Anonymous user
Talk:Loops/Do-while: Difference between revisions
→BASIC dialects – section grouping?: new section
(→BASIC dialects – section grouping?: new section) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 35:
: 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. [[User:Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]): ??:??, 21 September 2015
Line 51:
::Editorial suggestions:
:::#Raise the game in terms of
:::#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.
Line 62:
: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)
===It is an RC task from 2008 with 123 language examples. ===
Hi Hout, I suggest you try writing a few tasks and nursing them through those first eight or so language examples to better understand the issues in writing tasks and fostering community inherent in trying to keep Rosetta Code going. Criticism (both good and bad), doesn't come for free and such experience should help you understand better the tasks and members you judge.
I find a good way of helping task writers is to engage them when they first start a task if I can think of any way to help but with the thought that I am writing to an audience I cannot see who might take offence and my goal is to improve and expand the RC community. This page, for example, is far too old, with far too many existing language examples to expect changes to the task description to lead to coherent examples any time soon. (I remember debating this about some other task in the past). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 21:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
===But a defectively formulated task – from which we need to learn===
:::Paddy3118 The cost of task formulations which fail on the 3 axes of Rosetta's goals (inclusivity, comparative insight, and value to learners – see the landing page) is well illustrated by your own claims, made during your (fortunately unsuccessful :-) attempts to delete a JavaScript ES5 illustration of functional set definition. Your argument for deletion was that it did not use the 'list comprehension' notation named in the (equally defective, as several others commented) formulation of the task (ES5 JavaScript provides no such notation, but the example code shows how the same problem can be solved with a different but isomorphic notation, and translated the Mathematica example directly).
:::Your claim was specifically that '''"The task is written to show those languages that have the construct"''', and you had earlier, on the talk page, openly expressed an eagerness to embark on a program of deletions where this narrowly syntactic criterion was not met. Others restrained you, but apparently your eagerness proved hard to contain.
:::Good formulations, consistent with Rosetta's goals, would protect innocent editors such as yourself from the honest feeling that this kind of inadvertent vandalism was somehow "correct" in spite of its deliberate destruction of content that filled a gap, provided insight, and was useful to learners. It would also protect contributors from having their time wasted by (ultimately abortive) interventions of this kind, and would protect readers from losing access to material that is useful on all 3 of Rosetta's axes of value.
:::As for your various implications that the validity of an argument is a function of its authorship: "original members", "criticism not for free" etc etc... Well ... probably more constructive to think about the issues :-) The specious character of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy has been only too well understood for thousands of years :-) [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 22:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
== BASIC dialects – section grouping? ==
Should all the BASIC dialects be grouped in the BASIC section or should those currently grouped instead be made top-level entries too? As of this writing, the following BASIC dialects are not grouped: FreeBASIC, FutureBasic, GW-BASIC, Liberty BASIC, Microsoft Small Basic, PureBasic, and Visual Basic .NET. [[User:Matt El|Matt El]] ([[User talk:Matt El|talk]]) 17:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
| |||