a request by more than just you. Please keep up the push, because changes always happen from the bottom up, and give some upvote here unix.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5697, so that it can become visible again or avoid becoming invisible again. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 15:49 | comment | added | kbulgrien | It is hard to think that "This isn't a site for asking programming questions. It's well understood that pure programming questions should be moved to stackoverflow.com." is unclear. If a question is about solving something particularly in a *nix domain, why would anyone care what language is used to ask or answer a question that isn't about the language itself? The only fuzziness I can see about what is on/off topic is that questions about the language itself are apparently allowed if the language is a *nix scripting language, and, that that fuzziness is increased by WSL / MSYS, etc. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 8:34 | vote | accept | Philip Couling | ||
| Aug 3, 2020 at 8:28 | comment | added | Philip Couling | @muru I honestly don't know what you find unclear about this question. I think you initially misread. I edited out your title change because it wasn't what I'd intended and it misled others. I edited in two more sections to clarify. The last section makes it as clear as I can: A single question provokes 1 of 3 responses (not necessarily answers). To chose between them I need to understand acceptable scope of both question and answers. Yes this topic is a muddy one, that's why I'm asking! I want others to help me clarify the unclear! | |
| Aug 3, 2020 at 7:58 | history | edited | fra-san | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed a few misspellings
|
| Aug 3, 2020 at 7:22 | answer | added | peterh | timeline score: 7 | |
| Aug 3, 2020 at 1:30 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 7, 2020 at 3:03 | |||||
| Aug 3, 2020 at 1:14 | comment | added | muru | "When an OP rejects your edit, please do not edit it back in!" Correspondingly, when a user repeatedly does try to edit, understand that something in your framing isn't working right, and you should reconsider it. | |
| Aug 2, 2020 at 11:57 | comment | added | Philip Couling | @muru You've rather taken my words out of context there. "When asking questions it' clear enough that <some clear stuff>" was immediately followed by "But I wouldn't be so sure about perl or expect.". Then "tools we should stick to when offering answers" was immediately followed by "And, if bash questions are on topic, which other languages should we regard as on-topic". When an OP rejects your edit, please do not edit it back in! Both answers addressed the scope with regard to questions. I, the OP, must be allowed to choose the way I frame my own quesiton! | |
| Aug 2, 2020 at 11:29 | history | edited | Philip Couling | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Aug 2, 2020 at 8:20 | comment | added | muru | @PhilipCouling what of the edit? The edited portion still says "the scope of answers". Why, then, do you say "When asking questions, it's clear enough...", "Then when giving answers I'm even less certain", "Is there any list of which languages / tools we should stick to when offering answers" (which in particular is what my edit of the title restated), all of which don't match up with your later edits? It just seems you're muddling the topic; perhaps you should clear up what exactly is in your mind, and re-edit the whole post to clear up the muddle. | |
| Aug 2, 2020 at 8:09 | comment | added | Philip Couling | @muru please re-read. It's about BOTH asking and answering. This was highlighted by Stephen Kitt in his answer. See his edits: unix.meta.stackexchange.com/posts/5625/revisions | |
| Aug 2, 2020 at 7:24 | comment | added | muru | The question is clearly about answering, so why remove that from the title? | |
| Aug 2, 2020 at 7:23 | history | rollback | muru |
Rollback to Revision 6
|
|
| Jul 31, 2020 at 16:19 | history | edited | Philip Couling | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 31, 2020 at 16:13 | answer | added | Stephen Kitt | timeline score: 18 | |
| Jul 31, 2020 at 12:57 | history | edited | Philip Couling | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 17 characters in body
|
| Jul 31, 2020 at 12:51 | history | edited | Philip Couling | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1537 characters in body
|
| Jul 31, 2020 at 3:15 | history | edited | muru | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 30, 2020 at 21:47 | answer | added | JdeBP | timeline score: 15 | |
| Jul 30, 2020 at 15:37 | comment | added | Philip Couling | I've always believed programming questions centred on *nix system calls are on topic here, as long as the focus is on the OS behaviour. That is discussing OS behaviour with regard to almost everything in man 2 ... is likely to be viewed as on-topic. But it's much harder to write a question based on something in man 3 ... and remain on-topic. | |
| Jul 30, 2020 at 15:24 | comment | added | fra-san | Thought: does the mere presence of a language make a question a programming question? (And, symmetrically, an answer an inappropriate answer?) Asking "which languages" may suggest it does (or at least can do), and that questions about shell scripting/language are on-topic just because the scope of U&L explicitly includes shell scripting. My feeling is that two dimensions have to be considered: how close the question is to "Using or administering a *nix [system]" and how much programming competence is reuquired, regardless of the language(s). | |
| Jul 30, 2020 at 11:29 | history | edited | Philip Couling | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jul 30, 2020 at 9:29 | history | edited | Philip Couling | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Jul 30, 2020 at 9:24 | history | asked | Philip Couling | CC BY-SA 4.0 |