Rosetta Code talk:Solve a Task: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Rosetta Code talk:Solve a Task (view source)

Revision as of 08:52, 20 October 2022

1 byte removed , 1 year ago

m

Thundergnat moved page Rosetta Code talk:Benford's law to Rosetta Code talk:Solve a Task over redirect: revert destructive move

Thundergnat

10,327

edits

Revision as of 05:40, 13 January 2014 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger (→‎Alternative Solutions: added comments on 2nd programming solutions, code golf. -- ~~~~) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 08:52, 20 October 2022 (view source) Thundergnat (talk \| contribs) m (Thundergnat moved page Rosetta Code talk:Benford's law to Rosetta Code talk:Solve a Task over redirect: revert destructive move)
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 7: :: Occasionally, I'll write two solutions. Not very often though, and then only usually when there's really two different ways to go about it. Most tasks don't have that many options, given that I always strive to be idiomatic in my solutions too; they've got to be how I'd want others to solve them. Where a task has two or more idiomatic solutions, it's usually because the language draws more distinctions than the task author thought of. –[[User:Dkf\|Donal Fellows]] ([[User talk:Dkf\|talk]]) 19:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC) ::: On a few occasions, when I enter a programming solution (version 1 would be strictly for the task's requirements), and then I may add a 2<sup>nd</sup> solution that does more (than asked for beyond the extra credit), but that version of the programming code may be a bit cluttered in supporting/providing the auxiliary/supplemental information, that clutter causing the hiding or obscuring or otherwise obfuscating the original intent of the 1<sup>st</sup> programming version (solution).   The language that I use (REXX) is more verbose than most languages as it only has one type of data (a character string), and more program statements are usually needed to accomplish any given task, and I try to supply comments to almost all statements.   As a result of all that, the program can get quite bulky quickly, and the bulkier the program, the harder to read (in general), unless one takes care in keeping the comments neatly separated from the program proper by using a healthy amount of whitespace, proper (and sometimes consistent) indentation(s), and other good health habits.   REXX seldom wins in a ''code golf'' game.   Now, if someone were to rank Rosetta Code programming languages by the percentage of statements that included comments, that would be mighty interesting.   But that's like saying that I have one of the better displays of button-hook collections, but the field of competition would be narrow indeed. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 05:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)