Yesterday I supported to close this question on wrapping third-party code as a "tool" question. However, reading it again I think it is more a question about "state of the art in software engineering techniques to wrap third-party code". The OP and me made some changes to make it look less like a tool recommendation question. So someone else here supporting my request to reopen it now? Or are there some other reasons why it should still kept close?

1 Answer 1


I'm not going to say that it definitely shouldn't be reopened, but it looks like a duplicate to me. In theory, the system is supposed to work as people add new answers to questions so that way, answers to a particular problem are in one place. If this weren't the case, I could go through and reask any question at any point in time just to see if the answers were the same. I'm not sure how well this works in practice, though, with questions not getting visibility by people who can provide new answers - once a question has an up voted answer, it doesn't show up on the Unanswered tab or get bumped to the homepage unless a bounty is added.

My initial thought is that the new question that you link to shouldn't be a tool question, but a duplicate of this question and a bounty for "Current answers are outdated" should be applied. I don't know if that will actually get the visibility that is needed or actually attract new and more current answers. It also requires reputation, which I don't think the person who asked the latest question has enough of to start a bounty.

  • Thanks Thomas. I don't think it is a dupe, since the older question has no focus on how to reduce the manual effort in wrapping an API, it is only about "wrap or not", whilst the new question is more about "I am going to wrap an API, how can I reduce the effort?"
    – Doc Brown
    Commented Dec 13, 2016 at 11:36
  • .. and besides the fact it is not a dupe, placing a bounty on a question where the already topmost and accepted answer was downvoted by me in the past (see my comment there) has a high risk of giving away my rep points for an answer which IMHO is very unrealistic.
    – Doc Brown
    Commented Dec 13, 2016 at 11:42
  • @DocBrown title reads a blatant dupe to me (and you know, it is popular and unfortunately legitimate to answer the question in title and ignore the text). Granted, text inside the question seems to make really solid effort to clarify the difference for attentive readers - if title was not as badly duplicated I would be happy to vote reopen myself. FWIW I tried to find out de-duplicating title edit to the title myself but couldn't figure it
    – gnat
    Commented Dec 13, 2016 at 11:58
  • 1
    @DocBrown I think it's a dupe because the asker of the new question quotes the answer of the old question and indicates it's helpful, but newer answers are desired. Reading the whole body, it seems like the desire is for either (1) a tool suggestion or (2) updated answers to the older question on methods. (1) is off-topic and (2) is a dupe. The only thing to consider is that this is the better question and the linked-to question should be pointing at this newer one, but it needs answers first. That may be an argument for reopening - which question is the better, more generally useful question?
    – Thomas Owens Mod
    Commented Dec 13, 2016 at 12:02
  • @DocBrown I also agree that there are problems with placing bountys on older questions. You may be rewarding answers that are still out-of-date or not as relevant while not even getting the attention that you are seeking. But I think that allowing duplicate questions is a path we don't want to go down.
    – Thomas Owens Mod
    Commented Dec 13, 2016 at 12:04
  • @ThomasOwens: see my and gnat's edits to the question. Moreover, I don't see the new question indicating that older top answer as helpful - quite the opposite. I also don't understand the question in its current for as a request for a specific tool any more. I think it is very unlikely that someone will have a good answer here in the form "google for tools using keywords X,Y, Z".
    – Doc Brown
    Commented Dec 13, 2016 at 12:37
  • @DocBrown I saw your edit and voted reopen. Frankly I still feel it is a bit slippery but can't point a finger on anything specific anymore.
    – gnat
    Commented Dec 13, 2016 at 12:42
  • 2
    @gnat: thanks, I saw yours too. I am very interested in this question, because I have more than once encountered the sitution where wrapping a 3rd party lib was simply too tedious, and I have no real good solution at hand for this problem.
    – Doc Brown
    Commented Dec 13, 2016 at 12:47
  • @DocBrown: Bounties never auto-award to pre-existing answers, if you're concerned about that. Commented Dec 15, 2016 at 3:27

You must log in to answer this question.

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