User talk:Hout: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Attempting to redefine tasks as exclusive syntactic sugar-tasting parties risks diminishing the value of the site.) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 64:
::Admitedly we don't have many other tasks about language syntactic features, I have found [[Flow-control structures]], [[Exceptions]], [[Regular expressions]], [[Loop Structures]], [[Conditional structures]], [[Function definition]], and maybe [[Short circuit evaluation]]; but just as if a Task asks for a specific algorithm then that algorithm should be used, then I think that if a task asks for a specific syntax then that syntax should be what is shown - this applies especially to Javascript as it is made clear when in the future the construct might be added so telling you that before that date it is yet to be added.
::--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 06:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
::: Why is this unfortunate? Do you think that this concept of "syntactic construct" is about the arrangement of characters used to form it? Or is it about the results which it achieves? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 07:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No claim that a Rosetta task is 'about a particular syntactic construct' is consistent with Rosetta Code's editorial terms of reference, or with the unconflicted exercise of editorial impartiality. In combination with undisguised evangelism of particular languages, it risks the appearance of destroying content in the name of over-vigilant gate-keeping. It can not be in the public interest to redefine tasks as exclusive built-in sugar tasting parties, with irritable bouncers at the door.
| |||