Rosetta Code:Village Pump/SMW Examples by language and concept: Difference between revisions
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/SMW Examples by language and concept (view source)
Revision as of 20:56, 7 October 2015
, 8 years agolist monads vs list comprehensions vs nested iteration
m (questioned a word spelling for (possible) polymorphism. -- ~~~~) |
(list monads vs list comprehensions vs nested iteration) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 43:
:*Links on property pages won't go directly to examples, but rather the top of the task pages
::*People complain about this every once in a while. I don't know how to fix it. Someone may have to JavaScript that for us (please!).
===Just make a start with a manual page – a few issues and lists of tasks===
Tagging is attractive but ambitious – how about a simpler start: a page with a few issue headers, and some links to particular tasks beneath each issue.
I think this (perhaps evolving towards tagging) would solve a structural problem which continues to create a pressure towards creating tasks of rather doubtful quality which:
# Are relevant to a limited number of languages,
# miss the potential for comparing quite different approaches to the same problems,
# and overemphasize indexing on notation, making it harder to find things by deeper and more pragmatic issues.
'''Problem''' ?
:The core Rosetta principle is '''task focus''', which yields more insight, but there is also an interest in looking up notational issues.
:The result is 'tasks' and task proposals which raise the eyebrows of some, and are stoutly defended by others. Things like:
:* 'Loops/do-While' (rather than conditional repetition)
:* 'List Comprehensions' (rather than building sets)
:* Run-time type detection (rather than pattern-matching or type conditional evaluation etc)
'''Solution''' ?
: Protect '''task focus''' (and the breadth of language relevance, depth of insight, and usefulness to learners which it brings) by separating out the perfectly legitimate (but quite distinct) interest in '''notational comparisons within particular language families'''
:The way to do that is clearly by gradually building some kind of alternative indexing or an additional Table of Contents, or even a full-blown tagging system, to reduce the pressure toward notationally preoccupied and narrowly conceived pseudo-tasks.
'''Possible headers''' ?
:Others may have a very different shopping list. The first things that come to my mind might be:
:* Repetition – ''fold'' and ''reduce'' vs loops
:* Set building – list monads vs list comprehensions vs nested iteration
:* Type-conditional evaluation – pattern matching vs run-time type detection
:etc [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 20:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
| |||