Talk:Write language name in 3D ASCII: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
(promote to task.)
Line 11: Line 11:
The task description appears complete to me. I don't think lack of popularity is a reason to keep the task as a draft. Some tasks are just more less interesting than others. If there are no issues with the task description, then I suggest that we promote this to task.
The task description appears complete to me. I don't think lack of popularity is a reason to keep the task as a draft. Some tasks are just more less interesting than others. If there are no issues with the task description, then I suggest that we promote this to task.
--[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 22:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
--[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 22:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
:Lack of popularity, to me, means that the task description hasn't really been tested much. I like to wait until there are a few different languages implementing the task from a few different users. That at least proves that several people understand and like the description. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 23:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:48, 3 June 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)
We could always create a separate task for graphics and opengl, if necessary.

--Markhobley 22:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The task description appears complete to me. I don't think lack of popularity is a reason to keep the task as a draft. Some tasks are just more less interesting than others. If there are no issues with the task description, then I suggest that we promote this to task. --Markhobley 22:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of popularity, to me, means that the task description hasn't really been tested much. I like to wait until there are a few different languages implementing the task from a few different users. That at least proves that several people understand and like the description. --Mwn3d 23:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)