Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

In The Class/Object Paradox confusion , the OP asks

In the book The Well Grounded Rubyist (excerpt), David Black talks about the "Class/Object Chicken-and-Egg Paradox". I'm having a tough time understanding the entire concept.

Can someone explain it in better/easier/analogical/other terms?

Quote (emphasis mine):

[block quotation of Ruby object's model the OP doesn't understand]

with no more attempt to make it specific, such as "so this means that _ is true, right?"

At first I thought "that's too vague", but I looked at the FAQ, and it said

If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here. However, if your motivation is “I would like others to explain ______ to me”, then you are probably OK. (Discussions are of course welcome in our real time web chat.)

Should the FAQ be reworded to replace "explain" with something else? Or should the rest of the FAQ be sufficient to discourage overly vague questions?

share|improve this question
The FAQ says, "you are probably OK," which means it is not always OK. – kiamlaluno Oct 6 '11 at 22:18
up vote 4 down vote accepted

In general, I think the "explain" test is appropriate. The questions still have to be specific and answerable.

I've voted to close "please explain [general topic]" questions as NC (if they were subjective) or NARQ (if they were just vague / too broad), but I think that particular question asks something specific, and is a real, constructive question.

He pulls out a reasonable length excerpt, and highlights the specific part he doesn't understand. He was responsive to comments. There are two on-point answers, either of which could fill in whatever the gap is in the OP's understanding. There is the potential for a complete answer that definitively describes the relationship between objects and classes in Ruby.

Another question does occur to me -- is the question conceptual enough to be on-topic at Programmers? I think it is. Does it need to be migrated? No, I think it's concrete enough for Stack Overflow.

If that question is closed, I'll vote to re-open.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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