Talk:Odd word problem: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Recap and moving on...: on forbidden constructs in tasks) |
|||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
: As to "fair", I call bogus. If your language is not good at doing something, it's either its design feature or an inadequacy, there's nothing inherently unfair about the task unless it's specifically tailored to suit some obscure features of one language in mind (to make other languages "look bad", I suppose). By your fairness argument, what kind of complaint should I lodge at the discussion page of [[OpenGL Pixel Shader]] if I were to write code in ZX spectrum basic? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 18:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
: As to "fair", I call bogus. If your language is not good at doing something, it's either its design feature or an inadequacy, there's nothing inherently unfair about the task unless it's specifically tailored to suit some obscure features of one language in mind (to make other languages "look bad", I suppose). By your fairness argument, what kind of complaint should I lodge at the discussion page of [[OpenGL Pixel Shader]] if I were to write code in ZX spectrum basic? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 18:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
:: And I feel that your "call bogus" is itself bogus: The distinction, here, was the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" and, to rephrase, I am saying that it's not meaningful to characterize that distinction as a distinction between "good at" and "not good at". (That said, I do not understand your question about ZX Spectrum Basic.) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
:: And I feel that your "call bogus" is itself bogus: The distinction, here, was the distinction between "implicit" and "explicit" and, to rephrase, I am saying that it's not meaningful to characterize that distinction as a distinction between "good at" and "not good at". (That said, I do not understand your question about ZX Spectrum Basic.) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
: On |
|||
::''" I propose that when a task forbids certain programming constructs and mandates others, that the "forbidden constructs" be allowed in support code which is not a part of the task implementation itself (in other words: link to the support code but do not include it on the task page)"'' |
|||
: It can be good to have tasks that call for specific constructs and/or forbid others. Sometimes the resultant may not be worth having as a task and might form a candidate for deletion, but assuming it remains as a task then we can: |
|||
:# Exclude our language from the task. |
|||
:# Or sometimes it can be good to state up-front what aspects of the task your language cannot handle before adding an example that doesn't answer the task for just those stated reasons. |
|||
:In the second case you shouldn't be surprised if the presence of the example is questioned or even deleted if people think it strays too far from the task description without much gain for the reader. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Is it time to move this task from draft? |
Is it time to move this task from draft? |
||