Talk:Substring primes: Difference between revisions

 

::::: I'm not sure if you understand what lying is. &nbsp; You seem to be saying that the REXX program displayed one thing and claimed something else in the output &nbsp; (at least, that's what I took from your statements). &nbsp; Computer programs don't lie. &nbsp; At worst, wrong (or inaccurate) results (or omissions) may be displayed, but (blatant) lying? &nbsp; No. &nbsp; &nbsp; And, again, try not to explain why you can't understand why I didn't do something. &nbsp; If you want to know why I <u>didn't</u> do something, just ask me, &nbsp; there's no need to guess wrongly on the reasons and try to formulate a strawman argument. &nbsp; Please don't try to characterize or criticize something I didn't do. &nbsp; That type of discourse isn't helpful nor constructive. &nbsp; But you're completely wrong about my having no interest in the "undo" feature. Just because I very rarely use that feature, &nbsp; it doesn't meant I haven't an interest in it. &nbsp; I do not and will not use the "undo" button to remove someone else's changes &nbsp; unless &nbsp; a blatant error had occurred and a (partial or wholesale) loss of content was the result of (perhaps) someone's finger-slip and the author didn't see or realize it. &nbsp; But just because I might disagree about someone's changes or additions to a task &nbsp; (even a draft task), &nbsp; I won't "undo" it. &nbsp; That's not what the undo feature is for, &nbsp; at least, &nbsp; that's my opinion about that feature. &nbsp; &nbsp; I don't understand your question about the that "no task-->task vs. task-->modified task" statement. &nbsp; Modifying someone else's task (requirements), even a draft task, &nbsp; usually causes the authors of existing solutions/entries to revise/change their computer programs to accommodate the revised/added/changed requirements, and this isn't counting the "extra credit" or "stretch goal" stuff. &nbsp; But I do agree with you in that there're many tasks on Rosetta Code that could be improved or make more challenging/interesting. &nbsp; But there are just as many tasks that that would be a disservice. &nbsp; Take the many forms of a '''DO''' loop and various sorting algorithms and the like. &nbsp; The intent is to make the requirements simple and straight-forward so that programmers can see the simplistic form/structure of the algorithm/structure so as to compare it to other computer programming languages. &nbsp; If the requirements get too challenging, it may be difficult for a person (or novice) not familiar with a computer language to see the forest for the trees amongst the complexity of the code. &nbsp; Making it challenging may deter programmers from spending the effort and offering solutions. &nbsp; I believe in adding tasks &nbsp; (and interesting ones at that) &nbsp; if that encourages people in entering/creating solutions. &nbsp; Any Rosetta Code task can be improved in some way. &nbsp; But making a moving target just makes it complicated and it costs time and effort to re-write a computer program, even if it's a slight change. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)