Talk:Fractran: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (→"natural format"?: edito) |
(→"natural format"?: Easy to do.) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Why does the task have to tack on a text parsing requirement? It's irrelevant to the fraction Turing machine, and simply distracting. Why not let people focus on the important stuff? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] ([[User talk:Ledrug|talk]]) 17:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC) |
Why does the task have to tack on a text parsing requirement? It's irrelevant to the fraction Turing machine, and simply distracting. Why not let people focus on the important stuff? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] ([[User talk:Ledrug|talk]]) 17:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
:I can argue this one both ways. On the one hand, we generally don't try to hide the ugly design choices of language designers, but let people post solutions to demonstrate all those ugly design choices, because it makes our own languages look prettier. <tt>:-)</tt> On the other hand, if Fractran <i>is</i> a programming language, one would expect it to have some parsing requirements. --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] ([[User talk:TimToady|talk]]) 18:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC) |
:I can argue this one both ways. On the one hand, we generally don't try to hide the ugly design choices of language designers, but let people post solutions to demonstrate all those ugly design choices, because it makes our own languages look prettier. <tt>:-)</tt> On the other hand, if Fractran <i>is</i> a programming language, one would expect it to have some parsing requirements. --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] ([[User talk:TimToady|talk]]) 18:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
:It seems to be a simple thing to do. I took it to mean parsing a format similar to that used in the task description. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 20:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:46, 23 January 2014
Should we create a category for this programming language? Might be interesting.--Grondilu (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Theoretically yes. Practically, probably not; writing Hello World in it would be prohibitively difficult (how to do meaningful I/O?) so the set of tasks it could do would be a bit too small. We can make the category when someone starts doing the tasks, not before. –Donal Fellows (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
"natural format"?
Why does the task have to tack on a text parsing requirement? It's irrelevant to the fraction Turing machine, and simply distracting. Why not let people focus on the important stuff? --Ledrug (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can argue this one both ways. On the one hand, we generally don't try to hide the ugly design choices of language designers, but let people post solutions to demonstrate all those ugly design choices, because it makes our own languages look prettier. :-) On the other hand, if Fractran is a programming language, one would expect it to have some parsing requirements. --TimToady (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)