Talk:Padovan sequence: Difference between revisions
Less trolling, more linting of your imperative code, and more submission of alternatives.
(As it is) |
(Less trolling, more linting of your imperative code, and more submission of alternatives.) |
||
Line 42:
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 11:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
A number of misapprehensions there, though not quite enough to explain your insatiable hunger for trolling, graffiti and deletions, which a quick inspection of the Rosetta records shows to '''long precede''' my own contributions to this site, and clearly has sources entirely outside it.
# The goal of Rosetta Code is simply '''not''' as you describe it, and is clearly stated on the landing page. It includes ''to demonstrate how languages are similar and different, and to aid a person with a grounding in one approach to a problem in learning another''.
# Languages do '''not''' (as you put it) "use styles". Coders and workplaces use styles, and they do so in varying contexts, seeking a varying balance of values. As the '''Python PEP 8''' expresses very forcibly, "A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds".
# "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 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 childish trolling which we are seeing here.
My suggestions to you are:
# Take the trolling elsewhere, or get help with it. Your deletionary zeal, and your aspirations to unearned authority have never been good, either for Rosetta Code, or for you.
# 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 opening paragraphs of the documentation of the Python ''itertools'' module.
[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 13:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
| |||