Talk:Padovan sequence: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
Line 17: Line 17:
:You have a valid point. Could you suggest some less-judgemental labels, maybe imperative/functional? --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 11:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
:You have a valid point. Could you suggest some less-judgemental labels, maybe imperative/functional? --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 11:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


::Thanks – good thought. Sometimes there is a clear ''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. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 12:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
::The intervention here seems largely rhetorical. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 12:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:09, 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. Hout (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)