Rosetta Code talk:Village Pump/Suggest a programming task: Difference between revisions

:I disagree. I don't think that particular languages are thought of when creating tasks. Maybe very general paradigms are thought of (like "object oriented" or "functional"), but mostly the focus is something that people do frequently or can learn a lot from. Merging isn't very easy if a lot of examples sprout up quickly, especially since merging is human enough that a bot can't do it well and--even when called upon--experts on a particular language don't frequently merge old examples and change them for the new task (see: [[String Length]] and [[Loop Structures]] vs [[Iteration]]). Having a large number of tasks is nice in some ways and not nice in others. It's nice because we can have good coverage of programming ideas, but not nice because they can get lost in the solutions category (even with the recent reorganization). I think we should continue to make sure that new tasks are unique, valuable, and possible in many languages. This can be helped by not encouraging a create then review and merge/delete sort of process.--[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 20:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh I meant stuff like [[Object_Serialization]] where the task is created with languages that support both objects and inheritance ~/a paradigm/. I am not saying it is done consciously, rather it is an observation. As a suggestion towards the cons of numerous related tasks, perhaps we can have a way to promote only really nice and generic tasks to the solutions page (or equivalent)?. I agree with your comment on merge of old examples but I think we do need a way to introduce more generic/useful/better tasks in a less painful way than to update the task description and force all implementations to change.[[User:Rahul|Rahul]] 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)