Talk:Padovan sequence: Difference between revisions
m
demonstrating how languages are 'similar' as well as different
m ("write-once", Kernighan & Plauger, and granular contrastive insight) |
m (demonstrating how languages are 'similar' as well as different) |
||
Line 105:
:: Deletion and harassment makes no contribution whatsoever to the contrastive insight which '''defines''' the value of both the Rosetta stone and Rosetta code – ''aiding a person with a grounding in one approach to a problem in learning another''.
::[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 16:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
:: Incidentally, if the objection is simply to using a generic anamorphism, remember that an anamorphism is a mathematical abstraction (like an a catamorphism) which:
::# exists independently of any particular language,
::# turns out to capture what these three different Padovan generators have in common,
::# and can be implemented in '''any''' language which, like Python, supports higher order functions.
:: In the context of the defining Rosetta code pursuit of contrastive insight into (quoting from the language page) ''how languages are similar and different'' it then becomes instructive to explore both the '''similarities''' and and the differences, in how a generic anamorphism might be defined in each of the Rosetta Code languages.
:: This also enables us to foreground what is '''similar''', as well as what is different, in each of the 3 Padovan generators.
:: [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
| |||