I think it's as good a site title as you're going to get. Here's why:
It's not "Programmers," which smacks of people who write teh codez.
Electrical Engineering's name change (from Electronics) was very good for them. It raised the quality bar on that site significantly.
The On-Topic page, Tour Page, or Whatever New Users See First™...
This answer is to summarize the requests for Stack Exchange in a single post. It is a community wiki, so if something else seems to be a consensus in this thread, feel free to add or edit it.
Change to Software Engineering
Tour / Tag Line
Software Engineering is a question and answer site for people involved in the Systems Development Life ...
How happy I am that this day has finally come! These are my suggestions, some similarities to Snowman's answer with certain omissions and value-adds.
I favor the new site name, Software Engineering
I am neutral to the new site name, Software Development
I dislike the name, Software Architecture however as this can be considered a distinct ...
I think we should not change the scope at all.
There is no reason the sites (Law and Open Source) can't have overlapping scope with Progs. For example questions about algorithms are on topic both here and Stack Overflow.
I really don't see any reason for us to change our scope based on what other Stacks are or are not doing. We should want the questions ...
My personal feeling is that why questions are often helpful, but who questions usually fall under idle curiosity. Knowing the deeper meaning of the word can help people keep the differences straight, which can be important in a profession as precise as ours.
For example, consider that guy yesterday who thought "stack" meant all the memory allocated to a ...
We currently have lots of great Q&A's that specifically address licensing.
Questions about software licences are well within the purview of the Software Development Life-Cycle.
We should not be gerrymandering our site's scope to specifically exclude them just because Law.SE exists. Instead, we should be jealous of our questions.
If an aspect of ...
I think that, generally, design review type questions are on-topic. However, the problem is how broad they are. My concern for this type of question is that most of them may be more suited to a discussion environment. I do think that there are good design review questions, but they need to be clear and specific and not soliciting general feedback. ...
As a rule of thumb, questions are on topic if they are answerable by expert programmers, as opposed to expert lawyers.
Additionally, here are some questions you can ask yourself to determine if your question is on topic or not:
Is the question about the spirit of the license, or the detailed terms of the license?
Programmers can easily understand things ...
I think there's a difference between questions that ask for a proper term for a concept and questions that ask for naming suggestions for a class or a method.
The former would be fine, in my opinion, but the latter do not belong on Stack Exchange for reasons of being both too localized and entirely discussion-oriented.
Well, I am with you here, Robert, but not just for the reason you gave. The whole description is
too damn long
it is not surprising people read only the first half of it and forget about the second half.
Here is the full text:
Q&A for professionals, academics, and students working within the systems development life cycle who care about creating, ...
I like maple_shaft's answer, however wanted to write my own for reducing the on-topic page's wall-of-text since it's far too long for a comment on his answer.
What topics can I ask about here?
Software Engineering Stack Exchange is a Q&A site for professionals and students in software engineering and related fields
who are interested in getting ...
The concept of licensing questions being on-topic has a long history. When the topicality of this site was first discussed, "software law" was originally on-topic. But this definition of legal questions needed clarification. Eventually, we even updated the help documentation to better reflect scope. And then had to make more changes to the FAQ (which pre-...
The difference between the two sites is the difference between computer science and software engineering.
Programmers is focused on the practical aspects of building software - requirements, architecture, design, testing, deployment, configuration management, software quality, process and project management. Things of unique interest to software engineers ...
My understanding on legal/licensing questions has always been: If it can be reasonably and confidently answered by an experienced programmer, without needing to consult any actual lawyers, then it's okay here.
For instance, it's fair to ask a programmer whether or not you can legally sell a closed-source program that dynamically links to a GPL'd library. ...
They are on-topic, provided they meet the six guidelines.
Example of a marginal "What does this mean" question, demonstrating no research effort:
What does "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" mean?
Examples of good alternative questions, meeting the six guidelines:
When is optimization not premature and therefore not evil?
Personally, I'm not a fan of our current policies. It started with editing a whole bunch of questions to include the text "canonical". But even so, it doesn't meet the guideline of asking "practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face" as is mentioned in the FAQ. It seems like if you want a book on something, you are either just ...
While I begrudgingly accept the idea that resource requests are on-topic if they are specific enough, people should really be asking "how" questions, not "what" questions:
Let’s say you wanted — as I did — to buy a point-and-shoot camera that
takes good low light photos. So we’re going to ask on
Here’s one way ...
The line is vague and blurry and comes down to how you and other community members place the question on this diagram (which is prominently displayed in the FAQ:
A lot of questions do fall outside the blue area, but there are some general sounding questions that do fall inside it as they do require the expertise and experience that only another software ...
I've started to come around to the name "Software Engineering".
Although I still have some lingering objections regarding the overuse of the term "engineering" in software development, I think that the benefits would outweigh my personal objections. It does bring to mind a professional-oriented site that caters to people that work throughout the ...
I personally think that these kinds of questions, and this question in particular, is a better fit for Stack Overflow, as it deals specifically with code syntax and usage. Had it been a more "conceptual" question (in the vein of "How is this technique useful in my software design?"), I would consider it a better fit here.
That said, questions should be ...
As ChrisF already mentioned the question is "not constructive", which to us means:
This question is not a good fit to our Q&A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. See the FAQ for guidance on how to improve ...
This isn't about the intricacies of Apple's distribution process. The person asking has a choice between submitting the application under his own name or going through a process of creating some kind of company entity and submitting the application, with the idea that the current application will only be free. I would suspect the answer would apply equally ...