Anonymous user
Talk:Kaprekar numbers: Difference between revisions
→Conflict Resolution?: Responded to Paddy's resolution suggestion and more of Nigel's inaccuracies / nonsense
(→Conflict Resolution?: Responded to Paddy's resolution suggestion and more of Nigel's inaccuracies / nonsense) |
|||
Line 212:
- Or not. If someone has another idea ...? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 13:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
: Don't worry about my side, I've said what I wanted to say, and am not getting back into it. Though I'm pessimistic about ''everyone'' eventually agreeing to a reasonable resolution: I wouldn't have flat out called someone a self-important dick if past experience showed that he could be reasoned with or that he did have a bit of sincerity when exhibiting his knowledge in spelling the word "please". I'd like to be wrong on this, but I won't hold my breath. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 05:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
: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)
I can identify three issues, none requiring any particular Lisp knowledge to resolve:
Line 230 ⟶ 231:
:(cur | prev) 11:38, 9 July 2012? Nigel Galloway (Talk | contribs)? (79,959 bytes) (?{{header|Common Lisp}}) (undo)
I made a change to Larry's Common Lisp implemantation to make it work on 9 July 2012.
:Nigel, my version did work. Your changes did NOT work and I wrote a number of bullets points addressing the issues with your version, which you chose to ignore, and instead responded to these valid concerns in an arrogant and pompous manner. You had the opportunity to respond to my criticism of your naming conventions, unnecessary use of globals (and later constants), use of setq, improper use of multiple-value-bind, poor readability/use of abrstaction, and other issues, including the FACT that your code FAILED to identify 9,999,999 as a Karprekar number. Instead, YOU chose to dismiss all of these valid concerns by stating that I was full of "hot air" and further suggest that the proper thing would have been for me to have fixed your version. --[[User:Lhignight|Larry Hignight]] 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
This stood until 18 September 2012, when Larry unidid the changes returning the implementation to a less than working solution.
:Again, I undid your changes because the version that you posted was INCORRECT and BADLY WRITTEN Common Lisp. Your reference to my version as being 'less than a working solution' is another example of the bullshit comments that you continuously make in a vain attempt to deflect valid criticism of your submissions. --[[User:Lhignight|Larry Hignight]] 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Ledrug completely replaced Larry's solution with a working example on 19 September 2012. For some reason Larry thinks I broke his solution and says "And for the record, Ledrug replaced YOUR version, not mine.". I think Larry is simply wrong in fact.
:Nigel, YOU originally replaced my version starting this whole mess. Here is the precise order of events:
* June 21 -- I (Larry) added a 2nd fast version that was quite a bit faster, easier to read, used additional Lisp forms AND only worked in base-10 (which is why I left the original version).
** Both vesions were correct.
* July 3 -- I (Larry) added the 'modular arithmetic filter' and additional output to the fast version that I had submitted.
* July 9 -- You (Nigel) made three changes updates to my version; I was busy at the time had didn't have time to review your changes.
* July 9 -- Paddy removed our names from the comment log.
* Sept 18 -- After reviewing your version, which I found to be both incorrect and badly written, I undid you changes and posted why on the talk page.
** You responded with the "hot air" comment and stated I should have fixed your code.
*later, 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.
** 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)
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.
:This is not true at all. First, you are the only person that I have been angry with due to your dismissive and insulting comments. Second, it is clear that Ledrug's 'silly logic' comment was in reference to a loop condition that he had written. --[[User:Lhignight|Larry Hignight]] 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer that ledrug did not so overwrite someone elses work, but Larry seemed more interested in pointless abuse of me than improving and justifying his solution. Anyway I had a better idea.
: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)
==== Issue the third ====
| |||