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 corrections? 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]]

 

 

:Gerard, I notice you have flagged a REXX solution to my task "The ISAAC Cipher" as "incorrect". This REXX program compiles and _works_, so perhaps you'd be so good as to explain what is "incorrect" about it. Alternatively, you might like to enter your own REXX solution beneath that to demonstrate how you think it _should_ be done? --[[User:BlaiseP|BlaiseP]] ([[User talk:BlaiseP|talk]]) 05:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 

As for entering a correct version for REXX, I'm confident that the original author will fix the program. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 06:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 

-----

 

:::: No, we aren't talking about dialects, but two different languages.   Of course, the first thing to do is agree on a definition of terms, and how those terms would apply to the languages in question.   I certainly don't want to even attempt to accomplish such a task.   This is obviously a ''very'' contentious area.   Because of this, it's a very good idea to keep Classic REXX and ooRexx separate, leastwise there'll be so much more of this type of conversations, with nothing being solved or accomplished.   Just saying that Classic REXX and ooRexx are the same language doesn't make it so, even though there is a lot of overlap of instructions, syntax, BIFs, and whatever, but as you observed in the above (error producing) examples, all of the Classic REXXes (that I have easy access to) received a syntax failure (error) in the program in question.   To someone reading Rosetta Code looking at Classic REXX solutions, it isn't constructive in learning Classic REXX when the REXX program produces syntax errors.   This isn't nit-picking, there are enough differences between the two languages to keep them separate at this late point.   Lumping them together at this time would mean more confusion/disagreements and would make it harder to find a Classic REXX solution.   I can't speak to the issue of Pascal and Delphi, but each language has enough differences to warrant separation, and I certainly don't want to be the instrument in unringing that bell;   I think it's way to late for something like that, assuming that would be a good idea in the first place.   [A while back, not too long ago, someone tried to combine the various BASICs together under one ''category'' (not languages), and that was quite the ... ruckus (my interpretation) ... as it was.]   Lumping programs together into the same language entry would mean explanations as to what programs are what and which REXX language it executes under (and/or which REXX is required), and it would be harder to find/search for programs in whatever "dialect" (if indeed, they are dialects) is being searched for.   [It helps that there is only one ooRexx, so that makes it simple to have an ooRexx language category.   I have yet to see a comprehensive least of the differences between the two languages, and when a subtle (my word) difference is noted, it causes much heated discourse and debate on such newsgroups like '''comp.lang.rexx''' --- one such difference is in the use of stems (arrays) --- but this is only important if one tries to use a Classic REXX program (or snippet of code) with ooRexx --- and the result is different.]   But as it is, REXX and ooRexx are separate language entries (in Rosetta Code), and as such, if someone enters an ooRexx language entry in the (Classic) REXX language entry, than it should work with (any?) Classic REXX interpreter.   If that were done, we wouldn't be having this discourse.   In short terse terms, if you enter a language entry, execute it with that language for that entry.   If someone wants to enter ooRexx programs, then use the ooRexx language entry.   It would be a disservice to assume that a person who wants to see a (Classic) REXX program work, but the example entry is using an ooRexx program and it isn't suitable for their (Classic) REXX environment (for whatever reason).   I can see two large uses/reasons for entries in (Classic REXX) in Rosetta Code:   learning the Classic REXX language (by observing program examples), and/or borrowing the code to work with any Classic REXX (or at least, a Classic REXX). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 

== Please summarize your edits ==