User talk:Dijkstra: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Latest revision as of 18:07, 4 November 2019

Considered harmful

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

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

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)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 == Considered harmful ==
 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. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 18:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
+== Text processing/Max licenses in use ==
+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 <nowiki>{{incorrect|</nowiki>'''Python'''<nowiki>|whatever}}</nowiki> 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. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk: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).--[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 20:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
+== incorrect call ==
+Dijkstra:
+You wrote (concerning '''Sorting algorithms/Insertion sort'''):
+      Editor's summary: /* {{header|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. &nbsp; Someone entered an '''another''' entry for the language '''Scala''', &nbsp; so there were '''two''' separate
+          <big> <nowiki> =={{header|Scala}}== </nowiki> </big> &nbsp;
+entries.
+I merely combined the two &nbsp; '''Scala''' &nbsp; language header entries under one &nbsp; '''Scala''' &nbsp; entry, &nbsp; each of them under a different version. &nbsp; You should be chastising the person who entered it incorrectly under &nbsp; '''Scala''' &nbsp; rather than &nbsp; '''SASL'''. &nbsp; 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. &nbsp; If someone makes a mistake, just correct the mistake. &nbsp; There is no sense in being rude. &nbsp; Comments like yours gives Rosetta Code a bad color. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)