Anonymous user
Talk:Guess the number: Difference between revisions
m
added a section header to the first topic to properly place the table-of-contents (TOC) --- (this happens more often than one would think).
(→Language: Reason for re-wording) |
m (added a section header to the first topic to properly place the table-of-contents (TOC) --- (this happens more often than one would think).) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
== most pleasing message sequence ==
I think you really get the most pleasing message sequence when using techniques from [[Loops/N plus one half]], except that instead of a fixed limit, you have a dynamic one. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 21:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Line 10 ⟶ 12:
The computer could give the bounds, select a target, ask for a guess, but then tell .... I see a new task coming on: [[Guess the number/With Feedback]] :-)<br> --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
:I am a great believer in the KISS principle. I think more complicated examples should be kept separate. The idea of rosetta code (according to the front page) is to present solutions to the same task in as many different languages as possible, to demonstrate how languages are similar and different, and to aid a person with a grounding in one approach to a problem in learning another.
:I think the examples should be short and simple just for the purposes of illustrating specific differences. It might be an idea to have a "see also" section that links to larger more complex examples of course. I think the idea of creating a separate task is a good idea. For this reason, I think that "Bulls and Cows", "Guess the Number" and "Guess the number (with feedback)" should be considered to be three separate tasks.
:These are my own opinions of course. :)
:[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)▼
▲[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
== Language ==
Line 31 ⟶ 32:
:::Again, the purpose of rosette code is to demonstrate how languages are similar and different. There may be several approaches to a task. I think if you have several approaches on one task you illustrate the differences in the ways that the task is approached, rather than the differences in the languages. If the approaches are different, the readers may be thinking "Hmmm, he used a different technique. I wonder if the other technique works too...". It would probably be better to state the technique being illustrated, and just place notes against the languages where that technique cannot be used. Again IMHO.
:::[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 20:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
::::It's just as good to give implementers freedom so that readers can see differences in how languages approach problems. And besides, if you want to see differences in how languages handle a particular approach, people can add multiple approaches to this page where applicable and natural for the language (see: [[100 doors]], [[99 Bottles of Beer]], [[Pascal's triangle]], probably others). It depends on if you want to show idioms or simple syntax. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
:I re-worded the task to make the use of a conditional loop advisory rather than mandated; to cater for any language whose idiomatic solution might be different. If too many hate it then it can just as easily be reverted, but I'm with Michael on this so far, I don't think it should be a demonstrator for conditional loops - I'd prefer it as a simple game with a hint at implementation. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
| |||