Talk:100 doors: Difference between revisions
→Optimized Examples
Line 18:
:::As long as the code examples serve to illustrate factors that relate or separate languages, they're within the scope of Rosetta Code. (At least, as how I originally envisioned it. But I would like to see RC expand some by including more encyclopedic, documentary and historical information.) However, for clarity's sake, I described the optimized algorithm in the task description, and added additional organization to the code examples. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 21:25, 16 October 2007 (MDT)
::I would not call that "optimized" example. It is entirely different algorithm. In fact, it just displays the known results. --[[User:PauliKL|PauliKL]] 14:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
:I think all optimized samples should be removed and forbidden. This task essentially boils down to finding the powers of 2 for numbers 1 to 10. See ultra-optimized coffeescript example. -- [[Special:Contributions/201.21.40.201]] 2011-05-27 06:43:49
::That I think is more a comment on the character of the problem than a comment on the character of the implementations. In my opinion, mathematical analysis is a perfectly good programming tool, as is community involvement. Rosetta code could do with fewer "problems" where people feel they should force a particular algorithm. In this case, we might have to live with that, but if there is no general problem that allows for a range of solutions then posting the answer is the essence of optimization. (Though I would also agree that optimization is usually a bad idea in practice except when you cannot tolerate the resource requirements otherwise.) Anyways, I could live with "forbidding the optimized versions" but only if the task also got a warning message that this is not the sort of task that we want on Rosetta code. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 12:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
== Self-contradictory task description ==
| |||