Talk:Kaprekar numbers: Difference between revisions

:I wrote a list of reasons concerning when I think it is appropriate to change existing code and why I changed Nigel's version (his 7/9/2012 submission) to which he responded with "A lot of hot air for somthing that doesn't exist!" ignoring ALL of my points and implying that I should have fixed his version: "I was going to restore my version and let you change it". I feel that the criteria that I previously listed are still valid, and despite what Nigel might claim, there are major issues with his version (in terms of Lisp constructs, idioms and formatting) which is why I removed his version, and not because I was being vengeful, as he stated below. His submission is badly written and should be removed. It is that simple. If Nigel would like to change the version written by Ledrug, I feel that he should write a list of valid reasons which can be debated. If the reasons are sound and agreeable, then he be allowed to modify Ledrug's version with one caveat: All of Nigel's Common Lisp submissions have been extremely poorly written and indicative of someone who does not care to either learn or write proper Lisp code, so the submission should be vetted here, on the talk page, before he is allowed to post it on the task page. --[[User:Lhignight|Larry Hignight]] 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

::Ledrug replaced your version at 04:55, 19 September 2012, I responded to your explanation at 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC). I accepted that you had undone the changes and explained why I had made them. No mention of 'hot air', the response finished with A mute point now as ledrug has done tha task properly. You made a long response on 23 September. 26th September I responded with "A lot of hot air for somthing that doesn't exist!". If you thought, and I agree with you, that "Ledrug (had already) submitted a single version that was faster than mine (Larry), well-written, and worked for all number bases" what is there to discuss. You have agreed that he replaced your version to "reduce code; simplify; speed up; conform to task and extra". Does this not imply that your code needed improving? Only if you resurect and improve your (rubbish?) version is the subject interesting. I have responded to the issue you have raised regarding my current submission below.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] 12:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I can identify three issues, none requiring any particular Lisp knowledge to resolve:

** I believe Ledrug's current version is the best CL implementation of the task and should be the only version UNLESS someone using the code change criteria has valid reasons for changing it. --[[User:Lhignight|Larry Hignight]] 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

::Why only one version? There are four ways to implement this task.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] 13:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that ledrug replaced Larrys solution to, in ledrug's description "reduce code; simplify; speed up; conform to task and extra improve silly logic". This has made Larry angry, I think with the wrong person.

:Unbelievable. I wrote valid criticisms about the CORRECTNESS and READABILITY of the changes that YOU made to my submission. Something that you seem incapable of responding to in a professional manner. --[[User:Lhignight|Larry Hignight]] 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

::Larry, how old are you? You have accepted that "Ledrug submitted a single version, which he later updated with the mod filter, that was faster than mine, well-written, and worked for all number bases." You have agreed that he replaced your version to "reduce code; simplify; speed up; conform to task and extra". Does this not imply that your code needed improving? I am not interested in your critisism of me, though when it degenerates to "Well said. He is clearly more interested in being a pompous dick then contributing quality code to RC" I don't think it is acceptable.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] 13:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

==== Issue the third ====

</pre>

:::From which I and my "antique lisp machine ... installed in your (my) basement" conclude that () may be used as an empty list. Apparently your advanced implementations don't, but this is Lisp for you.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] 12:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that Nigel will respond to these results in his usual manner: "that is hot air", "all of your implementations are flawed; Mine is the only true Common Lisp", "Surely, you must have my version and Ledrug's version mixed up", or even the classic "Why didn't you just fix my code!" Who knows... I'm sure that it will be amusing though. Therefore, I encourage everyone with a working CL implementation to attempt to compile both versions and post your results. --[[User:Lhignight|Larry Hignight]] 07:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

::Always happy to exceed expectations. If it is amusing you want, let me put another nail in British humour: Do you know the definition of a Yankee?; A bit like a quickie but he does it himself.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] 11:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)