Anonymous user
Talk:Long multiplication: Difference between revisions
→Wrong algorithms: builtin vs algorithm vs library vs open/close source vs open/proprietary library solutions.
(What does "algorithm" really mean, when comparing languages?) |
(→Wrong algorithms: builtin vs algorithm vs library vs open/close source vs open/proprietary library solutions.) |
||
Line 70:
::: At one point, this site had a guideline that tasks should specify the goals of the implementation, and maybe some tests, but that we should not specify how the computations are performed. Otherwise, in the general case, we do not have a way of comparing languages. We have drifted away from that, I think, because it's so popular to specify the details of how things get done. I think we are running into that tension, here. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 10:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
:::: I can see the dilemma, here are some more various shades of this issue:
::::* Solutions using Built in or standard distribution routines - maybe good to demonstrate best practice.
::::* Solutions with an implementation (algorithm) example - maybe good to demonstrate algorithm methodology in a specific language.
::::* Other libraries or implementation specific extensions e.g.
::::** Solutions using GPL/LGPL/BSD libraries - good to demonstrate availability, portability and longevity
::::** Solutions using Proprietary libraries - good to demonstrate available support for hire.
::::All of these points are important to different coders in different scenarios. What would be nice is to have a standard template indicating how which solution was used, eg instead of simply <nowiki>{{header|ALGOL 68}}</nowiki>, we could have <nowiki>{{header|ALGOL 68|using=library:GSL}} or {{header|ALGOL 68|solution=builtin}} or {{header|ALGOL 68|solution=algorithm}}</nowiki>
:::: Alterntatively we could split tasks, eg [[Long_multiplication/algorithm]], [[Long_multiplication/builtin]], [[Long_multiplication/Proprietary Library]]
:::: Or a check box table (for each of the above) could be included at the start of each languages section as a visual aid to seeing which solution is most complete.
::::(As an aside, [[ALGOL 68]] implemented the first two solutions, builtin and a complete algorithum.)
::::So far, I implement the most interesting solution, which is not always the shortest solution. <i>Sometimes</i> I implement both as the generalised code versus the one-off code when such a comparison is useful/interesting/informative.
:::: [[User:NevilleDNZ|NevilleDNZ]] ([[User talk:NevilleDNZ|talk]])
| |||