Rosetta Code talk:Village Pump/Suggest a programming task: Difference between revisions
Rosetta Code talk:Village Pump/Suggest a programming task (view source)
Revision as of 17:38, 13 October 2008
, 15 years ago→Task guidelines?
Underscore (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 20:
:::I think a better title for Object Serialization might be "Saving/loading program state" and an example that allows many types of language to provide examples. Whilst you might strive for program paradigm neutrality, I still think it would be useful to have tasks that are naturally trivial in some class of languages - say constraints, or bit manipulation.
:::Since we are comparing languages although the task description may describe an algorithm to use, if your language has a feature that is normally used you might be justified in using the built-in feature with an explanation as well as, or instead of, the algorithm asked for. For example, it would be a shame if someone reading the quicksort task went away thinking that it was THE way to sort in Python/Perl/Ruby etc.. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, three useful kinds of tasks are (and should be) on Rosetta Code: trivial examples for demonstrating discrete language features, practical examples of how to accomplish ordinary tasks, and more complex examples that show how a given language is used in practice to write nontrivial programs. That allows for a lot of different tasks. (The third category in particular covers everything from [[Roman Numerals]] to [[RCBF]].) But tasks that don't fit neatly into any of those categories probably don't belong here, and tasks that are too similar to be simultaneously useful should be deleted. —[[User:Underscore|Underscore]] 17:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
| |||