| What do you mean "entirely wrong"? ... that it doesn't work exactly "as printed" when copy-pasted into an IDE? Or that it fundamentally misses the intent of the question? Or that it got some important key details right and messed-up other things? Usually, in my experience, it's the last one. Often all you need is a clue to get you thinking in the right direction. Interactively asking chat-gpt questions and critically evaluating it's answers has been far more helpful than I could have ever imagined. Does it ALWAYS help? No. Is it an exciting and emergent alternative to what we've had before? Hell yes. The first party docs are, of course, the gold standard. But they're often far more detailed and canonical than folks are ready to absorb. SO can be helpful IF you can find your question already there and the answers are still relevant, or if you manage to ask your question in exactly the right way and the duplicate-police haven't shut it down (regardless of whether it's actually dupe). Or if a kind soul has provided a clue for you in a comment as your question was downvoted into oblivion. Another option, IMHO, is github issues/discussion. The library developers are often there and generous about helping people out (without the perverse and infantile incentives of gamification that afflicts SO). But this option should really only be reserved for very carefully asked questions. In a way it has a higher bar than SO (but without the negative reinforcement of downvotes). |