Anonymous user
Talk:Pancake numbers: Difference between revisions
→Everything is wrong
Line 11:
: The suggestion there is no point in a fast estimate method is frankly outrageously ridiculous. Sure it needs a caveat (as I tried to put on the Phix entry), maybe in this case it should go in the task description itself. Besides, since the whole point of RC is to compare languages, a task that allows comparison of both fast and exhaustive approaches has more merit than just exhaustive. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
:: I’m fine with a “fast estimate” approximation if it’s somewhat clearly marked as such. As it stands, you could write a pretty interesting translation DAG from this page. It actually took me a while to go C++ -> C -> Go -> Phix. It also took me a while to realize that the algorithm was just that. It took reading through the Phix description to realize that the Julia solution (translated from Go), was actually not a formal solution.
:: I’d be fine if the description allowed a “2 problems” kind of question, where it asks for “a fast approximation”, and then “an exhaustive search” as extra credit. This would also encourage more creative algorithms that for finding an approximation.
:: As as it stands, it feels to me that every solution here is just parroting your original approximation, without really understanding the how or why.
:: PS: Thanks for this history page: That’s what I had supposed had happened, but I thought the change would have been listed in the “EXTENSIONS” part [[User:Monarchdodra|Monarchdodra]] ([[User talk:Monarchdodra|talk]]) 18:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
| |||