Anonymous user
Talk:Evaluate binomial coefficients: Difference between revisions
Talk:Evaluate binomial coefficients (view source)
Revision as of 00:51, 22 February 2019
, 5 years ago→Please desist from deleting Functional Python examples: Trampling convention isn't excused by "you wouldn't understand".
(→Please desist from deleting Functional Python examples: Trampling convention isn't excused by "you wouldn't understand".) |
|||
Line 43:
:: The idiom of functional programming is the semantics of math – not arbitrary stylesheet convention. A curried enumFromTo function which returns a list from the limits of an enumeration is not the same as uncurried Python range function whose arguments do not match the limits. It composes differently, and returns a value of a different type.
:: Removing the semantic type comments (use of which is a very well established convention in functional programming - across different languages) simply lowers the quality of the code for a functional programmer. Your actions are not constructive, and this is clearly not an area of competence for you. Stick to what you know, and avoid gratuitous damage to the code of others. Write the code you personally prefer, and learn to desist from deleting and vandalizing the code of others. We disagree, and are optimising for different things. The Rosetta community will benefit if we write alternative versions, it will '''not''' benefit if we go around childishly deleting and defacing things that we disagree with. Enough - this has gone on for far too long, and does no service to your dignity. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 00:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
::: The language is Python. The functional idiom should adapt to the language that it is written in; you go so far, then seek to mask the rest with cries of "the rest doesn't apply to me". Python has a community that knows about docstrings, and type hints and modularisation in a certain way. It allows the comunity to learn faster as more things work as expected. Instead of explaining what does not need explaining, try defending your use of type info as a comment rather than using type hints?
::: You read as if you state you are above this aspect of Python because your cross-language functionally standard (to a standard never divulged, and only grudgingly admitted as not being from Python) takes precedence.
::: Its not the functional style of programming I am taking issue with; if someone wrote a class without a docstring and Python type annotations, but preceded it with a comment block with Java-esque type anotations as comments, then I would take issue with that too - because you have the information but haven't gone that extra step to use the Python idioms - it may well look more like som other languages entry, but it's hardly idiomatic for the ''Python'' community - not some other languages community; and its disingenuous when entries can be marked as being translated from others. (Even then, a better entry would try and translate idioms too). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 00:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
| |||