Talk:100 doors: Difference between revisions
→Optimized Examples: Specialization, generalization, prohibitions and forking.
(→Optimized Examples: Specialization, generalization, prohibitions and forking.) |
|||
Line 20:
:I think all optimized samples should be removed and forbidden. This task essentially boils down to finding the powers of 2 for numbers 1 to 10. See ultra-optimized coffeescript example. -- [[Special:Contributions/201.21.40.201]] 2011-05-27 06:43:49
::That I think is more a comment on the character of the problem than a comment on the character of the implementations. In my opinion, mathematical analysis is a perfectly good programming tool, as is community involvement. Rosetta code could do with fewer "problems" where people feel they should force a particular algorithm. In this case, we might have to live with that, but if there is no general problem that allows for a range of solutions then posting the answer is the essence of optimization. (Though I would also agree that optimization is usually a bad idea in practice except when you cannot tolerate the resource requirements otherwise.) Anyways, I could live with "forbidding the optimized versions" but only if the task also got a warning message that this is not the sort of task that we want on Rosetta code. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 12:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
::: Specialization is useful for teasing out specific differences between languages, but generalization obviously offers more flexibility in choices and demonstrations of clever solutions. If a particular class of solutions must be forbidden, I'd prefer to see the task forked to allow that class to be demonstrated. (Otherwise, a task is very likely to get stuck in a particular idiomatic mindset) --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 17:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
== Self-contradictory task description ==
| |||