User talk:Gerard Schildberger: Difference between revisions

I confess I didn't know the proper methodology to be used (this was my very first time on Rosetta Code). The fallout from that excursion was not what I expect at all, not exactly a pleasent experience. It would've been nice to actually include the righteous text so I could hit the ground running and re-enter the correct incorrect template. I had thought that putting a comment near the code would get someone's attention and fix the problem. My bad. I was trying to figure out how to contact the author of the code, but I didn't have the skills at that time. I have previously removed the offending comment, leaving the original problem intact, and as far as I know, the errors are still there. To make it worse, I've already forgotten which entry it was, and looking back at it all, I regret trying to address the issue (error). There are so many such errors that I came across a few weeks ago, and I'm glad I didn't mung up more erroneous pages. I'm wondering at this point if erroneous pages are less erroneous with erroneous flagged corrections,   or flags that are erroneous? I wish the process would be more forgiving and above all, much easier to implement without the headaches. If I ever get the time, I may revisit some pages, but I rarely look at other people's code anymore, except for clarification of the specifications of the task to be solved. What is the protocol about these talk pages? Do they hang around forever, or am I supposed to delete (edit) them later when they lose their relevance? [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]]

::: I'm almost in complete agreement with your first two statements (quite possibly 100%). Classic REXX interpreters that implement the same set of language syntax (rules), with minor differences, contribute to the making of computer programming language dialects.   ooRexx has different BIFs, statements, syntax, etc., and in many people's opinion (and mine), those differences makes it a different language.   I think I know what you meant about writing (ooRexx?) REXX programs that obey ''that subset'', but the programs that I code are for Classic REXX and don't limit writing to a subset --- but I try to limit almost all my Rosetta Code REXX programs to what most Classic REXX programmers use (or know).   Of course there are exceptions, and they are noted when I code a REXX program for a particular Class REXX interpreter that has specific (additional) BIFs to accomplish a particular Rosetta Code task.   For Classic REXX programmers using/running (Microsoft) Windows on PeeCeesPCs, that usually means Regina REXX   (probably the most used, most common [free] REXX interpreter).   [I presume you meant writing/using ooRexx statements that obey ''that subset''.]   Saying that, I'm in complete agreement with your third statement.   The minor disagreement with the 2nd statement is that there are subtle differences in the way Classic REXX and ooRexx treats, ... well, objects versus variables (or rather, their values), if you will, especially stems (possibly tail stems) and/or stemmed arrays --- (and I'm not an expert in ooRexx), but I'm recalling an acute discussion in a REXX newsgroup about this very issue where Classic REXX treats the assignment of a stemmed array (such as   '''a. = b.''') differently than ooRexx (as I recall).   This was sometime ago and I don't recall the details.   ooRexx being what it is (object orientated), it's that way by design (and/or by definition).   The good news is that situation is an uncommon occurrence I should think (programming wise), and is therefore more of an academic discussion/exercise.   Having said that, somebody may point out the error of my assumptions. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 07:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

REXX leads itself to writing a lot of "one-liner" subroutines (or, at the least, pretty short subroutines/procedures). This hides the commons tasks that happen over and over again, the duldrumsdoldrums of programming. The <strike> one-lines </strike> '''one-liners''' tend to end up at the bottom (end) of the program, usually after some kind of comment fence. Out of sight, out of mind. Most often, the one-lines are very general in nature and have been thourghlythoroughly tested/debugged, and once written, almost never looked at again --- until Rosetta Code. Most REXX programmers write code on serveralseveral classes of computers, PC's just being one. There is a lot of boilerplate to keep track of, environmental impacts, restrictions on command options, command names, command formats, terminal (console) support (linesize, screen width), fonts, file structure(s), file naming protocols, security concerns (read/write), operating system quirks (that's the polite word for it), etc, etc, etc. You wouldn'bet believe the proglogueprologue code that I have written (collected) over the ... ahem, decades of programming in REXX --

cough, cough, since around 1982 or so. And I'm a regular packratpack-rat. PL/I was way back in 1866 , er, make that 1966. Anywhooose, I'll try to make more summaries, even if almost all of them are quite bland and/or uninteresting. [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]]

I'm not sure where these summaries end up, as I never had seen any. Is it under the "history" section? I must confess, when I look at some code, I don't care to read about how and/or when changes where made, all I care about is the final product (so to speak) and I'm not particuralyparticularly interestredinterested in the code's change pedigree. But that's me, and I realize that others might find that sort of detail interesting in some way. [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]]

<langsyntaxhighlight emaillang="text">From: Paddy 3118 <paddy3118@xxx.net>

- Paddy3118.</lang<syntaxhighlight>

<br><br>''did'' &nbsp; &nbsp; as I never got any notification(s) of any page watched. I've since learned that I had never entered an E-mail address (I had assummedassumed that "it" would notify me when I logged on Rosetta Code). I never did like entering my E-mail address on a public forum, but ... I guess it is necessary for a diaglog in this forum. As a result, I'm desperately trying to play catchupcatch-up and it's a bit overwhelming. [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]]

<langsyntaxhighlight emaillang="text">On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Gerard Schildberger <GerardS@rrt.net> wrote:

is benificialbeneficial.

1) Someone creates a task, and uses <nowiki>{{draft task}}</nowiki> instead of <nowiki>{{task}}</nowiki>, to invite people to critique it and add

5) Eventually people don't see a need to refine the task farther, and the task gets switched from <nowiki>{{draft task}}</nowiki>

Sometimes step 1 is skipped, and the author uses <nowiki>{{task}}</nowiki> instead of <nowiki>{{draft task}}</nowiki>. When that happens, steps 2

find THE answer, and didn't say anything about the posibilitypossibility of showing

if "the" would match up to "Einstein" for example (caseless compariosnscomparisons),

I wish a lot of the tasks wouldn't be so ego-centriccentrist. That is a problem

:wq</langsyntaxhighlight>

:it sounds like my opinion is being impunedimpugned. &nbsp; This is no place for a shouting match. &nbsp; What do you

::: No, REXX does explicit arithmetic &nbsp; not &nbsp; with BigNums, but with a method that people use when doing arithmetic on paper. &nbsp; There is no base 10 in that the numbers are stored as characters, not a array of numbers in base 2, base 10, or possibly a higher base. &nbsp; REXX does NOT perform arithmetic like any other langagelanguage (with the possible except of SNOBOL). &nbsp; You just can't say that REXX does arithmetic like every language that has BigNum capability. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

::: Er, no again. &nbsp; The algorithm (doing multiplication on paper) is not the same as what is done (with computers using BigNum) with binary diginitsdigits, decimal digits, or higher bases. &nbsp; The BigNum algorithm is not a mimic of pencil arithmetic, to coin a phrase. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)