Anonymous user
User talk:Paddy3118: Difference between revisions
→some general comments of too-quick task deletions and more: added comments.
(→some general comments of too-quick task deletions and more: Communication.) |
(→some general comments of too-quick task deletions and more: added comments.) |
||
Line 1,859:
::: Gerard, you seem to state that CalmoSofts circumstances may not allow him to do better, but surely his ability to start tasks is enough ability to defend or improve them in comments over the ''years'' in which that dialogue would have been welcomed?
::: --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 13:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
:::: I agree with you almost 100%. (If I agreed with everyone 100%, there would not be a need for a conversation, and you would never hear of my forays into humorous minutia ... well at least <u>one</u> of us thinks they're humorous.) Any-a-whose, continuing on ... There <u>is</u> a lack of communication, and some (maybe most by some opinions) posting of his Rosetta Code tasks are problematic, some of which muchly favor brevity, which is a one way to put it. And that several postings were, indeed, posted in a short time, even in a very short time, depending upon what one would consider normal for creating/posting Rosetta Code (draft) tasks. --- (I think if I had written/created all the flavors of the various type/kinds of primes tasks that I did eventually create/write/enter, would the same uproar be heard? Most likely, assuredly and probably so, me thinks. Worse, some or most would've been rejected and then deleted, and Rosetta Code would be lessor for it.) And it appears that CalmoSoft has not made many (or any) responses to some (or most) queries about his draft tasks. However, many of his tasks have had programming solutions entered without having the need for further explanation. I would've entered more programming solutions (and addressed each of the draft tasks) if they weren't deleted. I <u>try</u> to create solutions that address the nuances of the best way to approach/solve/meet the requirements and use idiomatic REXX code, and treat the dictionary as if it were a true dictionary, not just an incomplete all lowercase words, especially those words that should be capitalized. Thus the reason I mention that my REXX programs meet the requirements and perform <u>caseless</u> searches/finds, and also present the answers in the ''case'' (same manner) that the word is in the dictionary. Not all of those tasks that required the reading of a dictionary needed a common method to assimilate the dictionary words, and I could've used some boilerplate code to do exactly that, but that would've been inelegant. And homey don't do inelegant. Yes, I did state that there ''may'' be circumstances that may not allow him to do better, and certainly there may be circumstances that I have not thought of or know of. And yes, it appears that he could put more time into the structure and wording of the draft tasks. I have added (sometimes) quite a bit of verbiage to my own draft tasks, and I still have overlooked or omitted vital details and/or specifications and/or requirements, it usually takes someone helpful to peruse the wording and tell me (or even correct) the obvious stuff that I overlooked, and I'm very thankful and appreciative for that help. Others have gone the other route which made it more difficult to change/alter/fix the wording of the specifications, or make a compromise that didn't invalidate existing programming solutions. Saying that it stinks to high heaven (or other such phrases/words) doesn't facilitate a fruitful conversation or repair. And, yes, of course a dialogue would've been welcomed, no matter how succinct. This is probably always the case, as long as the dialogue is constructive, and that, of course, begs a definition of "constructive"; there's a fine line between helpful and not helpful, depending upon how the "advice" is interpreted, sometimes filtered through social [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mores mores] and customs (as I eluded to before on my suspicions, possibly even unfounded suspicions). I won't throw stones at him, I still await to hear his side (if he intends to tell it or not), and I do insist that he has one, albeit almost fully unheard so far. So, I hope we agree on these points, even if only 99%. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
:::: Forgot to mention: the Merriam-Webster site defining ''mores'' leaves cookies. It seems that most web dictionaries do so.
| |||