Anonymous user
Talk:Chowla numbers: Difference between revisions
→Large computations: Leave the long runs in but...
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→Mistakenly posted discussion on the task page: new section) |
(→Large computations: Leave the long runs in but...) |
||
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)
::Hi Gerard, I mainly program in interpreted Python but '''don't''' want the present limits to be lowered.
::It is good to have some tasks that stress some languages, but I was thinking of finding away for most of the slower mplementations to naturally use the same lowered lmits. In the Python example I tried to do something like that and used shorter runs to prove my code, but just left the longer runs to the end and left them running. Luckily for me, they eventually finished, after sometime! --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 21:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
== Mistakenly posted discussion on the task page ==
| |||