Rosetta Code:Village Pump/SMW Examples by language and concept: Difference between revisions
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/SMW Examples by language and concept (view source)
Revision as of 20:03, 7 October 2015
, 8 years agoStart with a manually edited page – a few topic headers and links to relevant tasks. ( Separate out notational indexing from properly task-focused tasks )
m (questioned a word spelling for (possible) polymorphism. -- ~~~~) |
(Start with a manually edited page – a few topic headers and links to relevant tasks. ( Separate out notational indexing from properly task-focused tasks )) |
||
Line 43:
:*Links on property pages won't go directly to examples, but rather the top of the task pages
::*People complain about this every once in a while. I don't know how to fix it. Someone may have to JavaScript that for us (please!).
===Just make a start with a manual page – a few issues and lists of tasks===
Tagging is attractive but ambitious – how about a simpler start: a page with a few issue headers, and some links to particular tasks beneath each issue.
I think this (perhaps evolving towards tagging) would solve a structural problem which continues to create a pressure towards creating tasks of rather doubtful quality which:
# Are relevant to a limited number of languages,
# miss the potential for comparing quite different approaches to the same problems,
# and overemphasize indexing on notation, making it harder to find things by deeper and more pragmatic issues.
'''Problem''' ?
:The core Rosetta principle is '''task focus''', which yields more insight, but there is also an interest in looking up notational issues.
:The result is 'tasks' and task proposal which raise the eyebrows of some, and are stoutly defended by others. Things like:
:* 'Loops/do-While' (rather than conditional repetition)
:* 'List Comprehensions' (rather than building sets)
:* Run-time type detection (rather than pattern-matching or type conditional evaluation etc)
'''Solution''' ?
: Protect '''task focus''' by separating out the perfectly legitimate (but quite distinct) interest in '''notational comparisons within particular language families'''
:The way to do that is clearly by gradually building some kind of alternative indexing or an additional Table of Contents, or even a full-blown tagging system.
'''Possible headers''' ?
:Others may have a very different shopping list. The first things that come to my mind might be:
:* Repetition – ''fold'' and ''reduce'' vs loops
:* Set building – list monads and list comprehensions vs nested iteration
:* Type-conditional evaluation – pattern matching vs run-time type detection
:etc [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 20:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
| |||