Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

Re: RFC: "Best Practices" code review section

by davidrw (Prior)
on Aug 04, 2005 at 18:02 UTC ( #480968=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RFC: "Best Practices" code review section

The idea is that the code already works - i.e. not SoPW material -, is very much NOT obfuscated and might even be very UNCOOL, i.e. accountancy software.
But that's perfectly ok to post in SOPW, right? I've gotten the impression (i swore a higher monk mentioned it in a reply not too long ago--something along the lines of "ask for review in SOPW to get it finalized/touched up before submitting to Snippets" or something like that) that code review requests should go to SOPW (as opposed to Snippets or Meditations)... Which seems to make sense if you consider the question to be of the form "I have this working code that does ___ -- what 'better' or different way would you do it?".
  • Comment on Re: RFC: "Best Practices" code review section

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://480968]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (7)
As of 2020-06-01 06:27 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?