Talk:Find words with alternating vowels and consonants: Difference between revisions
Talk:Find words with alternating vowels and consonants (view source)
Revision as of 18:26, 23 January 2021
, 3 years agono edit summary
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 13:
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
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 functional composition may be irritatingly unfamiliar to you, but it's very standard undergraduate stuff these days, less unfamiliar to many others than to you ...▼
▲Bear in mind that while functional composition may
Are we really helping anyone, even ourselves, with this kind of editorialising about others in preambles ?
Line 23 ⟶ 25:
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 ?
--[[User:Nig|Nig]] ([[User talk:Nig|talk]]) 18:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Contrastive insight is the goal of Rosetta Code. Comparison speaks for itself. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk: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.
::Which reminds me, three months after I pointed it out to you, your "Narcissistic decimal number" script ''still'' hasn't been corrected to return the number of results specified in the task description. --[[User:Nig|Nig]] ([[User talk:Nig|talk]]) 18:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
| |||