Talk:Padovan sequence: Difference between revisions
m
→Overnight graffiti
m (demonstrating how languages are 'similar' as well as different) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 24:
::: 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
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 73 ⟶ 74:
===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.
Line 81 ⟶ 86:
:: --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
▲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)
::: All of these questions have been asked and answered before.
▲: Thank you Nigel. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 15:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
::: 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?
Line 107 ⟶ 136:
:: Incidentally, if the objection is simply to using a generic anamorphism, then remember that an anamorphism is a mathematical abstraction (
::# 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
:: 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)
| |||