Anonymous user
Talk:Anagrams: Difference between revisions
m
added a section header for the very first (talk) discussion to force the TOC (table-of-contents) to the correct location.
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (→error in ooRexx ?: what is the error?) |
m (added a section header for the very first (talk) discussion to force the TOC (table-of-contents) to the correct location.) |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
==not acronyms==
Yep, I know now, they are not acronyms. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 20:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:Do you want to call them "anagrams" instead? --[[User:DanBron|DanBron]] 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Line 31 ⟶ 32:
No problem with ooRexx!
--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 22:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
[[ooRexx]] and roo!<sup>TM</sup> use completely different conventions to glue Object Oriented capabilities onto Rexx and as such it's unlikely that any non-trivial "Object Oriented" ooRexx program will run with the roo!<sup>TM</sup> interpreter and vice versa.--[[User:Alansam|Alansam]] ([[User talk:Alansam|talk]]) 03:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
==FBSL calling C: Is it useful?==
Line 145 ⟶ 148:
:::: First, understand that not everybody has the necessary software to run everything on this site. Second, understand that there's a large difference between the amount of effort perceived to be required to test a thing, and the amount of effort actually required. Third, understand that people familiar with a thing tend to greatly underestimate the degree of familiarity required to work with it to the same time efficiency. Fourth, understand that both Rdm and Paddy are long, long-standing constructive contributors on this site. They are almost invariably open to discussion in good faith, and it would be wise not to assume otherwise. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] ([[User talk:Short Circuit|talk]]) 20:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
:::: In any case, welcome to Rosetta Code. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] ([[User talk:Short Circuit|talk]]) 20:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
::::: Dear Sir,
::::: Am I really producing the impression of a kidster that needs to be led by the hand in the wonderland of computers? That sounds like a complement to me, regarding my age. Do I need to have Python or Perl6 or Mathematica installed on my PC to estimate or admire the efficiency of their solutions? Or do I need to have Brainf*** or LOLCODE installed to spend a couple of minutes laughing at their code out loud of sheer amusement? Are my own sight or judgement failing me when I'm looking at somebody else's code? No, they aren't. Why? Because while either admiring or laughing, I'm not really interested in using but any of them for my own work. That's why I'm taking the authenticity of their solutions for granted. And I rely on people's common sense to be able to stand sanity checks of all sorts whenever anyone asks them to demonstrate their code ''in vivo''.
::::: Further, I've got nothing against having a couple or two moderators at a site of this size but I will not stand that sort of a-good-cop-and-a-bad-cop attitude. It wasn't I who started this discussion in the first place and it wasn't I who took the liberty of jumping to conclusions what's wrong and what's right with and for FBSL. And all that from a man who gave up all hope for a language of his own long, long ago. Neither will I stand that didactic tone and let the bearer of the voice get away with it. For all I care, Paddy may just blame me, or rather his own self, for my not being able to understand his particular sort of English humor.
::::: And lastly, I came here in good faith and was having fun solving puzzles and finding my own ways feeling equal among equals. But I was suddenly stopped by sharp hammering of a gavel from above. Or can it be that it was Paddy's code that I've ^^stolen^^? Otherwise I see no reason nor excuse for his immature judgment unbecoming to a man who's supposed to be "long-standing" and moreover, "constructive". There is just one positive side in this entirely fruitless affair. Now Paddy will know for sure that there will be noone else present in his projected reservation area for multi-syntax HLL's '''but FBSL''', just because there's none other available yet. Somehow he missed that fact entirely. That's that Paddy. Live and learn.
::::: Anyway, thank you for your warm welcome, Mr.Mol. That is exactly what I felt was missing since all that mess had started. May I regard it as an invitation to proceed to letter B in the task list as I intended to when I was stopped midway on my way there?
::::: Kind regards,
::::: Michael Lobko-Lobanovsky
::::: FBSL Development Team
:::::: Michael, there is no hammering of a gavel from above. Or, at least, if there is, that's ''me''. I'm the benevolent dictator that typically stands back; RC has, for five or six years, largely managed to get by with a relatively loose set of rules and norms, with a bunch of people who are not infrequently by nature at cross purposes muddling their way through and coming up with mutually amicable results. I myself only step in very rarely, and when I do, it's usually to resolve a technical legal issue surrounding the site (that's the trouble with being a "sole proprietor"...) or, on occasion, intercepting conversations which appear to be drifting more to the heat of argument than actual communication. It's the latter of those two activities for which I make most of my appearances, and I only have to do that every 2-3 months or so, on average. But it happens, and it happens because humans are humans, and communication of intent is an inherently faulty thing, and I sometimes have to toss a bucket of water on things when I see sparks. That's just the nature of the thing. The people who come here and stick around genuinely have common interests. They may have a basis in advocacy, of education or of learning, but their interests are all served by figuring out how to work with each other.--[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] ([[User talk:Short Circuit|talk]]) 02:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::: The single, biggest thing you need to pick up here (and this is why I'm speaking up), is that the people on this site do not intentionally take adversarial roles. And whether or not you believe someone else was adversarial first, it's vital that you not allow an adversarial attitude to express itself in what you writing; perhaps they had a bad day, perhaps not, but adding fuel to the fire won't help. (I.e. "Now Paddy will no for sure that...That's that Paddy. Live and learn." That's adversarial, and you do no favors for yourself or anyone else by taking side shots that way.) I'm not going to name names, but I can think of incidents around at least three current major contributors to the site who, when they first arrived, had adversarial mindsets. To some extent, they still do...but they've learned to draw themselves away from the heat of argument and back toward communication, and they work out incredibly constructive agreements, sometimes after a day or two of completely talking past each other. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] ([[User talk:Short Circuit|talk]]) 02:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::: Again, I'm not bringing down a gavel. This is more like a hand on the shoulder and gently saying "keep your shirt on." --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] ([[User talk:Short Circuit|talk]]) 02:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::: Oh, and don't call me "sir", unless you're sending me a generic legal document; this place isn't that formal. :) --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] ([[User talk:Short Circuit|talk]]) 02:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::: Michael, I know who you are to this site hence my "sir". I was addressing the arbiter for a final judgment so my message was sort of legal-looking. I was prepared to abide by any possible ruling but frankly, I was only glad to find so much common sense and intelligence in what I finally got. Thank you. I'll adhere to what you're suggesting and I'll try to concentrate on my creative work more than on concomitant counter propaganda. :) TheWatcher 09:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
== REXX ==
words should be shown as they are (not uppercased) !?! --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 06:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
: I added the uppercase because I didn't assume the dictionary (wordlist) is in any particular case (or the word may be capitalized). As it stands, the dictionary being used is all lowercase. '''EVIL''' is still an anagram of '''vile''' and '''Live'''. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 07:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
-----
It may be noteworthy to mention that timings (see ooRexx) for various languages have been discouraged on Rosetta Code.
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/User_talk:Paddy3118#Comparisons
(Especially for examples that no longer exist!) Getting repeatable results is problematic. Also, not knowing what hardware and/or operating system and/or which compiler/interpreter (or version) was used, or for that matter, what ''code'' (program statements) were used, etc, makes it difficult to judge the veracity of the timings. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 07:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
:: You could have said: "thanks for making me improve my code (significantly) no matter what hardware is used." But he who expects nothing shall not be disappointed. The example still exists in rosettacode's history. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 11:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an error in the REXX code. Applying the program to a very small dictionary
<pre>
abc
acb
bac
bca
cab
cba
</pre>
yields
<pre>
------------------------------ 6 words in the dictionary file: u.txt
ABC ACB BAC BCA CAB
Found 1 words (each of which have 4 anagrams).
</pre>
whereas the ooRexx programs yield
<pre>
abc acb bac bca cab cba
</pre>
which is what I have expected. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 19:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
: Maybe I introduced this error with my modifications. pls verify the original! --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 19:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
:: No, you didn't introduce an error. It was an overzealous filtering statement that I put in to optimize the reading. I removed the offending statement and all is now well. Thanks for finding that error (it only manifests itself if the number of anagrams exceed the number of letters in the word). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
-----
<strike>
The REXX version 2 program won't find all the anagrams if some words are in mixed case. Furthermore, if all the words are in uppercase, no anagrams are found:
</strike>
<strike>
<pre>
There are 0 set(s) of anagrams with 24819 elements each:
</pre>
</strike>
I suspect that many of the programming examples won't handle a mixed case dictionary (should treat '''Live''' as an anagram of '''EVIL''').
Since the entire dictionary '''unixdict.txt''' is in lowercase, the mixed case error situation will remain hidden for most programs.
-- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
: REXX version 1 is now close to perfect. thanks --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 07:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
:: I've added a faster version (but it has it drawbacks). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
::: After adapting the new versions (=; -> =<nowiki>''</nowiki>; @ -> aa # -> nn) and adding the invocations for time('R') and time('E'), I used this driver
<pre>
call gsana11
call gsana12
call gsana13
to get these timings on Windows/ooRexx
1.1 1.279000
1.2 1.201000
1.3 1.139000
PS I had to add a call lineout ifid in order to close the
input file before staring the next program.
I was severely burnt when not closing a file on the host
when the next program used 'my' ddname and the allocated dataset.
</pre>
--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 16:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
| |||