I'd like to amend my (削除) previous proposal to abolish refactoring and refactor (削除ここまで). Instead, I propose to make them both synonyms of code-smell.
Since this Meta question was first raised, there have been three refactoring-related questions that I'm aware of:
- Possible improvements to Risk board game?
Possible improvements to Risk board game?
This question was not tagged for refactoring , nor did it ask for it. However, one of the answers applied five refactoring techniques to achieve a significant improvement in the code.
In contrast, this question was tagged for refactoring , and asked whether a laundry list of 16 refactoring techniques could be applied. Of the two answers, one had nothing to do with refactoring, and the other proposed an even more important refactoring technique that the poster had missed.
Moving method from derived class to base
This question was tagged with refactoring , and asked why the resulting code was still ugly after refactoring.
This question was not tagged for refactoring , nor did it ask for it. However, one of the answers applied five refactoring techniques to achieve a significant improvement in the code.
In contrast, this question was tagged for refactoring , and asked whether a laundry list of 16 refactoring techniques could be applied. Of the two answers, one had nothing to do with refactoring, and the other proposed an even more important refactoring technique that the poster had missed.
This question was tagged with refactoring , and asked why the resulting code was still ugly after refactoring.
The first two examples above illustrate why the refactoring tag is problematic:
- Most of the time, when the OP asks for "refactoring" without being more specific, it's just a buzzword asking for a general improvement.
- Once a relevant refactoring technique has been identified, applying it is a very methodical procedure — often mechanical enough to be automated in an IDE. Therefore, if the OP asks for specific refactorings to be applied, it borders on asking for code to be written.
- However, it is within the OP's role to point out any particular concerns about the code, e.g. repetitiveness, lack of flexibility, spaghettification — in other words, code-smell.
- Determining the applicability of refactoring rules should be a task for the reviewers. The OP doesn't even have to know anything about refactoring. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for the question to be tagged refactoring.
I think code-smell makes sense, since most of the important refactoring techniques are meant to clean up Bad Code Smells.
The third example is the closest I've seen to a good use of the refactoring tag. Even there, however, code-smell would also work, since the question is about why the code is still ugly.
I'd like to amend my (削除) previous proposal to abolish refactoring and refactor (削除ここまで). Instead, I propose to make them both synonyms of code-smell.
Since this Meta question was first raised, there have been three refactoring-related questions that I'm aware of:
This question was not tagged for refactoring , nor did it ask for it. However, one of the answers applied five refactoring techniques to achieve a significant improvement in the code.
In contrast, this question was tagged for refactoring , and asked whether a laundry list of 16 refactoring techniques could be applied. Of the two answers, one had nothing to do with refactoring, and the other proposed an even more important refactoring technique that the poster had missed.
This question was tagged with refactoring , and asked why the resulting code was still ugly after refactoring.
The first two examples above illustrate why the refactoring tag is problematic:
- Most of the time, when the OP asks for "refactoring" without being more specific, it's just a buzzword asking for a general improvement.
- Once a relevant refactoring technique has been identified, applying it is a very methodical procedure — often mechanical enough to be automated in an IDE. Therefore, if the OP asks for specific refactorings to be applied, it borders on asking for code to be written.
- However, it is within the OP's role to point out any particular concerns about the code, e.g. repetitiveness, lack of flexibility, spaghettification — in other words, code-smell.
- Determining the applicability of refactoring rules should be a task for the reviewers. The OP doesn't even have to know anything about refactoring. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for the question to be tagged refactoring.
I think code-smell makes sense, since most of the important refactoring techniques are meant to clean up Bad Code Smells.
The third example is the closest I've seen to a good use of the refactoring tag. Even there, however, code-smell would also work, since the question is about why the code is still ugly.
I'd like to amend my (削除) previous proposal to abolish refactoring and refactor (削除ここまで). Instead, I propose to make them both synonyms of code-smell.
Since this Meta question was first raised, there have been three refactoring-related questions that I'm aware of:
Possible improvements to Risk board game?
This question was not tagged for refactoring , nor did it ask for it. However, one of the answers applied five refactoring techniques to achieve a significant improvement in the code.
In contrast, this question was tagged for refactoring , and asked whether a laundry list of 16 refactoring techniques could be applied. Of the two answers, one had nothing to do with refactoring, and the other proposed an even more important refactoring technique that the poster had missed.
Moving method from derived class to base
This question was tagged with refactoring , and asked why the resulting code was still ugly after refactoring.
The first two examples above illustrate why the refactoring tag is problematic:
- Most of the time, when the OP asks for "refactoring" without being more specific, it's just a buzzword asking for a general improvement.
- Once a relevant refactoring technique has been identified, applying it is a very methodical procedure — often mechanical enough to be automated in an IDE. Therefore, if the OP asks for specific refactorings to be applied, it borders on asking for code to be written.
- However, it is within the OP's role to point out any particular concerns about the code, e.g. repetitiveness, lack of flexibility, spaghettification — in other words, code-smell.
- Determining the applicability of refactoring rules should be a task for the reviewers. The OP doesn't even have to know anything about refactoring. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for the question to be tagged refactoring.
I think code-smell makes sense, since most of the important refactoring techniques are meant to clean up Bad Code Smells.
The third example is the closest I've seen to a good use of the refactoring tag. Even there, however, code-smell would also work, since the question is about why the code is still ugly.
I'd like to amend my (削除) previous proposal to abolish refactoring and refactor (削除ここまで). Instead, I propose to make them both synonyms of code-smell.
Since this Meta question was first raised, there have been three refactoring-related questions that I'm aware of:
This question was not tagged for refactoring, nor did it ask for it. However, one of the answers applied five refactoring techniques to achieve a significant improvement in the code.
In contrast, this question was tagged for refactoring, and asked whether a laundry list of 16 refactoring techniques could be applied. Of the two answers, one had nothing to do with refactoring, and the other proposed an even more important refactoring technique that the poster had missed.
This question was tagged with refactoring, and asked why the resulting code was still ugly after refactoring.
The first two examples above illustrate why the refactoring tag is problematic:
- Most of the time, when the OP asks for "refactoring" without being more specific, it's just a buzzword asking for a general improvement.
- Once a relevant refactoring technique has been identified, applying it is a very methodical procedure — often mechanical enough to be automated in an IDE. Therefore, if the OP asks for specific refactorings to be applied, it borders on asking for code to be written.
- However, it is within the OP's role to point out any particular concerns about the code, e.g. repetitiveness, lack of flexibility, spaghettification — in other words, code-smell.
- Determining the applicability of refactoring rules should be a task for the reviewers. The OP doesn't even have to know anything about refactoring. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for the question to be tagged refactoring.
I think code-smell makes sense, since most of the important refactoring techniques are meant to clean up Bad Code Smells.
The third example is the closest I've seen to a good use of the refactoring tag. Even there, however, code-smell would also work, since the question is about why the code is still ugly.
I'd like to amend my (削除) previous proposal to abolish refactoring and refactor (削除ここまで). Instead, I propose to make them both synonyms of code-smell.
Since this Meta question was first raised, there have been three refactoring-related questions that I'm aware of:
This question was not tagged for refactoring, nor did it ask for it. However, one of the answers applied five refactoring techniques to achieve a significant improvement in the code.
In contrast, this question was tagged for refactoring, and asked whether a laundry list of 16 refactoring techniques could be applied. Of the two answers, one had nothing to do with refactoring, and the other proposed an even more important refactoring technique that the poster had missed.
This question was tagged with refactoring, and asked why the resulting code was still ugly after refactoring.
The first two examples above illustrate why the refactoring tag is problematic:
- Most of the time, when the OP asks for "refactoring" without being more specific, it's just a buzzword asking for a general improvement.
- Once a relevant refactoring technique has been identified, applying it is a very methodical procedure — often mechanical enough to be automated in an IDE. Therefore, if the OP asks for specific refactorings to be applied, it borders on asking for code to be written.
- However, it is within the OP's role to point out any particular concerns about the code, e.g. repetitiveness, lack of flexibility, spaghettification — in other words, code-smell.
- Determining the applicability of refactoring rules should be a task for the reviewers. The OP doesn't even have to know anything about refactoring. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for the question to be tagged refactoring.
I think code-smell makes sense, since most of the important refactoring techniques are meant to clean up Bad Code Smells.
The third example is the closest I've seen to a good use of the refactoring tag. Even there, however, code-smell would also work, since the question is about why the code is still ugly.
I'd like to amend my (削除) previous proposal to abolish refactoring and refactor (削除ここまで). Instead, I propose to make them both synonyms of code-smell.
Since this Meta question was first raised, there have been three refactoring-related questions that I'm aware of:
This question was not tagged for refactoring, nor did it ask for it. However, one of the answers applied five refactoring techniques to achieve a significant improvement in the code.
In contrast, this question was tagged for refactoring, and asked whether a laundry list of 16 refactoring techniques could be applied. Of the two answers, one had nothing to do with refactoring, and the other proposed an even more important refactoring technique that the poster had missed.
This question was tagged with refactoring, and asked why the resulting code was still ugly after refactoring.
The first two examples above illustrate why the refactoring tag is problematic:
- Most of the time, when the OP asks for "refactoring" without being more specific, it's just a buzzword asking for a general improvement.
- Once a relevant refactoring technique has been identified, applying it is a very methodical procedure — often mechanical enough to be automated in an IDE. Therefore, if the OP asks for specific refactorings to be applied, it borders on asking for code to be written.
- However, it is within the OP's role to point out any particular concerns about the code, e.g. repetitiveness, lack of flexibility, spaghettification — in other words, code-smell.
- Determining the applicability of refactoring rules should be a task for the reviewers. The OP doesn't even have to know anything about refactoring. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for the question to be tagged refactoring.
I think code-smell makes sense, since most of the important refactoring techniques are meant to clean up Bad Code Smells.
The third example is the closest I've seen to a good use of the refactoring tag. Even there, however, code-smell would also work, since the question is about why the code is still ugly.
I'd like to amend my (削除) previous proposal to abolish refactoring and refactor (削除ここまで). Instead, I propose to make them both synonyms of code-smell.
Since this Meta question was first raised, there have been twothree refactoring-related questions that I'm aware of:
This question was not tagged for refactoring, nor did it ask for it. However, one of the answers applied five refactoring techniques to achieve a significant improvement in the code.
In contrast, this question was tagged for refactoring, and asked whether a laundry list of 16 refactoring techniques could be applied. Of the two answers, one had nothing to do with refactoring, and the other proposed an even more important refactoring technique that the poster had missed.
This question was tagged with refactoring , and asked why the resulting code was still ugly after refactoring.
The first two examples above illustrate why the refactoring tag is problematic:
- Most of the time, when the OP asks for "refactoring" without being more specific, it's just a buzzword asking for a general improvement.
- Once a relevant refactoring technique has been identified, applying it is a very methodical procedure — often mechanical enough to be automated in an IDE. Therefore, if the OP asks for specific refactorings to be applied, it borders on asking for code to be written.
- However, it is within the OP's role to point out any particular concerns about the code, e.g. repetitiveness, lack of flexibility, spaghettification — in other words, code-smell.
- Determining the applicability of refactoring rules should be a task for the reviewers. The OP doesn't even have to know anything about refactoring. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for the question to be tagged refactoring.
I think code-smell makes sense, since most of the important refactoring techniques are meant to clean up Bad Code Smells.
The third example is the closest I've seen to a good use of the refactoring tag. Even there, however, code-smell would also work, since the question is about why the code is still ugly.
I'd like to amend my (削除) previous proposal to abolish refactoring and refactor (削除ここまで). Instead, I propose to make them both synonyms of code-smell.
Since this Meta question was first raised, there have been two refactoring-related questions that I'm aware of:
This question was not tagged for refactoring, nor did it ask for it. However, one of the answers applied five refactoring techniques to achieve a significant improvement in the code.
In contrast, this question was tagged for refactoring, and asked whether a laundry list of 16 refactoring techniques could be applied. Of the two answers, one had nothing to do with refactoring, and the other proposed an even more important refactoring technique that the poster had missed.
The examples above illustrate why the refactoring tag is problematic:
- Most of the time, when the OP asks for "refactoring" without being more specific, it's just a buzzword asking for a general improvement.
- Once a relevant refactoring technique has been identified, applying it is a very methodical procedure — often mechanical enough to be automated in an IDE. Therefore, if the OP asks for specific refactorings to be applied, it borders on asking for code to be written.
- However, it is within the OP's role to point out any particular concerns about the code, e.g. repetitiveness, lack of flexibility, spaghettification — in other words, code-smell.
- Determining the applicability of refactoring rules should be a task for the reviewers. The OP doesn't even have to know anything about refactoring. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for the question to be tagged refactoring.
I think code-smell makes sense, since most of the important refactoring techniques are meant to clean up Bad Code Smells.
I'd like to amend my (削除) previous proposal to abolish refactoring and refactor (削除ここまで). Instead, I propose to make them both synonyms of code-smell.
Since this Meta question was first raised, there have been three refactoring-related questions that I'm aware of:
This question was not tagged for refactoring, nor did it ask for it. However, one of the answers applied five refactoring techniques to achieve a significant improvement in the code.
In contrast, this question was tagged for refactoring, and asked whether a laundry list of 16 refactoring techniques could be applied. Of the two answers, one had nothing to do with refactoring, and the other proposed an even more important refactoring technique that the poster had missed.
This question was tagged with refactoring , and asked why the resulting code was still ugly after refactoring.
The first two examples above illustrate why the refactoring tag is problematic:
- Most of the time, when the OP asks for "refactoring" without being more specific, it's just a buzzword asking for a general improvement.
- Once a relevant refactoring technique has been identified, applying it is a very methodical procedure — often mechanical enough to be automated in an IDE. Therefore, if the OP asks for specific refactorings to be applied, it borders on asking for code to be written.
- However, it is within the OP's role to point out any particular concerns about the code, e.g. repetitiveness, lack of flexibility, spaghettification — in other words, code-smell.
- Determining the applicability of refactoring rules should be a task for the reviewers. The OP doesn't even have to know anything about refactoring. Therefore, it doesn't make sense for the question to be tagged refactoring.
I think code-smell makes sense, since most of the important refactoring techniques are meant to clean up Bad Code Smells.
The third example is the closest I've seen to a good use of the refactoring tag. Even there, however, code-smell would also work, since the question is about why the code is still ugly.