Talk:Type detection: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
|||
Line 36:
Broadly, tasks from the world outside computer languages, which make no assumptions about particular models of computing, yield better insight and deeper comparisons. The value of the Rosetta stone was that 3 very different languages were dealing with the same external (non-linguistic) task.
Given that, the text processing context sounds promising, and should probably be more focal than a framing like
On Goals 2 and 3 (''demonstrate how languages are similar and different'', & ''learning another approach'') you would need to allow for the differences such as, for example, that between run-time "Type detection" and compiler-driven pattern-matching. Framing it too tightly in terms of "type detection" assumptions would marginalise some languages, and miss the scope for comparing different approaches.
Finally, on the learning aspect of Goal 3, it would clearly be good to find a task which learners are quite likely to actually encounter and think about
( It may also be worth looking at some existing tasks which already demonstrate type-conditional evaluation or flow – ''flattening lists'', for example – just to check that something more focused is really required ) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 18:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
| |||