I'm working on modernizing Rosetta Code's infrastructure. Starting with communications. Please accept this time-limited open invite to RC's Slack.. --Michael Mol (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Padovan n-step number sequences

From Rosetta Code

Names[edit]

I decided to omit the use of made-up names like:

Padovan tridovan tetradovan pentadovan hexadovan heptadovan octodovan nonadovan decadovan.

- A step too far :-)
--Paddy3118 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Recurrent and persecutory vandalism[edit]

This has broken out again in childishly repeated attacks on the Functional Python draft. Can I suggest that the perpetrator simply submits an alternative functional draft in their style of choice ?

The values sought by my version include a direct and legible expression of the recurrence relation, a demonstration of a generic anamorphism (unfold - dual to reduce), high levels of code reuse, reliability, and ease of refactoring.

It also aims for a high level of standards compliance, and as always, I have ensured that it is rather more compliant with the standards imposed by the widely used standard Python linters than the complainant's imperative drafts have tended to be.

The serial persecutor and self-appointed arbiter of regimental uniform is clearly less concerned by scrupulous linting than I am, but I have no objection to that. The value of Rosetta code lies in the provision of contrastive insight. They will be able to tell us what values their own drafts aim for, and I look forward to seeing those expressed in an alternative functional Python draft.

I have to say that these outbursts seem to concentrate around Functional Python drafts which happen to possess any qualities which the procedural version lacks – sometimes reliability, sometimes (as here, I think) clarity of expression, sometimes even crude execution speed.

That they are motivated by animus is absolutely clear. My strong impression is that the sources of this animus lie elsewhere, and that similar patterns are being played out in home life and work life. If they are to be harnessed here in the form of creative contribution, rather than destructive and persecutory vandalism, then they simply need to flow into additional drafts, rather than into mere attacks and polemics. Minimum adult standards please. Rosetta code deserves that. Hout (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)