Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Meta

Comments on Reactions on Code Golf Codidact

Parent

Reactions on Code Golf Codidact

+5
−0

Reactions were just released! See the main meta post here for the details.

Currently, the default reactions look like this: Reactions panel

Now, I would argue that none of these fit for Code Golf - so what reactions do you think the community should have?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Can we not? (3 comments)
Post
+6
−0

None of these are applicable at least not for Code Golf challenges. I think this community should "opt out" of reactions unless we can come up with more relevant ones.

  • "Works for me". Answers are supposed to live up to the challenge specification - if they don't, then one should use comments to point out the problems and possibly down vote if the poster is not responsive. There is no "correct" answer, but a best answer, per language. The score board sorts that out.

  • Outdated. Using outdated language features is a common trick and not necessarily considered bad practice for code golf purposes. If the code doesn't work with modern tools/interpreters, then the answer should point out which version it is using. In which case posting an answer for an older version of a language spec is fine.

  • Dangerous. The vast majority of the code posted here is blatantly dangerous. Anyone who doesn't grasp that this is a puzzle site but comes here looking for production-quality code only have themselves to blame.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

Agree for the most part - Works for me is gone, outdated has been changed to invalid, but maybe dange... (1 comment)
Agree for the most part - Works for me is gone, outdated has been changed to invalid, but maybe dange...
Quintec‭ wrote over 2 years ago

Agree for the most part - Works for me is gone, outdated has been changed to invalid, but maybe dangerous could stay - it doesn't necessarily mean bad coding practices, but maybe instead actual malicious code, for example a reverse shell... sometimes the code is so obfuscated it might be hard to tell.