Questions that are constructive but still tend to attract debate

Question

According to the FAQ, non-constructive questions are those that "will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion." What happens when a good question is asked which is useful to others, can be answered based on "facts, references, or specific expertise," but still has lots of potential for debate, arguments, and extended discussion?

A good example of this is What can I do with dynamic typing that I can not do with static typing. In the original question, the OP is confused about why dynamic typing is such a great thing and asks for "a real world example where dynamic typing allows me to do something I can't do with static typing." I admit it is a sensitive question that will probably attract debate and long-winded discussion.

However, keep in mind that static vs. dynamic typing is not what the question is about, though some people will invariably get off-topic and start arguing about it. The question is about what extra practical functionality dynamic typing can offer. The question itself is legitimate, useful, and can be answered in a constructive, factual manner if we don't get off topic.

Or have I interpreted the FAQ incorrectly?

EDIT:

A great example is the currently highest-voted answer by Robery Harvey: long discussion in the comments, but off-topic. The next highest answer by ridiculous_fish (better answer in my opinion) has zero comments, is not off-topic, explains "why," and is very constructive. I don't see why such a question should be closed if it produces nice constructive answers like that.

Answer 1

Depending on the reader's frame of mind, that question either looks like someone genuinely wanting to know the advantages of dynamic typing, or like a static typing fanboi disguising a rant about dynamic typing in the form of a question. The reason it looks bad is he framed it as a comparison, made his first paragraph a complaint, and worded the question in the second paragraph almost as a dare for someone to prove him wrong.

I don't think he was intentionally soliciting debate on static vs. dynamic typing, asking purely for discussion, ranting, or wanting a list of opinions. It can be very difficult to word such a question in a way that meets the inscrutable standards of this site. Technically minded people often have difficulty noticing subtle distinctions like tone in their writing.

The post is locked, so I can't edit, but below is my attempt on what he really meant to ask. Maybe if a moderator agrees, it can be reopened.

What functionality does dynamic typing allow?

I've been using python for a few days now and I think I understand the difference between dynamic and static typing. What I don't understand is under what circumstances it would be preferred. It is flexible and readable, but at the expense of more runtime checks and additional required unit testing.

Aside from non-functional criteria like flexibility and readability, what reasons are there to choose dynamic typing? What can I do with dynamic typing that isn't possible otherwise? What specific code example can you think of that illustrates a concrete advantage of dynamic typing?

Answer 2

It's a very interesting question, and I'm a bit disappointed we couldn't find a way to keep it constructive.

Minutes after the question was posted, one of our most senior members (by reputation) detected its not constructive nature and flagged it, asking for the "insufficient explanation" post notice (that's still visible on the question). I saw the flag seconds later, while examining the question and debating whether I should close it or not. I decided to add the post notice, hoping answerers would take it into consideration and not just answer for the sake of answering.

Few hours later I checked back, read the five or six answers that were posted at the time, and again hovered over the close button. There were a couple of answers that completely missed the point of the question, and the whole thread was starting to feel like a typical not constructive one. Again, I didn't close it, as the two technically inaccurate answers were getting downvotes and polite comments explaining what was wrong with them, and I was hoping the answerers would get the point. And they did, and removed their answers.

So, I checked back a third time, there were no flags, only one close vote, three good answers and a great one. At the time it seemed that we had salvaged the question, and decided to share it around, as I typically do with all questions I find extremely interesting. And it exploded, 14.4K views, 20 answers (+3 deleted ones). Unfortunately the later answers are quite poor (imho) and repetitive, I have no idea why people kept answering a question that was already sufficiently answered (again, imho), but they did.

Perhaps I should have closed the question right when I first saw it (minutes after it was posted), or when the flag asking for the post notice appeared (it was a good hint that someone else thought the question was attractive to poor answers). My spider sense was tingling every time I checked back, but until the last time (when the question was already closed), there seemed to be good reasons to let it open for at least a while more, and since there were no flags and I only spotted a single close vote, I happily reverted to user mode for this one instead of dropping the mod hammer.

But right now, the question has more poor answers than good ones, and lots of off topic(ish) discussion in comments. We didn't really manage to pull this one off, and I probably should have protected answerers from wasting their time by closing the question early on. We can theorize for hours on how the question could work, but in practice it didn't and it did generate debate, arguments, polling, and extended discussion.

There might be ways to accommodate and protect such questions, but we haven't found them yet. Yes, the question is extremely interesting, and perhaps on a different day it might have attracted a whole different crowd and a very limited set of amazing answers, but right now it's a typical not constructive thread, with tons of off topic / not constructive elements in answers and in comments. Shame it turned into a crapfest, but it did, and unfortunately I can't think of anything we could do to salvage it now.

Answer 3

The FAQ says it all. It's also discussed in a blog post. Constructive subjective questions meet most, if not all, of the criteria for good subjective questions. If there is extended discussion, then there are many equally valid answers or the question might be pushing other questions off the site where they won't get answered as quickly.

What kind of questions should I not ask here?

You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page. To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where …

• every answer is equally valid: “What’s your favorite ______?”
• your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: “I use ______ for ______, what do you use?”
• there is no actual problem to be solved: “I’m curious if other people feel like I do.” we are being asked an open-ended, hypothetical question: “What if ______ happened?”
• it is a rant disguised as a question: “______ sucks, am I right?”

If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here. If your motivation is “I would like others to explain ______ to me”, then you are probably OK.

Extended discussions are more suitable for a forum or a chat room, not a question and answer site. You can make your own chat rooms on Stack Exchange sites for particular discussions, and most site (including Programmers) has a general catch-all chat room. These chat rooms are archived and can be linked to as references in answers to appropriate questions, from your blog, or on your choice of social network (which might also be an appropriate place for an extended discussion).