Talk:Find words with alternating vowels and consonants
Too late to fix the slightly ill-formed title of this task ?
Is it too late to fix the slightly ill-formed title of this task ? One word is missing, grammatically, but it's already rather too long. -- Hout 12:48, 20 January 2021
- It's rarely too late. I agree, it is rather verbose. How about "Find words with strictly alternating vowels and consonants"? I (anyone really) can change it, but I'd rather some feedback first. (manually added a "signature" tag for your message too) --Thundergnat (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
AppleScript 'Idiomatic' it is useful to editorialize eccentrically on other drafts ?
As the author of the functionally composed AppleScript draft, I have no comment on what seems to me a slightly unusual relabelling of the procedural draft to 'idiomatic'. ('procedural' or 'imperative' vs 'functional' – these are very commonly used terms, and this is a very widely understood distinction). (I make no comment because it seems sensible for each contributor to label their draft as they see fit, as long as the label seems likely to be intelligible).
I do wonder, however, about the value and epistemological basis of the slightly eccentric editorialising about my draft, which, we are informed, to my genuine puzzlement and surprise, but in tones of great authority - "goes to great lengths (!) to disguise how it works". ??? :-)
This comes just a little from left field – is there some animus here about the relative execution speeds of the two drafts ? Little could be less significant than speed in the context (I'm happy to apologise for having written a faster draft) ...
Functional composition may be irritatingly unfamiliar to you – it's even possible, though quite irrelevant, that I might find your draft a bit cluttered, and that sequences of state mutations might seem a bit complex and accident-prone to me – but is it really plausible or helpful to imagine and protest that other coders are deliberately hiding their tracks ?
Bear in mind that while functional composition may seem unheimlich to you, it's very standard undergraduate stuff these days, less unfamiliar to many others than to you ...
Are we really helping anyone, even ourselves, with this kind of editorialising about others in preambles ? Might you not find a blog more satisfying ?
Readers can just read the version they prefer. Each draft aims for a different cluster of values. In the context of casual scripting, I just aim, as it happens, for things that can be quickly written and refactored, with a high level of code reuse, and clearly labelled pure and simple parts. You will have different goals and values, to which I have no objection at all.
Alternative drafts are really the only interesting comment on each other. There may sometimes be value in commenting in a preamble on the languages themselves, and on any special affordances or difficulties which they present, but is there really much value in slightly eccentric ranting about other people's drafts ? --Nig (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Contrastive insight is the goal of Rosetta Code. Comparison speaks for itself. Hout (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Update – I've pruned out the editorialising on other people's drafts. None of us are authorities on the drafts of others – we're barely even authorities on our own work :-) and the contrasting drafts speak for themselves. Hout (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- 1) My comments were neither "editorializing" nor eccentric. 2) Your script isn't marked "draft" and arguably shouldn't have been posted if that's all it was. 3) You yourself aren't innocent of "editorializing" over my scripts. 4) When I comment on your code, I comment on the code. I don't (generally) resort to personal insults, emotive adjectives, flowery language, or long essays to prove my correctness. 5) The only reason I bothered to mention your script at all was to enthuse over its speed, which I did while relabelling my own script from the "Procedural" label with which you'd saddled it. This necessarily meant pointing out the caveats as well.
- I can't be bothered to reinstate my comments about your script, nor to repeat a discussion we've had in the past about the futility of flooding a code chrestomathy site with code which only people who already know how it works can understand, which isn't typical of code written in the language it's supposed to demonstrate, and which often contains errors. Nor will I bother to say what I think of the excuses offered for not correcting those errors, not explaining the code, and the occasional attempt to blame AppleScript for the scripts' problems. I will however, for the sake of any interested readers, continue to call out in a civilised manner things I perceive to be either wrong, out-of-date, or misleading in AppleScript code posted here.