Anonymous user
Talk:100 doors: Difference between revisions
→Output consistency: added yet more comments about '''output'''. -- ~~~~
(Moved the '''output''' comments to a different section. -- ~~~~) |
(→Output consistency: added yet more comments about '''output'''. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 54:
: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)
I often like to look at how different languages (or programmers) generated their much varied output(s):
* the language construct (instruction used)
* formatting
* ''style'' of formatting (in general)
* columnar vs list
* vertical vs. horizonal columns (if used)
* commatized or not (not a word, but every programmer will know what it means)
* use of (or not) headers and/or separators
* imbedded spaces to make columns align
* right vs. left number alignment
* use of whitespace to make perusing the output easier
* indentation
* other visual fidelity techniques
* proper use of plurals, no: '''1 results found.'''
* no weasel "words", no: '''1 result(s) found.'''
* proper use of verb tense, no: '''1 results were found.'''
* yada, yada, yada.
Hell's bells, this whole rambling paragraph would be a good Rosetta Code task, if not all-
incompassing. Well, ok, ok, ''serveral'' Rosetta Code tasks.
<br>I wonder if the word ''weasel'' is known by all nationalities to mean (among other things) to use a technique to escape a tricky or difficult situation, a means to evade a hard task. I just found that Australia (and of course, Antarctica) don't have weasels, but some opinions may differ. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 20:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
| |||