Anonymous user
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Task creation process discussion: Difference between revisions
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Task creation process discussion (view source)
Revision as of 08:44, 26 April 2009
, 15 years ago→Three types of tasks: What I like about RC as reader & contributer.
(→Three types of tasks: What I like about RC as reader & contributer.) |
|||
Line 30:
:::::Those categories are a good start I think. We just need to hammer out the details and make sure we all agree on things. I wouldn't be opposed to some new rules for task creation (added to [[Help:Adding a new programming task]]), but I don't think we need rules on task deletion yet. I don't think we think about deleting tasks that much, and when we do a little bit of discussion is enough to figure out what to do. Maybe we should try to "meet" in the IRC channel to get a real time discussion going (and to make sure more people can chime in before it gets too crazy). --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Mmm… I'm afraid I can't make a commitment, since school is a little hectic at the moment. Probably the best way to do this would be for someone (possibly me, if I get the chance) to make a draft set of guidelines on a new page. Then we can all debate about it on the talk page and edit it, in the grand tradition of wikis. —[[User:Underscore|Underscore]] 22:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I gave some thought to your third category:
* "... more complex examples that show how a given language is used in practice to write nontrivial programs"
I would think that non-trivial programs would just be too long. Reading RC and when thinking of examples I always try and think of something that in most languages I might know, would have a short solution, (as well as a short definition), and what I find interesting and think might be of interest to others. This tends to have me looking again at examples of the advertised strengths, (and weaknesses), of different programming languages; and at algorithms in general. I don't think it is good to go out of the way to think of examples that can be done by a large selection of languages I think that would lead to a rather bland RC. I like it when a task is done by several languages in a similar way, then along comes an entry that does it in a new intriguing way. Sometimes other languages then add their implementations of this new way. That's interesting! Someone once said that a good programming language will alter the way you think of solving a problem, and RC has introduced me to a few cases where the J language explanations are mind-blowing for example. The [[Look-and-say_sequence#Perl|Perl example]] of how to solve look-and-say with a regexp is another. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 08:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
===Needing a feature===
| |||