Talk:Padovan sequence: Difference between revisions
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
::Thanks – good thought. Sometimes there is a clear (''imperative'' | ''procedural'') ⇄ ''functional'' divergence in the architecture of these things, but in this case, where both solutions are built from 'lazy' generators, the two approaches to composition converge quite a lot, and I don't think that separating labels are particularly illuminating or necessary. |
::Thanks – good thought. Sometimes there is a clear (''imperative'' | ''procedural'') ⇄ ''functional'' divergence in the architecture of these things, but in this case, where both solutions are built from 'lazy' generators, the two approaches to composition converge quite a lot, and I don't think that separating labels are particularly illuminating or necessary. |
||
::The intervention here seems largely rhetorical. |
::The intervention here seems largely rhetorical. |
||
::(and possibly a bit-counter-productive from the perspective of the hostile party – it probably just increases the readership of the ''generic anamorphism'' variant). |
|||
:: My instinct would be to delabel, and just leave the flat sequence of alternative drafts intact. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 12:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:14, 28 February 2021
Overnight graffiti
There was a spate of graffiti overnight, adorning the two Python versions as "Idiomatic" and "Unidiomatic" respectively.
People do feel strongly about their coding practices and their traditions of composition, but this a site for comparison, not for turf-wars or expositions.
The only interesting comment on a version is an alternative variant, and the only interesting measure of compliance with standards is the verdict of a linter.
Incidentally, FWIW, Pylint flags up various issues in the "Idiomatic" (sic) variant, including:
Dangerous default value dict() (builtins.dict) as argumentpylint(dangerous-default-value)
Shall we leave the aggressive labelling to kids, and just make more use of linters ?
Contributors can provide their own labels, where they really make the index easier to use. Hout (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- You have a valid point. Could you suggest some less-judgemental labels, maybe imperative/functional? --Pete Lomax (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks – good thought. Sometimes there is a clear (imperative | procedural) ⇄ functional divergence in the architecture of these things, but in this case, where both solutions are built from 'lazy' generators, the two approaches to composition converge quite a lot, and I don't think that separating labels are particularly illuminating or necessary.
- The intervention here seems largely rhetorical.
- (and possibly a bit-counter-productive from the perspective of the hostile party – it probably just increases the readership of the generic anamorphism variant).
- My instinct would be to delabel, and just leave the flat sequence of alternative drafts intact. Hout (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)