We've seen in increase in people interested in which code is better for a certain task, without being interested in a review of the code itself. I think that's a problem.
To quote Malachi:
I think that a comparative review should be 2 questions, and then the user can take the answers from both and do the comparing on their own. then they can decide what is going to work best for their situation.
The problem is that the main point of this SE is reviewing code. Reviewing, not answering specific programming problems like "How should I do this?". That's Stack Overflow.
I think the reason the tag still exists is because it can be reworded to "This is what I have, is it better than the alternative I also mention?". But those offering such an alternative in the question itself are often not interested in critique on the rest of the code.
I can not see a reason why offering an alternative is even a good idea. If you're interested in the pro's and con's of both versions, make it two posts. Offering an alternative is very much steering answers into the direction you want it to go. That's not how reviewing works!
As I said in chat not too long ago:
Code Review is not about what you need. It's about what you get.
Questions should be looking for feedback about any or all facets of the code. The moment you post it, it's hunting season. Reviewers can shoot at any and all parts of the code. Reviewers should not be expected to just pick one of the provided alternatives and say why it's better.
If we consider the tag on-topic after all, we may need some additional constraints when that tag is used.
This discussion recently got hot after this question, but that's not necessarily the best example of why the tag is problematic.
