Talk:Chowla numbers: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Large computations: added some comments.) |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→Mistakenly posted discussion on the task page: new section) |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
: I assume that ''splitting the task in two'' is to have two sets of task requirements, or do you mean that some requirements could be ''optional'' (or have it as ''extra credit'', as some Rosetta Code tasks do? I had thought about that route (optional task requirements), but I really don't have an accurate method to determine what most compiled computer programming languages can compute as far as (computer/compute) time used. I was hoping for robust solutions (with ''robust'' not being defined, but I was thinking for possibly something heavier duty than 16-bit integers), and so far, that hasn't seem to be a problem, but I can only observe that after-the-fact. Your civil comments was the first along this line. I know we aren't supposed to show CPU (or elapsed) times used on Rosetta Code (for many varied and solid reasons), so I took a best guess at the high end limits (where to stop computing). I have encountered other Rosetta Code tasks that really stretch (or often break) the limits of the computer programming languages that I use, and I wouldn't ask the task's author to change the requirements just so "my" (interpretive) languages could execute in tens of minutes. I was about to consider lowering the upper limits, but then I got distracted by some rather rude disparaging remarks and I spent some time thinking about what the Rosetta Code community is all about and whether to reward such incivility, and if I should bow to bullies and reward their ill behavior. In the past, if I didn't like a task's requirements, I just didn't bother to create a solution, instead of writing disparaging and crude remarks. I wish a level-headed Rosetta Code administrator will step in and stop/restrain the nonconstructive (ego) comments on the main page and move them to the discussion page. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
: I assume that ''splitting the task in two'' is to have two sets of task requirements, or do you mean that some requirements could be ''optional'' (or have it as ''extra credit'', as some Rosetta Code tasks do? I had thought about that route (optional task requirements), but I really don't have an accurate method to determine what most compiled computer programming languages can compute as far as (computer/compute) time used. I was hoping for robust solutions (with ''robust'' not being defined, but I was thinking for possibly something heavier duty than 16-bit integers), and so far, that hasn't seem to be a problem, but I can only observe that after-the-fact. Your civil comments was the first along this line. I know we aren't supposed to show CPU (or elapsed) times used on Rosetta Code (for many varied and solid reasons), so I took a best guess at the high end limits (where to stop computing). I have encountered other Rosetta Code tasks that really stretch (or often break) the limits of the computer programming languages that I use, and I wouldn't ask the task's author to change the requirements just so "my" (interpretive) languages could execute in tens of minutes. I was about to consider lowering the upper limits, but then I got distracted by some rather rude disparaging remarks and I spent some time thinking about what the Rosetta Code community is all about and whether to reward such incivility, and if I should bow to bullies and reward their ill behavior. In the past, if I didn't like a task's requirements, I just didn't bother to create a solution, instead of writing disparaging and crude remarks. I wish a level-headed Rosetta Code administrator will step in and stop/restrain the nonconstructive (ego) comments on the main page and move them to the discussion page. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Mistakenly posted discussion on the task page == |
|||
:: "We" aren't using a thing poorly suited to finding prime numbers. This Rosetta Code task (as also the totient function task) is to show that it ''can'' find or determine prime numbers, and as a proof/validation that the computer programs work. No one is disputing that these tasks are not suited to find prime numbers. These kinds of silly statements don't belong on this page, the ''discussion'' page is more suited for that, but try to keep the tone civil instead of condescending and demeaning. Please try and keep this site professional. If you don't know why a task requirement was included, then ask (on the task discussion page or a user discussion page). It's this sort of sniping that some people are being critical of Rosetta Code. People don't respond to rudeness and pettiness. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 17:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC) (this task's author). |
|||
:::''Gasps and clutches pearls convulsively'' --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 21:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||