Talk:Four bit adder: Difference between revisions
→C++ code size: On golf, idiomatic code, and moved to a subpage.
(→C++ code size: Not appropriate.) |
(→C++ code size: On golf, idiomatic code, and moved to a subpage.) |
||
Line 256:
::I suspect the C++ (not the C) code, rather than being idiomatic, is "enterprise-y" the kind of code you get when people refuse to say no or the people in charge think "I might just need this" or "if I put this in, I can't be fired for leaving it out". There are several examples already existing that could be used to show what is expected from an answer. RC rarely requires any example of that size. It is just as unreasonable to have the C++ example as it would be to add a code golf solution. Simulations are supposed to reflect an ''appropriate'' abstraction of what is simulated. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 10:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
::: Actually, the C++ code looks very idiomatic to me. Certainly not the most efficient, but it's very clear and readable in function. (Actually, frightfully so; I've never seen C++ code that clear) Also, an opinion on the code golf reference...Code golf is generally undesirable because it reduces clarity of code, and adds perverse incentives for example writers. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 11:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Could someone move the C++ code to a separate sub-page at least? That huge wad of code is over 16 pages long where the others are less than two pages! It is clearly [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anomalous anomalous] in size.
(P.S. it would be instructive to know a little about how the code was written. Was it written for this RC task alone? Was a lot of the code generated by an IDE? ...) --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 04:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
: Concur on subpage, and done. I think it was very probably written for Rosetta Code; the usage of a namespace named 'rosetta' is good indicator. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 11:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
| |||