Anonymous user
Talk:Substring primes: Difference between revisions
→limit: added some comments.
(→limit) |
(→limit: added some comments.) |
||
Line 20:
:::: My apologies, the 119 was a step too far. I ran your code on tio and it displayed 26 rather than the 14 claimed in the output. I will admit that I do not know enough about the REXX programming language to understand why that might not be classified as blatent lying. I will not however apologise for nor promise to desist in making what I think are sensible proactive changes to tasks shortly after creation, particularly not when a task is utterly trivial and extremely similar to a very recent one. There is always the undo button but you are not interested in that. Ultimately I simply do not understand why you complain about such changes but not about the creation of the task in the first place. In other words how is (no task -> task) actually any different to (task -> modified task), really? There are many tasks on RC that I ''wish'' somone else would spot a way to improve or make more challenging and interesting. If I have to revisit my code, that ''should'' be and usually is a good thing. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 08:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
::::: I'm not sure if you understand what lying is. You seem to be saying that the REXX program displayed one thing and claimed something else in the output (at least, that's what I took from your statements). Computer programs don't lie. At worst, wrong (or inaccurate) results (or omissions) may be displayed, but (blatant) lying? No. And, again, try not to explain why you can't understand why I didn't do something. If you want to know why I <u>didn't</u> do something, just ask me, there's no need to guess wrongly on the reasons and try to formulate a strawman argument. Please don't try to characterize or criticize something I didn't do. That type of discourse isn't helpful nor constructive. But you're completely wrong about my having no interest in the "undo" feature. Just because I very rarely use that feature, it doesn't meant I haven't an interest in it. I do not and will not use the "undo" button to remove someone else's changes unless a blatant error had occurred and a (partial or wholesale) loss of content was the result of (perhaps) someone's finger-slip and the author didn't see or realize it. But just because I might disagree about someone's changes or additions to a task (even a draft task), I won't "undo" it. That's not what the undo feature is for, at least, that's my opinion about that feature. I don't understand your question about the that "no task-->task vs. task-->modified task" statement. Modifying someone else's task (requirements), even a draft task, usually causes the authors of existing solutions/entries to revise/change their computer programs to accommodate the revised/added/changed requirements, and this isn't counting the "extra credit" or "stretch goal" stuff. But I do agree with you in that there're many tasks on Rosetta Code that could be improved or make more challenging/interesting. But there are just as many tasks that that would be a disservice. Take the many forms of a '''DO''' loop and various sorting algorithms and the like. The intent is to make the requirements simple and straight-forward so that programmers can see the simplistic form/structure of the algorithm/structure so as to compare it to other computer programming languages. If the requirements get too challenging, it may be difficult for a person (or novice) not familiar with a computer language to see the forest for the trees amongst the complexity of the code. Making it challenging may deter programmers from spending the effort and offering solutions. I believe in adding tasks (and interesting ones at that) if that encourages people in entering/creating solutions. Any Rosetta Code task can be improved in some way. But making a moving target just makes it complicated and it costs time and effort to re-write a computer program, even if it's a slight change. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
| |||