Anonymous user
Talk:Taxicab numbers: Difference between revisions
→Another Implementation needed: tidying up and other thoughts.
(+ note) |
(→Another Implementation needed: tidying up and other thoughts.) |
||
Line 44:
== Another Implementation needed ==
The C entry is quite fast, but it's quite fiddly (my second D entry comes from the C entry and it's just slightly less fiddly). Is someone willing to create an implementation in some language (even Java) similar to the C entry but at a higher level, that uses a heap library? So many imperative languages can copy from it.-[[User:Bearophile|bearophile]] ([[User talk:Bearophile|talk]])
== tidying up wording in the task description/requirements ==
Now that the task requirements have been changed again, who will be (or should be) responsible in marking/flagging the two programming entries as "incorrect" or "needs-review" as they no longer meet all the requirements? I had originally had finding the 2,000<sup>th</sup> taxicab number (and a half-dozen more) as extra credit, and now, finding the 2,000<sup>th</sup> taxicab number is a requirement, and finding the next half-dozen taxicab numbers are now ''extra credit''. Or, I could change (tidy-up) my wording as I had originally entered (ditto with the change mentioned below).
Also, the definition of taxicab numbers that's now in place for this Rosetta Code task has a link to Wikipedia's (Hardy-Ramanujan number) definition of a taxicab number, which isn't the one that was used for the requirement, but the sentence says (some could say, implied) that it's the one being used (here), depending on one's interpretation of the phrase: ''(the definition that is being used here)''; I interpreted that to mean what was immediately read previously (the words before the parenthesization). If the link were removed, then it would be as I originally intended, that the ''immediately following'' definition is the one I had intended to be used (and had specified), as there are several definitions of taxicab numbers. This would also require the re-instating of the link I had originally entered (twice) that had pointed (shown a link) to Wikipedia's entry of "Hardy-Ramanujan Number" (which is different than the definition that I specified for use for this Rosetta Code task.
I certainly don't want to start a tidying up war, when changes (drastic or otherwise) are made to another person's wording, it can be offending, especially if it appears to be less accurate or effective (which is ''very'' subjective, of course, it may just boil down to ego ... my wording is better than your wording, so I'll make a change to your wording ... Ugh). I certainly don't agree with most of the "tidying up" being done to various Rosetta Code task requirements that I've entered, after all, most of us have an idea what is tidy or not, especially if we're entering the task definitions, requirements, links, and other notes and comments. Certainly, I believe that I've some better ideas for other Rosetta Code tasks (wording), but changing someone else's wording, format, links, or whatever could be interpreted as not respecting their opinions or expertise. I discount spelling or typo errors, or some other such finger bloopers. Keeping the same format and adding better (or more) whitespace, more links, more auxiliary definitions (aliases and alternate definitions and such), or other notes/exceptions are welcome. Additions are always welcome. Making it worse in the reading and/or looking-at is a step in the wrong direction. I generally prefer more whitespace, shorter sentences (no compound sentences in definitions if possible), and not a string of many sentences on one line (or long lines in general), especially for definitions, links, and requirements. The intent is to make the wording more readable and perusable. After all, this will be read by everyone, not like specific comments in the various language entries (which are skipped over by most people not interested in most other languages). Added a blank line here and there makes the first impression of the task easier to eyeball and to find out what is required. What would be more appreciated if people (who make unannounced changes, and sometimes, unappreciated or unwarranted) would ask first, saying something like, "would you mind reformatting or rewording this and that? Here's what I had in mind: ... and possibly followed (hopefully) with some justification or other thoughts in explaining your thinking. This would make the changing and tidying up much more collaborative and instill a genteel and polite relationship when (maybe drastic) changes are made, even if only "tidying up". In another matter, calling an attempt to flag a task as needing review because a requirement had changed (not knowing the proper template) as "lame", falls short of being polite and respectful. Just replying with the proper template to use (or implementing it yourself) would be much better than just removing it with an offensive comment. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 11:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
| |||