Anonymous user
User talk:Paddy3118: Difference between revisions
→References: Thanks for catching the staleness :-)
(→concerning the raw.githubusercontent, English words dictionary: Thanks, noted.) |
(→References: Thanks for catching the staleness :-)) |
||
| (41 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 101:
: Michael, Thanks for forwarding it - it's great to get positive feedback from a lecturer. (Maybe the site needs a "visitors book")? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 01:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
===References===
Thanks for finding the new location for the BBC Video. Too bad it isn't visible around the world without some network expertise. The Beeb could take a lesson from the Khan Academy.
<br />[[User:GarveyPatrickD|GarveyPatrickD]] ([[User talk:GarveyPatrickD|talk]]) 14:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
:Hmmm, It's a difficult choice of some or none. There are other references however, and the task description seems complete in itself.
: Thanks for catching the staleness :-)
: --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 14:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
==Evolutionary algorithm==
Line 1,575 ⟶ 1,582:
Namely, --- and I haven't looked further then this --- that the '''Y'''s are out of order, and also scattered throughout the dictionary (''throughout'' may be too strong a word here).
:: Later, I found out that there were a lot (well, a significant number) of '''Y''' words mixed in with the '''I''' words. I don't know if there is a systemic reason for this. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 15:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted you to know in case you're doing research/searches/whatever, and you're depending/expecting that the dictionary being in an alphabetic order. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Line 1,581 ⟶ 1,591:
By the way, I'm in the process of merging the words from that dictionary with "my" personal ultra-fat dictionary. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
:Thanks
:The more I look, the more there is to see ☺️--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 06:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
:: I finished up the merging of the words from the (above) mentioned "GitHub user content" (English dictionary), and it added over '''32,000''' words in "my" dictionary. As the new words were being merged, I noticed a whole she-bang of hyphenated words being added. "My" dictionary now has '''947,359''' words in it. Maybe "words" isn't the correct word to use, "entries" would be a better fit. Thanks again for informing me of that English dictionary. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 15:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
== natural sorting, less spaced out ==
I noticed that you stated that your latest edit (for the '''Sample input''') was less spaced out, and that, in part, is true. It was spaced out wider (but didn't require horizontal scrolling), and took advantage of the horizontal real estate, but it was much shorter so that '''Sample input''' section would fit on one screen without vertical scrolling.
However, it is now quite a bit ''longer'' (vertically). My intent to was to make the '''Sample input''' easier to read (on one screen) without vertical scrolling, and not have the reading of the sub-fields interfere with that visual scanning. Also, one could read the three major headers (sections?) without having to visually compete with the secondary title entries, '''Text strings:''', and its tertiary entries, the examples themselves which are for the most part, ''literals'' (cluttered with their own sub-fields, necessarily so) which read better when having them in their own column. That section of the task's preamble is now eighteen lines longer and the whole is a lot harder to peruse to my eyes, forcing me to now read all the sub-fields. I was going for a more columnar look rather than a vertical/stacked list for a shorter vertical presentation where the primary and secondary/tertiary fields have their own columnar locations. I'm not arguing that it should be changed once again, but I thought you should be aware what was intended and I was trying for a more Wiki-look approach in presenting multiple fields of information that fitted on one screen instead of forcing the reader to vertically scroll to enable to perusing the presented fields of the '''Sample input'''. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
For easier comparisons, the older presentation is shown below so viewers can do a side-by-side comparison (using two windows).
<small>(I was also thinking about ''not'' using the abbreviation '''Equiv.''' (two sections) but I wasn't sure if that was legitimate to use the full uncapitalized word instead.
<br>Also, the '''m.a.s''' abbreviation should be replaced with '''MAS''' which could further reduce the width of the '''Sample input''' section.)</small>
The older presentation below is '''44''' lines deep, the newer revised view is '''62''' lines deep.
;Sample input:
<pre>
# Ignoring leading spaces. Text strings: ['ignore leading spaces: 2-2',
'ignore leading spaces: 2-1',
'ignore leading spaces: 2+0',
'ignore leading spaces: 2+1']
# Ignoring multiple adjacent spaces (m.a.s). Text strings: ['ignore m.a.s spaces: 2-2',
'ignore m.a.s spaces: 2-1',
'ignore m.a.s spaces: 2+0',
'ignore m.a.s spaces: 2+1']
# Equivalent whitespace characters. Text strings: ['Equiv. spaces: 3-3',
'Equiv. \rspaces: 3-2',
'Equiv. \x0cspaces: 3-1',
'Equiv. \x0bspaces: 3+0',
'Equiv. \nspaces: 3+1',
'Equiv. \tspaces: 3+2']
# Case Independent sort. Text strings: ['cASE INDEPENDENT: 3-2',
'caSE INDEPENDENT: 3-1',
'casE INDEPENDENT: 3+0',
'case INDEPENDENT: 3+1']
# Numeric fields as numerics. Text strings: ['foo100bar99baz0.txt',
'foo100bar10baz0.txt',
'foo1000bar99baz10.txt',
'foo1000bar99baz9.txt']
# Title sorts. Text strings: ['The Wind in the Willows',
'The 40th step more',
'The 39 steps',
'Wanda']
# Equivalent accented characters (and case). Text strings: [u'Equiv. \xfd accents: 2-2',
u'Equiv. \xdd accents: 2-1',
u'Equiv. y accents: 2+0',
u'Equiv. Y accents: 2+1']
# Separated ligatures. Text strings: [u'\u0132 ligatured ij',
'no ligature']
# Character replacements. Text strings: [u'Start with an \u0292: 2-2',
u'Start with an \u017f: 2-1',
u'Start with an \xdf: 2+0',
u'Start with an s: 2+1']
</pre>
(Editorial note: the above '''Sample input''' has been shortened and elongated, plus other changes made.)
The above chart would be presented better as an HTML table, but that might start an edit war/tiff. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
: Hi Gerard. The main cleanup is your edit that I then shortened the line lengths of. Your points are valid.Thanks for pointing out the increase in line lengths. I'll revert my edits with a smile, either are better than what you straightened out :-)<br>
: --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 09:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
:: Thanks, you can't possible know how much I appreciate the restoration. It takes a well-centered person (they used to be called a "big man") to see both sides of such a situation. I too am a big man, but it's mostly fat, er, ... I mean table muscle, but still ··· I'll get to work and elide some of the horizontal spacing as well as changing the the abbreviation '''m.a.s.''' will forthwith be reduced to '''MAS'''. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 13:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Paddy: I replaced the hash marks ('''#''') with bullet points, but I'm not 100% sure that it's an improvement. The bullet points look nicer, but they don't have the size. From some reason, Wiki doesn't display the bullet point glyph the correct size, it should be more of the <big>•</big> size instead of the • size. I'm more used to the size bullet that the IBM fonts used for the '''TN''' print chain (ya, too long in the tooth). But there ya have it. I also would like world peace and an end to world hunger. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 13:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
: Hash vs bullet - I agree, it's a hard call. I did see that the ''opening'' single quotes for the ligature/no ligature lines are alligned which emphasises the initial u which is only on one of the lines. I like that :-)<br>
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 15:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
== adding a thingy for ''prime numbers'' as there is for ''sorting'' (algorithms) ==
Paddy: I was thinking about adding a thingy for prime numbers and factorization, very much like that thingy that Rosetta Code sorting algorithms have at the top right of every Rosetta Code task (the preamble) that does some sort of sorting. It's that box that shows readers what other Rosetta Code tasks deal with sorting (algorithms).
I would include (maybe) these sections:
:::* "regular" primes
:::* kinds/types of primes
:::* factorization of integers
:::* tasks that make use of primes
:::* miscellaneous prime stuff ... I don't know what to call this catch-all stuff ... ''other'' ?
This addition would be not so much for the casual reader, but for Rosetta Code coders who, once they start programming for various prime tasks and other types of primes, would naturally delve into (integer) factorization and possible some related fields. I've been <strike>added</strike> adding the category '''Prime numbers''' to any Rosetta Code task that deals with primes or (integer) factorization, or tasks that make use of primes. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 14:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I think there should be another category added, '''Primes''' that re-directs to '''Prime numbers''', but I'm not sure quite how to enter it, or even if it ''should'' be created. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 14:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
: I agree with you, primes are a natural grouping. On the name for "others" it might be best to see what gets put there and name it afterwards?<br>
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 15:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
== «math» HTML tags not rendering correctly ==
In a Rosetta Code task (that I entered, namely the task: '''Leonardo numbers'''), I tried to use the ''exact'' <big> <nowiki> <math> </nowiki> </big> HTML tag that is used on Wikipedia (for '''Leonardo number'''), but on Rosetta Code, it produces a big red error message.
Here is the Wikipedia code, as-is (from the '''Leonardo number''' entry on Wikipedia):
<pre>
:<math>
L(n) =
\begin{cases}
1 & \mbox{if } n = 0 \\
1 & \mbox{if } n = 1 \\
L(n - 1) + L(n - 2) + 1 & \mbox{if } n > 1 \\
\end{cases}
</math>
</pre>
{I also have the (above) code "inside" the '''Leonardo numbers''' Rosetta Code task as an HTML comment.}
The error messages produced are (the original error message is one big long sentence):
<b>
<pre style="font-size:200%;color: red">
Failed to parse (MathML with SVG or PNG fallback (recommended
for modern browsers and accessibility tools): Invalid
response ("<p>There was a problem during the HTTP request:
503 Service Unavailable </p>") from server
"http://mathoid.testme.wmflabs.org":):
L(n) = \begin{cases} 1 & \mbox{if } n = 0 \\ 1 & \mbox{if }
n = 1 \\ L(n - 1) + L(n - 2) + 1 & \mbox{if } n > 1 \\
\end{cases}
</pre>
</b>
The (above) messages are very similar to the error messages produced when there are leading and/or trailing whitespace in the <big> <nowiki> <math> </nowiki> </big> HTML tags elsewhere on Rosetta Code.
Now, the (failing) text does have leading and trailing blanks, but it <u>does</u> work on Wikipedia, but not on Rosetta Code. You may recall the tiff that ensued when I used leading and trailing blanks on various <big> <nowiki> <math> </nowiki> </big> HTML tags, (it worked for FireFox, but not some other web browsers), and the ensuing stone throwing. Apparently, it's easier to cast stones than address the real problem. I had found/mentioned a fix that I read about after searching in the dark (this was because the error is caused in an "area" of HTML rendering that I newer heard or knew of), but the fix (not a program fix, but some kind of specification) was never implemented as far as I know; the fix is outside of my knowledge of such things.
I have elided the leading, trailing, and embedded superfluous whitespace, but no matter what combination I used, it always produced an error message.
In trying to debug the (above) error, I had taken the <big> <nowiki> <math> </nowiki> </big> HTML tag that is used within the preamble of the Rosetta Code task '''Bernoulli numbers''', and I changed (on the Rosetta Code task '''Bernoulli numbers''') the bold '''B''' within the <big> <nowiki> <math> </nowiki> </big> HTML tag text to an '''S''', and that also produced the same error!! Just an attempted single character change. I also tried various other character (letter) substitutions, all produced the same error message. No whitespace was changed. What's going on? A caching problem, perhaps? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Also (and you might want to burn this paragraph after reading, least I propagate vandelous information), I have found that when those particular red bold error messages are produced, <u>and</u> left there (without clearing the display of the error), and then, in another (FireFox or Internet Explorer) window, trying to access the Rosetta Code website (any page), I essentially received a (I think) a '''505''' (504?) error saying that the '''Rosetta Code''' website isn't responding. Now, it could be that only '''I''' couldn't access the Rosetta Code site, not others. In essence, I may have stumbled on a method for a denial-of-service. This is one reason that I think this problem should be addressed and fixed. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
== Response has been posted to your raslbg|talk comment. ==
.
== a Rosetta Code task is scrambled ==
<strike>
The Rosetta Code task '''Spelling of ordinal numbers''' is messed up
<br> (the text on the task page appears a bit scrambled with another Rosetta Code task).
The task page now has the content of something to do with "twin primes", and
the other part seems to have the content of the original page, namely the
spelling of ordinal numbers.
Also, at the top of the page, something is complaining about:
Template loop detected: Template:Task
(the 1st three words are in red color, the last word (with the colon inside it)
is a link, apparently to a task template.
I thought you should know about this problem ASAP so that it can be fixed, undone/undo/retrograded, or
something. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
-----
The page looks like:
<pre>
Template:Twin Prime Conjecture
Twin primes are pairs of natural numbers(P1 and P2) that satisfy the following:
P1 and P2 are primes
P1 + 2 = P2
Write a program that displays the number of twin primes that can be found under a user-inputted number.
Examples below:
Output:
> Search Size: 100
> 8 twin prime pairs.
> Search Size: 1000
> 35 twin prime pairs.
............................................... end of the "bad" stuff, and the start of the "good" stuff (original stuff) ...
Ordinal numbers (as used in this Rosetta Code task), are numbers that describe the position of something in a list.
It is this context that ordinal numbers will be used, using an English-spelled name of an ordinal number.
The ordinal numbers are (at least, one form of them):
............................................... the rest looks normal ..............................................
</pre>
However, when I "edit" the page to view the source, it appears normal, so the errant text seems to be "coming from" a template of some kind. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
</strike>
<big>Never mind, the problem has been fixed (apparently). </big> -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, the ''template'' for a '''task''' was modified, and then fixed. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
== super_d numbers Python example ==
When I run it, the Python code in the Super_d numbers task does not produce the output it shows - the d = 8 line is not actually calculated.
--[[User:Steenslag|Steenslag]] ([[User talk:Steenslag|talk]]) 11:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
:Yep, you're right. Corrected now, Thanks 👍--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 15:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
== some general comments of too-quick task deletions and more ==
I do believe that the deletion of tasks should be discussed first. <big>But ... </big>
I have had a discussion (not fruitful nor pleasant) about the uniqueness of recently entered (draft) tasks and their value (on being on Rosetta Code) and it did not go well for the lone Indian. When challenged, the discourse just got inflammatory, along with strawman arguments, and silly ('''So?''') rebuttals, and the stating of opinions as facts, and the use of capitalized use of supposedly shouting <big> '''is completely besides the point''',</big> whenever I try to make a point which is either disagreed upon or dismissed, and so on and so on and ... Rosetta Code (discussions/talks) has become a pretty unfriendly place, and in my opinion, toxic. Yeah, I know, I know, a strong word. Whenever challenged, the challenger just doubled-down, and went downhill from there. I had entered a solution to the draft task ''Similar words'', and it was summarily deleted, along with the (draft) task. I think that that (draft) task definitely had a uniqueness to it and wasn't just another version of finding an '''xxx''' string in a list of words in a dictionary. Far from it. As a matter of fact, the other deleted tasks also had their merits, but there is no sense in me trying to defend those merits, as defending something (lately) just means the defender gets rebuffed with a lot of sarcasm and acidic rhetoric ... and worse. If one can't have a polite discourse on the merits of a task without all that vitriol and ad-holmium attacks, then why bother having "talk" discussions? Something has to be done (or should be done). Not to mention that someone needs to define what "spam" is so that term is used correctly. Not to mention janitorial services. A janitor doesn't throw the furniture out, just the dust and junk on the floor. I think the use of words like "dump" (does it really matter if someone adds draft tasks at a certain speed?) is so condescending and judgemental. ... And the use of words like "vomiting", "low quality", and numerous other words/phrases of that ilk. And the statement of opinions as fact ... hard to argue with a closed mind (or gawd-like). These are some of the reasons (regarding wording and phrasing and "it's true 'cause I say it's true ...) that I call toxic to opening a discussion. It may appear to anyone that the wording is toxic, but it doesn't sink home unless YOU get defamed, then it's a story of a different color). I fear that this sort of rhetoric will quell (or discourage) others from joining it or offering/opening a new discussion. Why have to suffer the slings and arrows from offering one's opinion on a Rosetta Code discussion? I wish I could go on and write about some of the (draft) tasks that were deleted. Each task had (bless their departed souls) their merits and different ways/methods of solving them (not to mention their solutions), and it wasn't just variants of find '''xyz''' words in a dictionary. Some were ''like'' anagrams, others needed a somewhat different method(s). Every chef, er, ... programmer can bring a new recipe for solutions here at (old) Rosetta Code. For what I've observed, the discussion of deletion of tasks is like asking five wolves and a sheep on what's going to be for supper? (<strike>Deleting</strike> Voting on tasks isn't a democracy. Ya can't <strike>execute</strike> delete someone by counting votes. There ''should be'' a discussion/debate). There are always people who think word searches are all alike. Well, they ain't. Anyone who thinks otherwise should be <strike>banned</strike> blocked for a week or more. Boy oh boy!! That'll teach 'em from trying to to participate in the culture at Rosetta Code!! --- By the way, I wish <u>any</u> other dictionary would be used that mimics a true dictionary: duplicate words, capitalization (God and god), word phrases, hyphenated words, etc.). Someone actually said, the '''xxx''' word isn't in the unixdict.txt (or whatever it's called) file, so it isn't a word (!!!). OMG! Having ALL words in lowercase defeats the purpose of a dictionary. Searches should be caseless, unless specifically requested that they be not. At this point, I might as well rant a bit (with my tongue <u>firmly</u> and humorously in cheek). Why have all those (vomited?) types of sorts? You've seen one type of sort if you've seen 'em all. Does Rosetta Code really need all those types/categories of sorts? My oh my, the sorts! The sorts!. All those sorts!! And all those kinds of primes. Yikes! And all those types of sequences. To borrow a phrase: '''Sheesh!!''' (Use of the that exclamation should prove my point beyond all possibility of any and all rebuttals ... 'cause I said so). And all those types of trivial '''DO/FOR''' loops. I wonder what Dr. N. J. A. Sloane thinks or all those thousand and thousands and thousands of integer sequences in OEIS. Oy veh!! The mind boggles on what a janitor with unlimited power (or ego) could do. End of silly rant. Well, at least I feel better. None of the above needs responding, that way I can actually think I made a point or two. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 02:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
:* These discussions, were they deleted too?
:* Who did the deletions?
:I read your vent. Text wrangling is an important part of work done on the Unix command line for example, made less visible because, for a large number of users, it is "just what you do" in some script or one-liner to prepare data to or from more expansive/expensive programs.
:Deleting tasks without adequate discussion and/or warning should not be done. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 10:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
:P.S: Can vents be punctuated? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 10:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
;STOP PRESS!
Gerard, please see [http://rosettacode.org/wiki/User_talk:Thundergnat#Task_deletions this] reply from Thundergnat. He explains the task is from a "serial dumper" leading to his actions. If so, then the root problem is that serial dumper. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 10:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
:: Yes, I had already read it, and yet I wrote all this. But, I believe the real root problem is: ''deleting tasks without adequate discussion and/or warning should not be done''. The baby got thrown out with the bathwater. Wait, where have I read that? If everyone agrees (two people, three people?) that it was a case of "serial dumping", then it is what it is. Can't argue with that logic. But, I want to hear anything/something from the other side first. Calling it "dumping" is part of the problem. And, to top it off, it was "serial". Maybe we should call it very sudden stupid and mindless serial dumping unto innocent Rosetta Code victims of nearly identical tasks with nearly exactly the same programming solutions taken from a maze of twisted and twisting passages, all alike. Oh my. Oh well, I sympathize with the guy <strike>banned</strike> blocked (even for a few days). It makes it hard to have a discussion with a guy who can't give his side, and I have a suspicion that English is his second (or third) language, and that he may have a hard time expressing himself adequately, or maybe he doesn't feel it's worth the effort to explain his motives or actions (heaven knows how that can work out, I can attest it does no good). But once <strike>banned</strike> blocked, I doubt that he'll be forth coming. I remember my first foray at Rosetta Code, I knew not of what templates were (that could be used to flag an incorrect programming solution (as I had never seen a flag at that early time at Rosetta Code), nor did I know where people were trying to contact me on my user page, which I really didn't know existed. Thankfully, Michael Mol wrote me an e-mail (very politely and courteously worded, that guy has got class) clued me in where things were. That was a little over a decade ago. Any-a-whose, just a thought as I have no proof either way ya look at it. Just ignore my stuff (above), it's just like a fart in the wind. (Nice movie, made in 1939.) Gone in a few seconds, and nothing is noticed. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 12:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC))
:: By the way, the "stress" that you said that I have been enduring is not from the Calmosoft user, but the characterizations (by others) of his actions and the summarily actions taking ''against'' that user and some of his draft tasks, especially with the lack of communication to/from that said user. Maybe he has other time or health issues, or whatever. I know I was out-of-pocket more than once (away from Rosetta Code) for various reasons and/or for lengthy time periods. Or maybe some other kind of communication breakdown or difficulty is the culprit. But who knows what's happening "over there" at the other end. I know for certain that -I- don't know. I'm not that quick to judge when there isn't two-way communications. I was on that same side of that fence once myself, so I guess I sympathize more with guy being hanged then most people. This is why I was helping out with those draft tasks and added verbiage to Calmosoft's draft tasks (as well as others, here and there). Once Calmosoft saw how to include URL's and my somewhat more verbose way of asking for task requirements, he was adding the "extra" stuff (wording) on his own. A little bit of help here and there (and there and here) goes a long way instead of beating the poor guy over the head with a large stick. I believe that is (or should be) one of the core beliefs at Rosetta Code. Treat others like you'd like to be treated yourself. Sorry to quote Biblical. But sometimes, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. (Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when maybe you were that inexperienced --- I know I certainly was. --- It was Michael Mol who helped me out (there were a lot of arrows stuck in my back at the time, but I didn't know it as "they" were leaving messages on "my" talk page which I never knew that there was such a thing), without Mol's kindness and time spent, I wouldn't go on to enter over a thousand examples). Ha! I hope that that experience won't stop Mol from helping others out. Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... the earth's horizon keeps lowering and I must get some sleep. <big> <br>So, the beatings shall continue until moral improves! </big> -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 12:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
:::Gerard, you seem to be ignoring the lack of communication, and repeated posting of problem posts by CalmoSoft over many months. This seems to have culminated in a posting of several problem posts in a very short time, with little to no interaction with people querying them. I think it is reasonable for first authors to stick around and answer queries on draft posts - it seems that that is not forthcoming from CalmoSoft, and his tasks ''are'' questioned.
::: Check CalmoSofts talk page, people have attempted to converse with him there, and on the tasks he starts, before. The lack of work CalmoSoft puts into them is wearying to others.
::: Gerard, you seem to state that CalmoSofts circumstances may not allow him to do better, but surely his ability to start tasks is enough ability to defend or improve them in comments over the ''years'' in which that dialogue would have been welcomed?
::: --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 13:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
:::: I agree with you almost 100%. (If I agreed with everyone 100%, there would not be a need for a conversation, and you would never hear of my forays into humorous minutia ... well at least <u>one</u> of us thinks they're humorous.) Any-a-whose, continuing on ... There <u>is</u> a lack of communication, and some (maybe most by some opinions) posting of his Rosetta Code tasks are problematic, some of which muchly favor brevity, which is a one way to put it. And that several postings were, indeed, posted in a short time, even in a very short time, depending upon what one would consider normal for creating/posting Rosetta Code (draft) tasks. --- (I think if I had written/created all the flavors of the various type/kinds of primes tasks that I did eventually create/write/enter, would the same uproar be heard? Most likely, assuredly and probably so, me thinks. Worse, some or most would've been rejected and then deleted, and Rosetta Code would be lessor for it.) And it appears that CalmoSoft has not made many (or any) responses to some (or most) queries about his draft tasks. However, many of his tasks have had programming solutions entered without having the need for further explanation. I would've entered more programming solutions (and addressed each of the draft tasks) if they weren't deleted. I <u>try</u> to create solutions that address the nuances of the best way to approach/solve/meet the requirements and use idiomatic REXX code, and treat the dictionary as if it were a true dictionary, not just an incomplete all lowercase words, especially those words that should be capitalized. Thus the reason I mention that my REXX programs meet the requirements and perform <u>caseless</u> searches/finds, and also present the answers in the ''case'' (same manner) that the word is in the dictionary. Not all of those tasks that required the reading of a dictionary needed a common method to assimilate the dictionary words, and I could've used some boilerplate code to do exactly that, but that would've been inelegant. And homey don't do inelegant. Yes, I did state that there ''may'' be circumstances that may not allow him to do better, and certainly there may be circumstances that I have not thought of or know of. And yes, it appears that he could put more time into the structure and wording of the draft tasks. I have added (sometimes) quite a bit of verbiage to my own draft tasks, and I still have overlooked or omitted vital details and/or specifications and/or requirements, it usually takes someone helpful to peruse the wording and tell me (or even correct) the obvious stuff that I overlooked, and I'm very thankful and appreciative for that help. Others have gone the other route which made it more difficult to change/alter/fix the wording of the specifications, or make a compromise that didn't invalidate existing programming solutions. Saying that it stinks to high heaven (or other such phrases/words) doesn't facilitate a fruitful conversation or repair. And, yes, of course a dialogue would've been welcomed, no matter how succinct. This is probably always the case, as long as the dialogue is constructive, and that, of course, begs a definition of "constructive"; there's a fine line between helpful and not helpful, depending upon how the "advice" is interpreted, sometimes filtered through social [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mores mores] and customs (as I eluded to before on my suspicions, possibly even unfounded suspicions). I won't throw stones at him, I still await to hear his side (if he intends to tell it or not), and I do insist that he has one, albeit almost fully unheard so far. So, I hope we agree on these points, even if only 99%. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
:::: Forgot to mention: the Merriam-Webster site defining ''mores'' leaves cookies. It seems that most web dictionaries do so. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
== question on numbers for the hourglass puzzle ==
I have a question about your flagging of the REXX solution for the '''hourglass puzzle'''. Is it your concern that words were used instead of Arabic numerals? The output was almost identical of the '''Python''' entry (as noted by the '''trans''' tag). Which computer programming entry would be better emulated? Would changing it to exactly match Python's output be OK? (Except for the misspelling error). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
:Python is using string interpolation there so an expression such as {t4//4} will be replaced by its actual value (4) when the string is printed. Does REXX have a similar facility? --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 20:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
:: Ah, now I see the light. I was thinking that the characters '''{t4///4}''' were just that and I didn't realize that they were meant to be substituted. I will correct it ASAP. Thanks for finding my (glaring) omission. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
::: Sorry for being vague :-)
::: --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 20:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
:::: Naw, my bad. If I had been paying more attention to Python's output, I would have noticed that there was string
interpolation going on. I need better eyes or I need to do less programming when my eyesight begins to get the best of me. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 02:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
== Fibonacci numbers definition for Padovan task ==
Concerning the ''Padovan'' task, the Fibonacci numbers definition for the first two terms may need re-doing, '''F(0) = 0''', '''F(1) = 1'''. Of course, this depends where you start the Fibonacci series. But ten terms were listed starting with zero, so then F(0) has to be zero. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 10:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
| |||