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)

User talk:Dijkstra

From Rosetta Code

Considered harmful[edit]

While you may not agree with the coding style of a particular entry, just labeling it "Considered Harmful" is not very productive. Pointing out obvious flaws (with some level of detail) is great. Vague, dismissive commentary based on some unstated standard of code "quality" is not so much. It would be more useful to add something on the task discussion page with concerns/observations about the examples. --Thundergnat (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Text processing/Max licenses in use[edit]

Please avoid removing perfectly valid mark-up from entries for no reason. There is no bad assumption of a (third party) licensing daemon. The task description specifically states that there is a licensing daemon that faithfully records in and out events. The log file given has only license in and out events, no comments, no blank lines. One of the entries that you marked as incorrect is in fact by the task author who provided the log file, presumably knew what he was trying to accomplish and considered the appropriate constraints. Marking multiple different language entries {{incorrect|Python|whatever}} is not very useful. Mark each different language with it's own name. If you disagree with the task constraints and requirements, take it up on the talk page. --Thundergnat (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, your comments on the Parametrized SQL statement task were pretty appropriate. Again, some unnecessary edits to white space, but the comments were valid (and the correct language names used in the "incorrect" tags).--Thundergnat (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

incorrect call[edit]

Dijkstra:

You wrote (concerning Sorting algorithms/Insertion sort):

     Editor's summary: /* Scala */ Incorrect edit by Gerard
     Schildberger. Please stay away from things you don't know about. 


First of all, I do know about duplicate (language) headers.   Someone entered an another entry for the language Scala,   so there were two separate

           =={{header|Scala}}==     

entries.


I merely combined the two   Scala   language header entries under one   Scala   entry,   each of them under a different version.   You should be chastising the person who entered it incorrectly under   Scala   rather than   SASL.   I took the (language) entry for what it was, and it was labeled Scala.


Before you start throwing around disparaging comments and pointless and defamatory suggestions, please re-think your comments and try to be more civil on Rosetta Code.   If someone makes a mistake, just correct the mistake.   There is no sense in being rude.   Comments like yours gives Rosetta Code a bad color.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)