Anonymous user
Talk:Guess the number: Difference between revisions
m
→Language: (Indented replies)
(purposes and techniques blah) |
m (→Language: (Indented replies)) |
||
Line 22:
Suggest removing the explicit invokation of 'conditional loop', as some languages' syntax don't use that syntax. (I'm thinking of logic languages and, I think, functional languages.) A more precise description might be, "The program randomly chooses a number [1-10]. The program then keeps asking the user to guess what that number is until the user inputs that number as their guess." --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 14:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
:Well, I think we could keep the wording, but just state in the examples that the language does not use conditional loops and state how these are emulated. so at least we have a task for conditional loops.
:Failing that we could split the task. For example:▼
::Guess the number (using conditional loops) and Guess the number (using the blah blah blah method), etc.▼
:[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 14:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)▼
::I don't think that split would be good. It would be better to allow more freedom in this task and have the example writers specify what constructs they go with. This isn't an algorithm-centric task, so we should focus on the functionality (which I still think is too similar to [[Bulls and Cows]]--see above). --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)▼
▲Failing that we could split the task. For example:
▲Guess the number (using conditional loops) and Guess the number (using the blah blah blah method), etc.
:::Again, the purpose of rosette code is to demonstrate how languages are similar and different. There may be several approaches to a task. I think if you have several approaches on one task you illustrate the differences in the ways that the task is approached, rather than the differences in the languages. If the approaches are different, the readers may be thinking "Hmmm, he used a different technique. I wonder if the other technique works too...". It would probably be better to state the technique being illustrated, and just place notes against the languages where that technique cannot be used. Again IMHO.▼
▲[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 14:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
:::[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 20:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)▼
▲:I don't think that split would be good. It would be better to allow more freedom in this task and have the example writers specify what constructs they go with. This isn't an algorithm-centric task, so we should focus on the functionality (which I still think is too similar to [[Bulls and Cows]]--see above). --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
▲Again, the purpose of rosette code is to demonstrate how languages are similar and different. There may be several approaches to a task. I think if you have several approaches on one task you illustrate the differences in the ways that the task is approached, rather than the differences in the languages. If the approaches are different, the readers may be thinking "Hmmm, he used a different technique. I wonder if the other technique works too...". It would probably be better to state the technique being illustrated, and just place notes against the languages where that technique cannot be used. Again IMHO.
▲[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 20:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
| |||