Talk:Welch's t-test: Difference between revisions
→cannot run python libraries: move to Hailholyghost's talk page (the problem was unrelated to this task)
(→cannot run python libraries: move to Hailholyghost's talk page (the problem was unrelated to this task)) |
|||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 730:
The entire purpose of creating this Rosetta Code page was because I had numerous issues installing libraries in the first place, and I kept getting responses like "but the libraries do work!" despite evidence to the contrary. If a task solution is not portable, it shouldn't be shown. Also, the Perl translation I've done works very differently than the current one, more accurately, as I show. Unlike the current code, I can actually run my code, and it should run anywhere.
What is the Rosetta code policy for using an "alternative solution" on Rosetta Code?
: It's unclear with your message above as to whether you tried installing Math::AnyNum again or are replying to my comment about using Math::Cephes. Without the MPFR library installed in your O/S, Math::MPFR can't install, and therefore Math::AnyNum can't install. The libraries ''do'' work for those who have the requisite software installed. Your argument about portability turns into "don't ever use modules outside of core" which I don't believe is the way many people use Perl.
: This is mostly moot as I've added a translation of the C code which uses only List::Util's sum, based in part on your translation above. Hopefully this will resolve your issues with the page.
: I don't know what sort of official policies there are, but my take for Perl, which is intimately tied with CPAN, is that I like to see a version that uses no modules or only core modules (e.g. List::Util), followed by, if appropriate, versions using modules. The first version is useful in that it can run everywhere with no module installation, and it shows all the work. The versions using modules are one or more of faster, shorter, clearer, more functional, or more idiomatic. Especially if the no-module version is very long, I think it's best to reverse the order -- show the 2-10 line easy solutions, then the long "if you want to write everything by hand:" method.
: It is also not unusual, especially as new tasks get more complex, to see the first code added to a page using a module. This lets us get a Perl solution up quickly and succinctly, and later someone can write a huge everything-by-hand version. I suppose there is another discussion of whether it would make sense to have a "common library" pointer so we don't have to keep pasting in the same helper functions on 10+ tasks, which would let one concentrate more on the task.
thank you for your work, this new Perl version is better than what I had done.--[[User:Hailholyghost|Hailholyghost]] ([[User talk:Hailholyghost|talk]]) 12:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
== New title ==
| |||