User talk:Paddy3118: Difference between revisions

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