Talk:Padovan sequence: Difference between revisions
m
→Overnight graffiti
| (22 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 22:
::(and possibly a bit-counter-productive from the perspective of the hostile party – it probably just increases the readership of the ''generic anamorphism'' variant).
:: My instinct would be to delabel, and just leave the flat sequence of alternative drafts intact. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 12:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
::: See below. You can't actually have "no labels", we just need to find useful and inoffensive ones. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 13:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
:::: Perhaps "concise" instead of "idomatic"? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 14:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
As I stated on your talk page Hout, and without the personal attacks; One could write a lisp interpreter in Python and create examples for Lisp and a very similar example for Python that would pass a linter, but would not be idiomatic Python.
Line 49 ⟶ 52:
# "Foolish Consistency" is a direct translation of your own persistent misuse and abuse of the term "idiomatic", which features nowhere in Rosetta Code's own landing-page statement of its goals.
# Because languages are used in varying contexts, and within different traditions of composition (Imperative/Procedural vs Functional being the principle watershed) there will '''always''' be healthy disagreement between contributors to Rosetta Code. I happen, for example to find your Padovan code contrived, clumsy, and unclear. In short, a hack. Your code is also often poorly linted, shedding an ironic light on your hobgoblin misuse of the word "idiomatic". I would have significant misgivings, in a working context, about the reliability and maintainability of your contributions. Your most commonly used submission tag is 'Oops'. I absolutely do '''not''', however, need to express that view on Rosetta Code. All I need to do is to '''enrich''' the Rosetta stock of contrastive insight – "''to aid a person with a grounding in one approach to a problem in learning another''" by contributing alternative versions.
# Because there will '''always''' be healthy disagreement on Rosetta Code, we '''have to''' rely on scrupulous use of the linter tooling provided by the language communities. Anything beyond that is entirely subjective, completely lacking in objectivity, and risks the rapid backsliding into the childish trolling, and less than innocent bullying, which we are seeing here, yet again.
Line 56 ⟶ 59:
# Improve the linting of your imperative code.
# If you disagree with the way in which I code, enrich Rosetta Code by contributing alternative submissions. Don't damage Rosetta Code with further trolling.
# Learn to spell ''Haskell''. You will find the correct spelling in the
[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 13:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
What we need to do here is find a way to label things that neither party finds offensive. Something with unfoldr in it, maybe, so I've (rudely) tried that, let's see whether that is acceptable. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 13:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC) I will also suggest "Python: using a generator" instead of "Python: imperative".
: Thanks Pete, I think what he's really addressing here is the 'Improve' notices which he's been slapping (every few hours, or sometimes even minutes) on the ''Python: Functional'' example in the ''N-Step Padovan'' task.
: It's scrupulously linted for standards compliance, but he keeps screaming 'unidiomatic' (in an unwitting parody of PEP8) while declining to contribute a variant that he prefers.
: The real problem, I suspect, is that he can see that the functionally composed versions of both Padovan ''recurrence'' functions (this one and the N step variant) are a little simpler and more expressive than his own contributions.
: Perhaps he fears that others will notice that too ? Persistent graffiti and vandalism may not be the best response – they seem more likely to attract attention than to avert it ... [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 13:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
===A case of déjà vu all over again===
I think this issue has been discussed at length, and that the Rosettacode Community has decided that these Python submissions are acceptable. The author of this solution has heard the bully's view and the continuous harassment is bullying, Rosettacode should take action against the bully. How can it be unidiotmatic to write a function in Python? Why is it unidiotmatic if that function is called unfold? I don't understand why a community outside Rosettacode which the bully feels he represents possibly has another option is relevant. Rosettacode should sort this once and for all.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 14:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
: Thank you Nigel. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 15:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
:: Thanks Pete Lomax for your attempt at mediation.
:: Hout, in amongst your repeated, tired vitriol, you don't address my accusations that you write in a style for one language and translate to others - and attempt to mask that. ''How else would Haskell type signatures appear in a Python script which has its own typing?''
:: Your Applescript example has similar Haskell signatures as comments.
:: They are comments, so can get through linters, but its not [https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html Python typing]. Its an artifact of your attempts to push a particular style of coding that stands rejected by the Python community. In the past, I seem to remember pointing out that you went as far as to create a function that came as standard in Python but not with the Haskell name. Your flow has improved since then, I think, but you seem to write once in Haskell or whatever, and translate to other languages without leaving explanation that you are doing so, and with the least respect for individual language norms.
:: --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
::: All of these questions have been asked and answered before.
::: You object to my '''comments''', as if they were syntactic. They are not.
::: They are '''useful''' comments, maintaining clarity for the code writer and for the reader, because in functional composition every function returns a '''value''', and successful composition requires '''clarity''' about the semantic type of that return value.
::: Hindley Milner type notation is '''not''' language-specific – it's a universal, language-independent and usefully compact way of representing the general semantics of types, in any language.
::: I find these comments invaluable, both for writing code, and for quickly refactoring it, and that is '''not''' your business.
::: If you wish to show a different approach, show it, and allow readers to obtain constrastive insight from it.
::: You say "I don't want RC to be flooded with XYZ"
::: That is '''not''' your business. Rosetta Code is not a venue for language wars or for the personal promotion or policing of particular approaches.
::: It ''is'' a venue for sharing contrastive insight in the form of differing solutions to the same problems, and its goals are those '''stated on the landing page'''. They are '''not''' those which you proclaim, in formulations of your own devising, possibly in genuine misunderstanding, but certainly in mockery of PEP8.
::: Rosetta Code is '''not''' a shop-window for parading (poorly linted) regimental uniform.
::: A bad soldier is not improved by a layer of uniform, and weak code is not made more reliable, or clearer, or faster to write or reorganise, by shrill proclamations that it is 'idiomatic', particularly when a standard linter is less than impressed.
::: If there was one Truth and one Way, the Rosetta Stone in the British Museum:
:::# would display its message in '''one''' language in '''one''' canonical idiom, and
:::# would therefore yield '''no''' contrastive insight, and be be of '''no interest whatsoever'''.
:::# We would never have heard of it.
:::# This site would '''not''' bear its name.
::: [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 21:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
: Nigel, On this being discussed and bullying. Hout fails to reply and states he is being bullied whilst ignoring points made. Even deleting them, and name calling. Do you also think it is right for RC to have code written for one language masquerading as being from another? Ignoring that other languages norms, repeatedly?
: I don't. Hout fails to argue the point, instead crying bully. Can you not see the name calling?
: I don't want RC to be filled with write-once auto-translated examples that may go through a linter, (If he is called on it), but tells you little about each individual language.
: Hout, questions posed, or leave the template until this is resolved. You may feel bullied, but that is merely because your way is being questioned.
: --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
:: "''auto-translated''" ? What on earth does that mean to you ? A few years ago you were actually asking for help on Reddit with tracking down a transpiler which you bizarrely imagined I must be using. Are you really drifting back into those fantastical eccentricities again ?
:: "''write-once''" ? Again, I have no idea what this means to you. Perhaps you disagree with Kernighan and Plauger's (The Elements of Programming Style, 1978) advice that we should aim, wherever possible, to write reusable functions ?
:: I personally think that it's not only a '''very''' sound (and very well established) approach, and one which contributes to productivity and code quality, but also happens to be an '''excellent''' match for Rosetta code, aiding contrastive insight at finer levels of granularity.
:: You have '''every''' right to disagree, but if you wish to ''contribute'' to Rosetta Code, rather than just vandalising it, it really is your duty to transmute that disagreement into the contribution of '''alternative functional drafts'''.
:: Deletion and harassment makes no contribution whatsoever to the contrastive insight which '''defines''' the value of both the Rosetta stone and Rosetta code – ''aiding a person with a grounding in one approach to a problem in learning another''.
::[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 16:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
:: Incidentally, if the objection is simply to using a generic anamorphism, then remember that an anamorphism is a mathematical abstraction (dual to a catamorphism) which:
::# exists independently of any particular language,
::# turns out to capture what these three different Padovan generators have in common,
::# and can be implemented in '''any''' language which, like Python, supports higher order functions.
:: In the context of the defining Rosetta Code pursuit of contrastive insight into (quoting from the RC landing page) ''how languages are similar and different'' it then becomes instructive to explore both the '''similarities''' and and the differences, in how a generic anamorphism might be defined in each of the Rosetta Code languages.
:: This also enables us to foreground what is '''similar''', as well as what is different, in each of the 3 Padovan generators.
:: [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
| |||