Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Task creation process discussion: Difference between revisions
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Task creation process discussion (view source)
Revision as of 01:07, 15 October 2008
, 15 years agono edit summary
(Response) |
Underscore (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 19:
::Here are a few: [[Apply a callback to an Array]], [[Polynomial Fitting]], [[Sum of squares]], [[Search for a User in Active Directory]]. What these tasks lack is a clear sense of purpose, compared to similar tasks. For instance, [[Sum of squares]] is a pretty superficial variant of [[Sum and product of array]]; the chief difference isn't even the squaring, but the use of the word "array", since arrays aren't the simplest sort of data structure in some languages (like Haskell). —[[User:Underscore|Underscore]] 23:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I think Apply a callback was basically "send (or simulate sending) a function as an argument" and that's a pretty discrete language feature. Polynomial fitting seems more like one of those third category tasks (nontrivials). I see how the active directory one doesn't fit..I never quite understood that one. Sum of squares does seem like a duplicate of sum and product, but there was a long discussion about that one already that I don't want to relive. It seems like it'd be a second category task (ordinary). Am I thinking about this incorrectly? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 00:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Using a function as an argument to another function is indeed a feature worth demonstrating; I guess I'd recommend the task's name or description be amended to reflect that purpose, since it wasn't obvious to me. Likewise, looking at "Sum of squares"'s discussion page, I feel we ought to replace it with (or it ought to be more clearly marked as) a generic function-composition task. The reason why I don't feel "Polynomial fitting" fits in the third category is because in practice, you wouldn't accomplish such a task with generic language features, but a special-purpose library, so all the tasks will look like:
::::<tt>Load library
::::Run library function</tt>
::::making the program trivial from the library-user's point of view, and while I feel demonstrating trivial features of a ''language'' is a worthy end, I don't feel the same way about ''libraries'', since Rosetta Code is about languages, not libraries.
::::The bottom line is, if you're thinking my categories are too subjective to be useful, you may well be right. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that chances are, the only truly effective solution to this problem would be a set of clear guidelines as to what tasks do and don't belong on Rosetta, and a task-deletion process in the style of Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion. Or we could go really wild and require community consensus for tasks to be created in the first place. —[[User:Underscore|Underscore]] 01:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
| |||