Talk:Loops/Do-while: Difference between revisions
is this a task at all ? Certainly not a Rosetta task ...
m (moved Talk:Loop/Do While to Talk:Loops/Do-while) |
(is this a task at all ? Certainly not a Rosetta task ...) |
||
Line 5:
: <cite>Start with a value at 0. Loop while value mod 6 is not equal to 0. Each time through the loop, add 1 to the value then print it.</cite> It is not clear (maybe the title do-while should suggest that, at least to C-or-similar coders), but the condition is tested at the end of the loop, so that the value has get incremented already (<cite>each time through the loop ad 1 to the value</cite>). Anyway the final <cite>The loop must execute at least once</cite> can be read as: (if needed) fix it so that the loop is executed at least once. --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 09:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
== is this a task at all ? Certainly not a Rosetta task ... ==
Fortunately the Rosetta scribes were given a task, which they solved across a range of very different types of syntax and writing system – they weren't asked to footle around in the superficial syntax or hieroglyphics of a particular type of language or orthography.
I see no sign of a task here at all – no statement of a problem (just a slightly parochial focus on some surface syntax of a kind which many languages don't even use), and no specification of inputs or target outputs.
Something drifted completely loose from the Rosetta project here ...
Helpful, I think to check off the basic Rosetta goals before signing off on a task – this one needed much more work before it could even qualify as a task.
Look at the landing page and remember the goals:
:#The idea is to present solutions to the same task in '''as many different languages as possible'''
:#demonstrate '''how languages are similar and different'''
:#and to '''aid a person with a grounding in one approach to a problem in learning another'''
'Loops/Do-while' fails to qualify as a Rosetta task in all three respects. (That is, in fact, its main computational achievement :-)
:#Many languages make no use of 'Loops' or 'Do-While'. That is not how they approach problems.
:#Far from showing how languages are similar and different, it appears to assume that all languages will obviously be the same. Short on insight and depth.
:#Too parochial and superficial to help learners build any insight. More of an obstacle to insight than a resource for learning.
What is to be learned ?
:- Use the 3 Rosetta goals as a basic editorial checklist
:- Raise the game on depth and insight
:- Actually state a problem and a task
| |||