Rosetta Code talk:Village Pump/Suggest a programming task: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(Good points.) |
(Regarding purpose of having different languages.) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:More specifically, "Rotate the output device" could easily be represented in many languages, when one takes DirectX and OpenGL into account. (And, quite frankly, I'd like to see more of that.) Rendering along a path, well, I dunno. Possibly PDF and GIMP Script-Fu? --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 22:35, 4 February 2007 (EST) |
:More specifically, "Rotate the output device" could easily be represented in many languages, when one takes DirectX and OpenGL into account. (And, quite frankly, I'd like to see more of that.) Rendering along a path, well, I dunno. Possibly PDF and GIMP Script-Fu? --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 22:35, 4 February 2007 (EST) |
||
:Also, I've had several people describe Rosetta Code useful in that it helps demonstrate how certain languages make some tasks easier. If a language implies the automatic completion of a task, then that should probably be mentioned; That's a strong point of that language. |
|||
:Many times, someone who knows one or two languages is interested in learning another, similarly-purposed language. When that happens, seeing parallel examples can cement a relationship in the programmer's mind. |
|||
:Certainly, there are language classes with little or no overlap. I wouldn't try to port a pure C program into pure SQL, for example; The languages were designed to address fundamentally different problems. Some Perl 6 programs might qualify, though. I've heard complaints that Rosetta Code focuses too much on imperative programming, by virtue of the nature of its tasks. I'd love to see tasks that demonstrated other forms of programming, and I wouldn't expect all of the languages to overlap between forms --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 22:47, 4 February 2007 (EST) |
|||