Talk:Write language name in 3D ASCII: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(Criteria for non-draft) |
(→Criteria for non-draft: +1) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
A general “write the language's name in 3D” task would be far better, since that would admit graphical implementations as well. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 15:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
A general “write the language's name in 3D” task would be far better, since that would admit graphical implementations as well. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 15:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:I agree. This task has been sitting around for a long time with nothing being done to it. While it is "cute" it seems that it isn't interesting enough. I think opening it up to other methods of display (built-in graphics, OpenGL, etc.) would be good. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 15:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:34, 5 May 2011
Criteria for non-draft
The problem with this task overall is that it has only one implementation in about 5 months of existence. While a task may have fewer than 4 implementations at the start of its life, it should normally get above that threshold rapidly (i.e., timescale: days). My concern is that this “task” (without admitting whether it is a task or not) is never going to attract any further implementations because of the way it is specified; very few languages/runtimes have a library for this sort of thing on the grounds that it's not actually very useful…
A general “write the language's name in 3D” task would be far better, since that would admit graphical implementations as well. –Donal Fellows 15:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. This task has been sitting around for a long time with nothing being done to it. While it is "cute" it seems that it isn't interesting enough. I think opening it up to other methods of display (built-in graphics, OpenGL, etc.) would be good. --Mwn3d 15:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)