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:Split a character string based on change of character

From Rosetta Code

grouping languages into a BASIC section[edit]

So should I be pulling VBA and ZX Spectrum up into the BASIC section? Axtens (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

As it stands now, those sub-sections aren't counted   (among other things, counted in the number of entries/solutions for a particular (BASIC) programming language,   Rosetta Code tasks not completed for a particular language,   and possibly as a user contributions)   as they don't have a "header" (for instance):
=={{header|BaCon}}==     or something similar.
I believe you (or somebody who knows) will/might have to create another page to hold these groupings (sub-sections).   (Not to mention, hopefully someone will explain in better and more detail than what I alluded to above).     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, all those BASIC entries will be counted as being solved for the BASIC language, so that language will get a boost in the number of solutions.   I believe the original project was started in an attempt to keep the web page smaller (faster rendering and whatnot), and I think some (older?) web browsers had trouble with the huge size of some Rosetta Code pages, something about some web pages exceeding their own size threshold?     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
By the way, there are 4,273 entries for the various BASIC's.   That's a lot of consolidation to be done (if we went that direction),   and that's not counting if any of those have multiple versions of the solution/entries.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The other thing is that we have a hodge-podge way of treating the "family" of BASIC languages (and soon, I think, of other families, with very strong dissensions),   some BASIC entries are all individual,   a few places have it under one "roof", still others have it   both   ways   (under the BASIC umbrella, and another entry in their own name/entry).   This is, as they say, over my pay grade, but I would hope an Rosetta Code administrator (or the founder) would step in and make a determination and/or decision.   Once you go down this path (of grouping), where will it end? Group ALGOLs, esoteric languages, LISPs, and so on.   Right now, I believe BASIC is only the language(s) that is thusly sub-divided   (well, at least, in part, that is),  and my preference is to keep them separated as it is easier to find a particular language, rather than force a user to hunt around trying to find what "category" a language is in,   but in this case, it would be obvious   (because probably all of the "BASICs" have the word BASIC in their name --- oops, I forgot about Tbas and VBA).   A while back, someone else started doing this thing with the BASIC languages, and, as I recall, that project was never finished/completed.   Once we start grouping computer programming language into "families" or some such grouping, there will be animated and heated discussions about why language xxx should be in the same family as yyy, and that could/would breed discord amongst us all.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
See https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd04xx/EWD498.PDF (page 3) Should we remove COBOL FORTRAN and BASIC from RC on Dijkstra's recommendation?--Nigel Galloway (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
We could justifiably argue that there are really only 3 different computer languages here – C, Lisp and C/Lisp creole (or perhaps just one ? let's call it Turing/Church). Consolidation would have no value but it would have a cost. A language is a dialect with an Army and Navy (see under Max Weinreich), and a Rosetta label is a dialect with a community. War is cheap, peace is difficult. Always choose the latter if you can – Anschluss never leads anywhere good. Hout (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, reductionism is its own punishment.
I did put header markup around the sub-parts earlier today but you are correct, Gerard, things do get complicated the further one goes down the path of grouping according to language family. I can imagine some folk might not appreciate me grouping Scheme under LISP, for example.
So I shall split the parts back out and resist the urge to group that way again. And yes, Hout, the tbas army (well fireteam really as there's only four of us (that we know of)) doesn't really have that much interest in the other dialects and languages -- we want to see our code up in lights in our own private section rather than share the glow with the hoi polloi. -- Axtens (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)