Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Extraneous Printing Requirements in Tasks: Difference between revisions

m
formatting.
(Sparking discussion.)
 
m (formatting.)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 3:
|summary=Several tasks require printing incidental output, which distracts from the purpose of the task and needlessly inhibits idiomatic solutions in certain paradigms.
}}
 
The aim of Rosettacode is "to present solutions to the same task in as many different languages as possible, to demonstrate how languages are similar and different, and to aid a person with a grounding in one approach to a problem in learning another". However, a number of tasks include extraneous printing requirements which make it impossible to construct elegant, idiomatic solutions in certain paradigms: these tacked on requirements limit our ability to write facilitating and interesting comparison between relevant similarities and differences of certain languages; it also needlessly complicates the comparison of different approaches to core problem.
 
Line 21 ⟶ 20:
 
Would it be okay with people if I were to go ahead and make these edits? In that case, should I first propose these edits in the discussion pages for each task, or is this (as it seems to me) an obvious enough improvement that I can just go ahead and make the change?
 
:# There have been many cases where it took the mental unraveling of the code to find that the code did not actually perform the task.
:# Some languages show an ease in generating output when compared to others.
:# I would not support such blanket altering of established tasks as new examples would no longer be solving the same thing.
Anonymous user