Talk:Anagrams

Yep, I know now, they are not acronyms. --Paddy3118 20:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to call them "anagrams" instead? --DanBron 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it! Of course they are. I must have had a brain seizure!! --Paddy3118 20:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Local word list

Could an administrator make a local copy of the wordlist? --Paddy3118 05:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Where to read wordlist from?

The Haskell and J versions assumes a local copy of the file, while the other two examples so far open the URL directly. What is the intention behind the task?

I would consider opening the URL directly an unnecessary complication: Not every language allows easy access to the internet, but the rest of the task is basically algorithmic, and therefore easily accessible to any language. If the internet access is indeed intended to be part of the task, I propose splitting this task into two separate ones:

1. read a file from the web
2. find most words of equal characters based on a file of words

That would IMHO be better, because it's more modular. --Ce 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Read a file from the web" already has a task made for it. Either way, I also think getting rid of the web file requirement is a good idea. --Mwn3d 16:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that programs should not be prohibited from getting the list from a local file, a web resource, or even a previously defined variable — the point is the algorithm, not the means of getting the input data (which should be chosen to best fit the language). I also think having a specific word list list adds concreteness of the task, and a common test data set — but it should not be interpreted as a requirement to download that list at the time of execution. --Kevin Reid 19:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My original idea was to include getting the data from the web, as people do use the web to disseminate data. On Unix it is quite easy to string together a script to download the file using one program, and process it with another, but if your language has an easy way to download the data from the web, then it would be good to show it. If not, then assume you read the input from a file. --Paddy3118 21:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

error in ooRexx ?

I got a syntax error in line 12 of the ooRexx example (using ROO). Is this a bug in ROO or is it something else?

I'm not fluent in ooRexx speak, so it may be really something simple. -- Gerard Schildberger 01:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am using REXX-roo 4.00 -- Gerard Schildberger 01:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

FBSL calling C: Is it useful?

I think we may need a task that highlights some languages ability to use another language by embedding the source to the second language in the first, (if it is supported as a documented feature of the language); but the wholesale copying of the C entry for use in FBSL might not be the best placve to show this feature. I don't think it fits here.

What do others think? --Paddy3118 (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

FBSL calling C: Is it useful?

You may call me "others" but in fact I'm taking the liberty of talking on behalf of the FBSL Dev Team.

FIRST, FBSL is not "calling C" and is not "embedding the source" for other languages in itself here in the interactive way as e.g. Lua clones do. Of course it can do it as well in its DLL hypostasis but this is not what you're seeing here or in the Ackermann challenge and will be seeing in many more solutions to come.

SECOND, Dynamic Assembler and Dynamic C JIT compilers are indispensable features of FBSL alongside its interpretative environment. They do not require any add-ons, add-ins, plug-ins, DLLs, archives etc. etc. etc. They are already there and they interact with their interpretative parent and they exchange data with one another and they are environmental extensions of one another. They are not seen from outside and their code is not accessible to anyone but FBSL itself. The DynAsm and DynC code::blocks are FBSL's subs and functions exactly like its own interpreted subs and functions. You cannot separate them in a very much the same way as you wouldn't be able to separate the Siamese twins or they'll die.

THIRD, the decision of what intrinsic feature of a language to select for a particular task is undoubtedly the programmer's prerogative as long as the task is resolved within the context of its rules. RosettaCode is not the place to generate proprietary/patented/closed-source solutions and more than half of its code base here are ports from one another's code. My solution does not claim originality. On the contrary, it clearly states it's a verbatim copy totally in accordance with the GNU spirit of this place. And it is unique in that no other language whatsoever can boast such a solution. Who else can claim 100% compatibility with another, but any other language present at RosettaCode?

FOURTH, the unavailability of such a section as you suggest may be a clear indication that there are no other languages that are capable of doing the same. You may try to introduce one but I'm afraid, FBSL will be the only participant in there for a very very long time to come.

LAST, but not the least. We at FBSL cannot be held responsible for other devs not having time or insentive enough to accomplish what we have accomplished in FBSL. We are not saying others are worse. What we are saying is we are different and more versatile than many. Despite our remaining basically BASIC.

Yes, my Anagrams decision was a show-off and a challenge for "others" who can't claim compatible functionality. But it was clearly stated as such. This is not the first time in our 12-year old history that "others" do not like us for what we can do while they can't. But calling us an ugly duckling and trying to impose restrictions not applicable to other contestants would be totally unfair and contrary to the spirit of this place.

Kind regards,

TheWatcher