There seems to be some topics that come up repeatedly. Can there be a discussion on if these can be better served? Or is the point of allowing them to come up often a way to drive more traffic?

It just feels like, to me, that some topics gets repeatedly covered, so they could use (something like) a FAQ. IMHO the topics keep coming up because the answers are by experts who assume domain expertise to understand their answer.

Many of these questions would involve discussions. But they would be discussions with further clarifications, details, and more sub-questions.

Functional programming is a good example. I see so many questions about "why functional if good", or answers that are "functional is good". But I don't always see the "why it's good or better", or how to take that to the next level.

Examples: Functional vs Procedural, Agile, GPL (and getting around it), etc.

| |
  • 1
    regarding the tag, a strongly recommended reading is: The Death of Meta Tags "...I’m pleased to announce that, as of tonight, we... eradicated the most common meta-tags — [beginner], [subjective], and [best-practices]... And you know what? It felt good. It felt right." – gnat Sep 4 '12 at 20:30
  • 1
    can you elaborate on what you are suggesting a bit more, what is the perceived problem, what is creating this tag going to do to solve that problem, more examples of specific questions for said tag... right now this seems like a random collection of thoughts that aren't related as far as i can tell – Ryathal Sep 5 '12 at 13:41
  • Sorry, it reads wrong. When I say "(probably within a tag)" I meant that the questions came from a tag. I was really saying it would be nice to have a place to questions that allow for discussion, etc. – Paul Sep 6 '12 at 13:49
  • @Ryathal A good example: I put in a general question about Agile, since the topic comes up constantly. It got slammed hard and closed. It would be great if it could be "moved" (or have been created) in some sort of "Educational" area. – Paul Sep 6 '12 at 14:00

When someone asks a question like "Why is functional programming better?" what they are really asking is "Should I bother to learn it?"

You don't get to sit down at the poker table without knowing a little something about poker, and the experts already at the table are unlikely to teach you the basics so that they can answer your general question about why some of the cards are red and some of them are black, nor are they inclined to answer your question about whether chess is a better game or not.

So the way you make your question interesting to the experts is to know a little something about the subject matter already, so that you can discuss it with the experts intelligently and specifically.

| |
  • 1
    I disagree. If someone asks "Why is X better" I assume they want to know why I think X is better so they can make an informed decision on if they should use (or learn) X or not. They're not asking me to tell them if they should use/learn it, or asking me to teach them how to use it. They simply want some more information so they can make their own decision on the matter. I'm sure some "experts" would find information on why functional programming is considered better then procedural interesting. Knowing what those are may be a beginner topic. Knowing when to use one over the other is not. – Rachel Sep 7 '12 at 14:24
  • 1
    @Rachel: Compare "Why is Functional Programming Better" (which is too broad) with Why is Lazy Evaluation Useful?, a topic which is more specific and presupposes some knowledge of functional programming. – Robert Harvey Sep 7 '12 at 15:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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