Anonymous user
Talk:100 doors: Difference between revisions
m
→Optimized Examples: added comment about optimized solutions regarding task requirements. -- ~~~~
(→Optimized Examples: my 2 ct) |
m (→Optimized Examples: added comment about optimized solutions regarding task requirements. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 23:
::: Specialization is useful for teasing out specific differences between languages, but generalization obviously offers more flexibility in choices and demonstrations of clever solutions. If a particular class of solutions must be forbidden, I'd prefer to see the task forked to allow that class to be demonstrated. (Otherwise, a task is very likely to get stuck in a particular idiomatic mindset) --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 17:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer if all solutions had at least the unoptimized version, though the optimized is fine with me as well (as of this writing, Erlang is missing a unoptimized version for example) --[[User:AlexLehm|AlexLehm]] 22:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
:Optimized solutions are essentially bypassing (my opinioin) the task requirements in that they don't perform the task's description (which I interpreted as implying how to solve the task or at least, implying the method; namely: visit every door and toggle the door). Otherwise, why don't we just change the task's name to ''display the non-negative squares up to'' '''N'''?
:Did anyone notice that almost all examples didn't provide any output (as per the task's two questions)? If that is acceptable, then we all could save a ton of Rosetta Code space by not including the output in most of the (other) examples and say, the '''output''' is the same as the '''yyy''' example. Or ... take my word for it, with tongue in cheek.] -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
== Self-contradictory task description ==
| |||