Talk:Boids: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:


:: I agree the Task specification is incomplete and needs improvements. (I think a Boids task is good for RosettaCode because the code needed for such simulation is not too much long, and it's a kind of task not overrepresented in RC.) -[[User:Bearophile|bearophile]] 23:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:: I agree the Task specification is incomplete and needs improvements. (I think a Boids task is good for RosettaCode because the code needed for such simulation is not too much long, and it's a kind of task not overrepresented in RC.) -[[User:Bearophile|bearophile]] 23:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

::: This Python version is readable and it doesn't have obstacles. http://code.activestate.com/recipes/502240-boids-version-11/ Removing the GUI code it's about 120 lines of non-comment Python code. Is this too much for a RosettaCode Task?

Revision as of 03:58, 8 January 2013

Should the task define specific rules the birds follow, so implementations won't be too arbitrary? --Ledrug 18:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several variants of the three rules of boids movements, but the original ones should be enough for this task. -bearophile 23:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep. We really do need something concrete to implement rather than a vague link to a Wikipedia article that does not seem to have any pseudo-code to follow. --Paddy3118 19:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree the Task specification is incomplete and needs improvements. (I think a Boids task is good for RosettaCode because the code needed for such simulation is not too much long, and it's a kind of task not overrepresented in RC.) -bearophile 23:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
This Python version is readable and it doesn't have obstacles. http://code.activestate.com/recipes/502240-boids-version-11/ Removing the GUI code it's about 120 lines of non-comment Python code. Is this too much for a RosettaCode Task?