Anonymous user
Category talk:Unicon: Difference between revisions
m
→Quality and Style: + IPL clarification
m (→A poor reason for both versions: comments) |
m (→Quality and Style: + IPL clarification) |
||
Line 71:
* Commenting and documentation. Many of the examples (not just Icon/Unicon) have very little in the way of supporting comments, documentation, or description. There really should be a reasonable amount.
* Icon/Unicon-like .v. un-Icon/Unicon like code. A number of the examples are just bad translations of Basic or JavaScript. What should be done with these? Personally I think they should be replaced with examples that show how the language can be used. There may be a case for keeping them as an alternate version and calling out that it is a bad translation; however, given that this site is about showing off the essence of laguages - why would you do that?
* In a couple of cases there are links to IPL modules. Inevitably there will be more. How best to handle these? We could copy the code into a separate code box and call it out - but this could get repetitive. I believe that we should at a minimum place an off site link to the IPL web page for the code. If the library function is the core of the solution (as in [[Input_loop#Icon|Input Loop]] then it should be included. But if the function is less important a reference should be sufficient.
* What happens when there are multiple good examples of how to solve a task, such as on the Unicon Twiki (e.g. [https://tapestry.tucson.az.us/twiki/bin/view/Main/StateNamesPuzzlethink|States Names Problem] or [https://tapestry.tucson.az.us/twiki/bin/view/Main/LongestStringsPuzzle|Find the longest string without using comparisons, math, or lists]. Certainly we could talk about or refer to other solutions. But, should we show more than one?
| |||