Anonymous user
User talk:Idrougge: Difference between revisions
m
→adding other examples: added comments about convolutions, reasons behind entering examples on RC.
m (→adding other examples: added comments about convolutions, reasons behind entering examples on RC.) |
|||
Line 171:
When adding other examples, please add them after any existing examples. This is the custom at Rosetta Code, as the previous examples may refer to each other, and adding an example before those would invalidate any ordinal references. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 02:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:I didn't do it for attention, I just wanted the least convoluted example to come first so as to ease the learning curve. --[[User:Idrougge|Idrougge]] ([[User talk:Idrougge|talk]]) 11:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:: I only assumed it was done accidentally or absentmindedly, and I made no comment or implication concerning the why. But if we all had to judge another's efforts as to being more or less convoluted than our own, and then entering one's own solution first because it's less, er ... convoluted, there would be no end to the jockeying around of various implementations (examples) --- not to mention the wars that would start. Essentially, generally it's first come, first in the list of examples/entries. But I wouldn't want to be a person to say another programmer's code is (more) convoluted; that would just lead to making judgements about other peoples coding efforts and quality. If someone's code is more concise, or shorter, or better documented, or quicker, has more options, or easier to peruse, ... (or pick a quality) ... then let the example/entry speak for itself. There isn't any reason to get insulting about other programming efforts (and I'm assuming that calling a solution convoluted could be construed as insulting to most programmers) in an open forum such as here on Rosetta Code. In addition, I'm not sure about your meaning behind ''the learning curve''; I never assumed that Rosetta Code is about teaching people on learning how to program in a particular programming language, only to show a method (or methods) in solving a particular (Rosetta Code) task, and also to show (multiple) algorithms in solving problems (so as to illustrate different approaches with the tools that a particular programming language has), and see how a solution(s) could be implemented. Most computer programming languages have many excellent tutorials on teaching how to learn that language. If teaching is part of your intent, then plenty of comments in the program explaining what the statements do (specifically or generally) would be a good start. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
== palindrome detection ==
| |||