Talk:Loops/Do-while: Difference between revisions
→There is a potential task here and plenty of creative responses but the formulation was distorting and misleading
(→is this a task at all ? Certainly not a Rosetta task ...: - I disagree) |
|||
Line 36:
: I disagree - the task requirements seem well enough defined and the solutions do demonstrate how the languages differ in syntax. There are also a number of solutions in languages that don't have while loops. These are interesting too.
:: Absolutely – there is certainly a potential task here, and posters have responded creatively despite its defective formulation. The main problem in this (and in a set of related (aspirant) tasks) radiates out from defects in the way they are framed and named. (A secondary problem here is the lack of a required output, which is a necessary stimulus to richer and more transparent comparability. These tasks should have been (and could still be):
:::#Gathered around a less superficial and more revealing concept and word. Perhaps, for example ''repetition''.
:::#Presented in terms of the general problems that arise with repetitive processes, rather than in terms of "loops".
::Instead of offering deeper insight and a clear framework for comparability and contrast, the use of a narrowly imperative idiom was procrustean and distorting.
::It should have stated an actual problem (in more general and insightful terms than loops), and an invitation to solve the problem in the manner best suited to each language.
::Instead, it forced several languages into artificial and potentially misleading exercises. The comment following the J example is symptomatic:
::: "'''Though it's rare to see J code like this'''."
::Editorial suggestions:
:::#Raise the game in terms of generality, depth and usefulness to users in the framing of future tasks.
:::#Rename the 'Loop' tagged tasks in terms of 'Repetition', and clearly frame the general problem in each case, without limiting or distorting presumption about how languages should tackle that problem.
:: Perhaps, for example:
:::Conditional repetition
:::Halting repetition
:::Repetition - special terminating cases
:::Repetition - handling exceptions
:::etc etc.
:Even more eloquent than the name, however, is a clear example of input and output. (Missing, in this case). [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 20:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
| |||